Since they both (Apple and the other fitness bands) require the phone to work, the answer is really yes, for all intents and purposes

By that line of reasoning, there's not much point in having a smartphone as you can get text messages on your vintage Nokia and check your email/facebook when you get home.

Uh... no... by my line of reasoning you already have to have your wristband and phone with you anyway, so it's not comparable at all.

Let your wife check messages/notifications in the rain while leaving her phone safely in her purse or pocket. Discretely check messages/notifications in a meeting without the rudeness of digging out her phone. Receive silent signals to turn left or right on a jog or bike ride from tactile feedback.

Granted, but what does that really have to do with fitness or overall capabilities? And why would someone pay hundreds of dollars of extras for being able to text in the rain instead of doing the smart thing and getting out of it? And are you saying your phone can't give you tactile feedback?

Since they both (Apple and the other fitness bands) require the phone to work, the answer is really yes, for all intents and purposes (since she's got the phone anyway). My problem isn't that Apple is doing it - I'm sure they'll do a great job, but that the summary author claims that's the part that caught his attention, when it's all been available elsewhere - for android OR apple users - for quite some time.

Point taken... but I guess most people don't do cardio for that long a period of time, and the bands out now are TERRIBLE accuracy, not just "a little" off.

Yeah... my Timex already does that.... and for a lot less.

D'oh! Too late.

I understand your plight (and glad you weren't actually dead on impact); it was just that wording that I found amusing.

But your problem isn't amusing, and certainly that guy should have been severely punished. It sounds like a travesty of justice.

So what you want to do is ban guns because of the TINY, ITTY BITTY fraction that were gun "sprees?"

Cops should have always on wearable cameras and tech that wirelessly streams to servers. Who watches the watchers? We should all be watching.

I thought it was useless when Samsung did it, and I still think it's useless now. The only interesting benefit is for fitness tracking, which can be done with a number of smaller, less obtrusive, cheaper bands already on the market that already sync to your android or iPhone.

On the other hand, my wife and kids saw the Samsung and were like "oooh... new shiny toy!" So... they got that going for them.... all they need is a bunch of idiots with disposable income.

You mean like fitbit, polaris, and other brands have been doing for years now? I guess it's news when Apple does it.

My wife has a polaris band she can combine with an accurate chest strap heart rate monitor, they sync together via bluetooth and her phone to track progress.... all without needing some big clunky, ugly "watch," or the premium cost for Apple products.

I disagree... stop and go traffic is worse because you actually need to pay more attention than on a relatively clear interstate - the likelihood of an accident is far greater in stop and go traffic. The difference is the severity of the accident caused when there is one. But those little fender benders during rush hour that make traffic even worse have huge financial and environmental impacts.

That said, it depends on how "stop" the stop and go traffic is. Normally in rush hour traffic, stop means for just a few seconds, then go slow, then stop for a few seconds. I was stuck in Atlanta's "snowmaggedon" earlier this year, and at two points on my drive home my car was literally stopped for 45 minutes or more. I would call and/or text my wife about conditions and just let her know I was still OK and still on my way home. Sometimes traffic is just stopped. But then that's not "stop and go."

No, don't mod parent up... just because there are too many dumb laws doesn't mean that a new one isn't good. What we should be doing is condensing laws in to more sensible ones, like "distracted driving" instead of a separate law for every way that a driver can be distracted.

I don't see it so much recently, but as life with smartphones (and earlier models that could still text) progressed, I've had arguments with a lot of younger people who were like "well you can't do it because you grew up without the technology, but we grew up being able to multitask!" I think that notion is well perceived as moronic now, but I'm willing to bet there are still quite a few people out there who think they are somehow able to divide their attention with no consequences.

I get what you're saying, but laughing about the way you said it... "and I'm dead on impact." ... "temporarily depriving me of life..."

Are you writing on slashdot from the grave, telling a true story, or just making something up?

Which is why the technical measure of putting something in the car to block all cellphone signals in the vehicle is the only "valid" solution. I don't know how I feel about it in general, but I don't care about the passengers not being able to use their phones while the car is moving - they can blame the driver. In fact, being shamed by your family and friends is probably even more of a deterrent.