Isn't this a regulation that retroactively reclassifies something sold as a toy into more than a toy?

If you can't retroactively ban old machine guns, then you can't retroactively ban old toys either. That's why we have grandfather clauses. (seat belt laws, for example, don't apply to cars made before a certain year, if the car had no belts from the factory)

If I had just spent big money on a fancy toy drone, and suddenly found out that the law had been changed (after the fact) to ban me from actually using it, I would be demanding that the FAA either reimburse me, or grant me a grandfathered exception.

My ex-roomate sent her phone in for warranty repair, and removed what she THOUGHT was the microSD card full of nude selfies.

When she got the new phone, she asked me for help because all the pictures were gone from the microSD

It turned out she had kept the (completely useless) sim card, and left the microSD card in the phone for everyone at the Verizon warehouse to look though.

And if you removed all the state and federal fuel taxes, gas wouldn't be so expensive (at the pump) either.

Why is this system only usable on these two specific models of cars? Is there something special about the cars that makes them easier to automate, or does everyone at the company drive exclusively brand-new Audis and they have nothing else to test with?

It seems oddly specific for a system that should be pretty universal.

Even if the kit does have to be custom-made for each model of car, wouldn't it make sense to design the initial version for something with a wider market, like a Toyota Corolla or Ford Focus?

The lack of quote tags makes it look like you are are arguing with yourself.

Even a regular non-solar LCD watch should get 5 years out of a single battery

And bluetooth earpieces are any better? At least it's clear he is talking into the watch, and not just staring off into space talking to the wall

It's kinda funny how everyone read my comment, and the ONLY thought going through their head was "there's a clock on my dashboard, why does he need a watch?"

Maybe I'm riding my bike, maybe I'm riding a motorcycle, maybe I'm running, maybe I'm wearing a clown suit and riding a unicycle, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

The point was that it's easier to look at my wrist than dig in my pocket, when I'm are doing something that requires all my concentration.

I drive a non-luxury car that is more than 10 years old. I'm lucky to have cup holders.

I'm not going to buy a new car just to get a dash clock.

If you are the kind of person who pulls their phone out just to check the time, then you aren't the type of person that would benefit from a smart-watch in the first place

I wear a basic timex digital watch, not because it's some sort of fashion statement, but because it's easier to look at my wrist (especially while driving) than it is to pull my phone out, without dropping it or getting it dirty.

It took this long before a judge was actually allowed to make a ruling on it.

In order for a judge to make a ruling, there has to be a court case first, the judges aren't allowed to initiate action on their own. In order for someone to bring a case against the list, they first have to prove that the list affects them (this is why the ACLU couldn't do anything on their own, because they themselves weren't on the list). The problem is that the list is completely secret, so there is no way of knowing someone is on the list until they actually try to fly somewhere and get stopped.

It's taken this long for someone to be officially stopped who had both the resources and the desire to challenge the list in court.

The only reason I wasn't sure was because I have met some pretty extreme libertarian science-deniers that really do think this way.

Their belief is that the government just makes up the science as an excuse to control the populace. (they also think jet contrails are full of mind-control poison)

I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic.

I'm pretty sure even libertarianism doesn't allow you to lie about owning something that you don't actually own.

I get the feeling that a lot of libertarians aren't apposed to government because it's oppressive, they are opposed to it because it gets in the way of taking advantage of people. The Tea Party is a perfect example of this, wealthy people who are sick of the government getting in the way of even more wealth.