Yes, I take a similar approach when I travel now, given the insanity at the airports, especially since TSA employees seem to take a liking to my Thinkpad (it gets pulled aside so they can paw through my laptop bag every damn time.) Probably it's because I have a few tools in it, I don't know. Anyway, all they'll ever see is fresh re-image of the OS with a few applications, and none of my work files. When I get where I'm going, I download whatever I need, and when I'm finished I upload any new files and then wipe the machine again. They're more than welcome to power up my computer or image the drive. They're not going to find anything I don't want them to find. That's mostly stuff that I do for work, source code and so forth, that I would be irresponsible to not take some steps to protect. Like you say, it's none of the government's business, and they have always maintained demonstrably poor security.

Yes, but the platters are spinning so fast your access time is dramatically reduced.

Yes, and given the energy release of a hurricane there will be no problem with power for your high-velocity cloud storage system.

Personally, I think the government should broadcast a simple numeric code to make these warnings easy to understand. For example, the code for "complete devastation event" might be 2012.

Well, yes and no. You're right: at some level it is a matter of trust. Scientists are point-blank not supposed to trust each other, but the end result of the process is supposed to be something that the rest of us can trust.

However, I disagree that your typical "lay person" is fundamentally incapable of distinguishing between what many would themselves agree is irrational, versus that which does have some degree of scientific validation. Especially in the age of the global network where such information, of varying levels of sophistication, is readily available to any who want it. No-one expects non-scientists to run experiments and submit them for peer-review, but there is something to be said for having at least a basic understanding of how science is performed. Evidence of the lack of that understanding presents itself all the time: hell, this ridiculous misuse of the term "scientific theory" just torques me into a pretzel.

This issue is more a matter of whether ordinary citizens can be bothered to make the distinction, to make the effort to learn what science, the scientific method, and applied science mean to their daily lives. Schools are supposed to teach that, and in my day they did, but in today's United States of America they have been falling flat on their faces in that regard.

My early years in school were in the sixties, and the change between then, and now, is substantial (and was painful to watch.) As a child, I and my classmates were taken on regular field trips to laboratories, scientific institutions and manufacturing plants of all kinds, were encouraged to speak to real scientists and engineers. We ended up with a very clear understanding of how progress is made and how the fruits of scientific research improved our standard of living. I firmly believe that had those excellent educational policies continued throughout the anti-science period of the seventies and onward, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

One, when I was 21 (and no cell phone, they didn't have cell phones then.) Another when I was forty-something: a delivery-van bolted out of an alleyway and broadsided me.

Near accidents? All the time ... but then again I'm on the expressway at rush hour twice a day. And most of those near-misses are with people who have a cell phone jammed into their ears. It's like navigating a moving minefield.

The reality is, cell phone use while driving should be avoided. Just as eating, fondling your girlfriends breasts, twiddling with your car radio, and any number of other distracting activities should also be avoided while behind the wheel. The human brain point-blank does not multitask well: the problem is that many people's brains think that they do. Numerous studies have shown that they're wrong.

And I believe you meant "right of way." Interestingly, in the U.S. we all have a Constitutionally-protect right to travel, so we all have right-of-way ... it's just that under certain circumstances we can be required to temporarily grant the right-of-way to others. That's about the only way a traffic control system could work.

Well, sure. Congress gave him the power to do what he did: they could have reined him in, but they chose to go along for the ride.

Double-whoosh. The second poster caught the original poster's drift, and merely expanded upon it. Apparently you missed that.

I'd go further and say that extracting wealth from the honest/competent/responsible segment of the population is the real goal.

I think "believe in evolution" would be better phrased as "accept the scientific validity of evolution."

The whole point of this discussion is that belief is not sufficient.

Some thirty years ago, I was doing software development for a number of research outfits (neurological data acquisition, that sort of thing.) I recall one conversation between a lead research scientist and his division chief. They were working on a rather large grant proposal at the time. The dialog revolved around a key dataset that had some points that didn't support their conclusions. The chief was suggesting that they simply remove the (ahem!) "bad" data from the proposal. The scientist, who was becoming visibly upset has his boss went on, finally exploded with "you can't just throw away data you don't like!"

The resulting argument was Biblical. One the one side was the bureaucrat wanting to make sure that they had enough funds to continue their research (and remember, the institution took 80% right off the top.) On the other was a topnotch scientist only concerned with the quality of his work and that he not be subject to charges of fraud.

I was just a fly on the wall but I learned a lot that day.

True, although after my back surgery last year I was left feeling a little flat.

Well, I won't argue with your need to go to places that you detest, but I agree about phone navigation. I just stuff it in my shirt pocket once I'm on the road: I have the turn-by-turn coming out of my car's speakers. Works very well, and it's only the occasional situation (maybe an odd intersection with streets coming in a funny angles) where I need to look at the display.

And maybe that's true for him, although I doubt it. And if you were to present a video of his minimally-affected driving to him, he would probably be, well ... surprised. In reality, most people believe that whatever stupid things they habitually do behind the wheel have a "surprisingly minimal effect" on their driving, and will defend their opinion of themselves and their supernatural abilities to the death.

Literally.

Boggles the mind. Truly, it does.

3. I'm from the government ... and I'm here to help you.

I pipe the audio output of my smartphone through my car's speakers. I also use it to listen to music on occasion: the music is automatically paused while the GPS is talking so there is no confusion. As it happens, I normally use Google Nav, and the voice works well enough that I rarely need the display. So well, in fact, that I usually just leave the phone in my pocket. If you do need to constantly look at the screen, it probably means your navigation system is poorly designed, or perhaps you are just a very insecure person. My girlfriend has dedicated GPS from Magellan, and it's turn-by-turn likewise works very well (somewhat better than Google's system in many cases.)

I agree with some other posters: get the units with low-quality software off the market. The government would do better mandating improved functionality rather than imposing arbitrary (and fundamentally dangerous) restrictions, restrictions which serve only to demonstrate how out-of-touch that particular bureaucracy is with this technology.

So, I think the NHTSA is a barking up the wrong tree. Mandate GPS use training in driver education and be done with it. Penalizing the bulk of the population that has no problem using GPS successfully for the misdeeds of the few is just bad lawmaking. It will, however, be profitable for the locales that implement such regulation, so I have no doubt that many will.