Or, to summarize your comments in the words of a very wise man, "Anyone even remotely capable of getting themselves elected to office should on no account be allowed to hold the position."

As a followup to my previous question, have you considered releasing Whisper Monitor as a standalone app for rooted devices, rather than integrating it exclusively with WhisperCore?

I really like the idea behind WhisperCore. The problem, as I see it, is that it's only available for two devices, and the Android source is updated regularly, making it difficult to keep WhisperCore up to date with the latest version of Android. Also, there are a wide variety of existing ROMs, each sporting its own array of features, but WhisperCore is the only one focusing on full-device encryption and a quality firewall interface. Given that security is becoming more critical on mobile devices, I would love to see WhisperCore's functionality integrated into every ROM. Have you given any consideration to integrating the WhisperCore project into an existing community such as CyanogenMod, or opening the source to build a community around WhisperCore? It would definitely help with making it available on more devices.

Okay, that's at least three posts now where you've stated that AGW was predicted by scientists over 100 years ago. Citation please...

Not that obscure buddy. And if you keep going like that, you'll have a heart attack.

I've been using an OCZ Vertex 3 120GB since April. Throughout that time, their firmware releases have variously resolved certain bluescreen issues, while introducing others. Since installing 2.13, I have had major issues, and just last week was complaining that I would have to return the thing to OCZ and demand my money back. However, I installed 2.15 the day it was released, and all bluescreen issues have stopped.

Through all that, I have never lost any data. I was rather panicked at first (the drive won't show back up after one of these bluescreens until you cold boot the machine), but once I realized I could recover with a cold boot each time, I was merely annoyed. That being said, I knew going in that SSDs in general weren't that mature a product, and that issues like this crop up. I would never have placed important data on those drives, and would have kept a backup even if I had. Just as I never put any important data on an HDD without a backup (or at least a bit of RAID action).

Missing the point entirely. It's not an issue of being required to take cash or not, this law is a matter of being able to take cash or not. Businesses have always been able to reject cash for the purchase of goods and services (unless, as others have mentioned, the good or service is provided ahead of time on credit, thus creating a debt). Want to verify? Go to a gas station late at night with a jar of pennies and ask for a carton of smokes. Keep your eye on the attendant's middle finger.

The issue at hand is that this bill prohibits the use of cash in second-hand transactions. It requires all second-hand transactions to be completed via traceable means, and criminalizes the use of cash for second-hand transactions. This has all manner of negative implications, and if it stands the inevitable SCOTUS challenge, we should all be very worried.

Also, let's jog right past this "catching thieves" bullshit and get right down to what this is really about: unreported income and sales tax collection. You're not going to suddenly see an increase in the amount of recovered stolen property. You're going to see a massive increase in the number of visits from the IRS as well as state and local tax agencies, wanting to know why they didn't receive their protection money from the sale of that nice Persian rug you inherited, or the sales tax you "owe" them for hawking those rare NES games on eBay.

Leela: Gas was an environmental disaster, anyway. Now we use alternative fuels.
Fry: Like what?
Leela: Whale oil.

Right, good point. We shouldn't ban cellphones, we should ban conversations. If the police see you talking to your passenger, or yelling at your kids in the back, why, they should pull you right over. Probably best if they beat you, too. Just to ensure you get the message.

Okay, see if you can follow me on this one: Forza is a game. A racing game. A game where you drive really, really fast. Much faster and on much more difficult tracks than you would encounter driving down a typical highway. And, unless he's invested in a wheel, a gamepad is not a steering wheel, R1 is not a clutch, and you don't shift with buttons. You can't compare a game with unrealistic controls where you're supposed to drive fast and take risks to driving in real life under normal circumstances (unless you're a formula one driver, in which case, yes, please get off your phone during the grand prix).

And my advice is: Please, for the love of all that is logical, get the hell off the road and stop driving! Seriously, you can't conflate the fact that you have some weird habit of dazing off and staring in to space with the notion that everyone does that. I don't. My friends don't. That's very odd, and not exactly a common trait amongst our fellow humans, so far as my powers of observation serve me.

That aside, its very good that you recognize this limitation you have. Its wonderful that you make appropriate choices in response. Which is, of course, exactly what I'm advocating. You took an objective assessment of your ability to drive and talk, and made the appropriate choice. Doesn't mean it applies to everyone, though. Hopefully you have enough sense to realize that "Well, if I can't do it, no one can." is not a reasonable argument.

As a quick aside, cops in general seem to be pretty shitty drivers. Had a couple incidents where cops who were simply talking to their partners nearly swerved in to me.

But, more to the point, it's a slippery slope issue. Eating in your car is also distracting. Do you solve it by banning drive-throughs? Reading in your car is a distraction. Do cops issue tickets if they see an atlas or a copy of the local newspaper on the seat when they pull you over? How about if you jotted down directions to where you're going, and a cop sees you check the paper to see if your exit is coming up? How about unruly kids in the back seat? Quite distracting, but you don't hear calls for kids to be anesthetized before getting in a car (although...).

Point is, if the government takes it upon themselves to enact a new rule, regulation, or prohibition for every danger in the world, then there's nothing you can do freely. There are laws against swerving dangerously from lane to lane in traffic. There are laws against running people over, or slamming blindly headlong into a telephone poll. Some people can multitask to the point where they can talk on the phone and drive. Some people need a hands-free device to achieve the same result. Some people (and I'm in this category) would rather stammer through a conversation and lose their train of thought because their primary focus is on driving, not talking. Some people just can't pull it off at all. You, like most statists, are proposing a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that doesn't have one. At its core, what you suggest is no different than solving alcoholism or other forms of drug abuse through prohibition.

Exactly. I forget who said it, and I don't remember the exact wording, but I once read a very wise quote: "Evaluate any government proposal based not on the supposed benefit that will be imparted if administered properly, but by the harm inflicted if administered improperly."

And besides that, we're talking about a system where one group of people are making decisions about "appropriateness" for a huge mass of people. The notion of what is "adult" or "inappropriate" content varies from individual to individual, as does the notion of "mental preparedness". As with any system of censorship or ratings, those who disagree are left by the wayside (see: "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" for an excellent example using the MPAA).

Well, what about the probability that the system is being subsidized? Or, even if it is not (haven't checked), the salaries of the politicos who sat around thinking this up is being subsidized? Or the opportunity costs of ISPs wasting time and resources implementing this? Or the fact that such systems are already readily available for those who wish to purchase and utilize them, courtesy of market participants who saw a demand for this tech over a decade ago, and undertook all the initiative and risk of their own accord? Or the fact that those who had the prescience to identify and respond to that demand are now facing competition from a market participant who has been granted a distinct unfair advantage from a non-market-participant (the UK government), in the form of an official sanction requiring them to offer this? Or the fact that people will see this as an implicit endorsement from both their ISP and the government that this tech is 100% solid and foolproof? Or the fact that the vast majority of the users will never be aware that their web browsing is being censored by a bunch of kids in a basement?

That's the difference between a company "offering" a product or service, and the government "mandating" that they offer the product or service. In the first case, if you don't want it, don't use it, or even stop doing business with the company entirely. In the second case, walk away and you still pay for the "service". Use a competitor, and you still see the same impact. This is just taking a statist approach to an issue the market solved years ago.

Hello? If you're in the UK, I believe it is well-established that your best zombie survival mechanism is a cricket bat and a trip to the local pub...