"Science fiction" doesn't have to be pewpewpew Star Wars fantasy. Gravity could be a straight golden-era SF short story.
About 8 fires per day in the US occur in vehicle fuel tanks or fuel lines (excluding after crashes), and are responsible for about 1/6th of all vehicle-fire deaths.
If, in 2007, Ford suddenly started having Mustangs catching fire, it would have been front page news to.
There are 17 vehicle fires every hour. Or 150,000/yr. There aren't enough front pages.
[Ford did have fires from their overheating cruise-control, which caused actual deaths.]
U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 152,300 automobile fires per year in 2006-2010. These fires caused an average of 209 civilian deaths, 764 civilian injuries, and $536 million in direct property damage. [...] On average, 17 automobile fires were reported per hour. These fires killed an average of four people every week.
For another, many phones currently don't have a built-in ID,
Every handset has a mandatory IMEI. If a thief has the ability to change the IMEI on a handset, then they can avoid being bricked anyway. (How else does the carrier know which handset to brick if not the IMEI?) So a system based on an IMEI blacklist is precisely as useful as an system based on an IMEI brick list, but without the potential for irreversible mistakes.
If you have enough cops to ticket people for rolling through a stop sign, you certainly have enough to chase millions of dollars worth of stolen handsets. Many of which will be used by people involved in other crimes (drug dealing being the obvious one, but also mugging and other thefts.)
I think he's saying that if the sim-module can't be removed, how is it different from the existing IMEI module? In which case, why not remove it entirely and just use the existing handset/device IMEI identification? (Since you will have to ask the provider to please-sir let you access the remote-sim function, why not push it onto the provider side anyway?)
[I hate the idea. I've recently had to swap sims back and forth between handsets for an ageing parent, trying to find one they can use, retrieve their data, etc, when their old one crapped out. I can see having to do something similar with always-connected devices.]
what happens when they refuse to assist you in switching?
Or charge you for the service. Essentially it's like locking the handset or device to a provider. It effectively eliminates "unlocked" devices, and allows major providers to significantly undermine cheap prepaid service resellers.
That much water would block the signal anyway, what's the point of bringing a phone underwater?
So that you have a phone when you surface a few miles from the dive-boat. (Or when the dive boat captain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_and_Eileen_Lonergan">miscounts divers and leaves.) You'd be surprised how far out to sea you can get at least emergency coverage.
Or do tourists have to register their phones before they can roam? What about tourists who want a prepaid SIM for the duration of their stay - do they now need to register their physical phone too?
Yes. That's what the IMEI is for. When you connect to a new network, the phone registers its IMEI with that network. That allows the network to connect the handset-identity to your sim-identity. Without that, the network would be unable to connect your phone across cells.
you need a different working phone to call your carrier and have that phone added to this white list?
You've got it backwards. The IMEI list is black, not white. If you report your phone stolen, the IMEI for that phone goes on the blacklist. When a phone connects to any network, it reports its IMEI. The network can then check against a black-list of stolen phones and if it's on the list either refuse to connect the handset, or report information to the police who track down the phone. The former is what happens in my country, which slashed the rates of stolen phones. The latter seems more useful in the US, where phones have mandatory GPS.
[BTW, phone networks opposed the black-list idea in this country, so I presume that's why California introduced the kill-switch plan, to push the burden onto international manufacturers rather than domestic networks.]
However, being artificial brains, they can be connected to both analogue or imperfect-digital "brains", and to precise digital systems. In the same way that you can use a computer, but much closer, more immediate. Best of both worlds.
The problem is that you seem to be creating a scenario in your head which doesn't actually exist (some imagined system where only "responsible" people are allowed to have firearms), then claiming that scenario is better than, say, an Australian style regulation of firearms, and using that to oppose people who suggest gun control.
But any system that restricted firearms to "responsible" people would be highly restrictive, and heavily opposed by people like you. Even simple restrictions like those on cars (registration and training; which hardly restricts driving to only "responsible" people) would drastically increase US gun laws, and is deeply opposed by gun advocates like the NRA.
What people in these threads are doing is comparing the actual system in the US with actual systems elsewhere; not imaginary systems with imaginary outcomes. The US system does not deter crime, it does not protect families, it does not help. The actual net result is negative. Therefore the actual system fails to perform as advertised.
That seems strangely logical.
You are just ignoring that drugs are, easy, the biggest motivator for crime
Drug prohibition . Legalise or nationalise drug production and sale and the motivation (and profits) of the drug criminals goes away. As does much of the drug-related crime.
at these same time you completely ignores that guns, on the right hands, also saves lives.
The question is whether the number of "right hands" with guns outweighs the number of "wrong hands" with guns. National murder stats comparing the US and other western countries suggests not. And stats comparing homes with guns versus homes without guns within just the US also suggests not. Therefore by your own argument, the net effect is negative, and the justification for firearms failed.
I also prefer gun ownership required gun training similar to, but more extensive than, driver training
To be enforceable, that would require national gun registration. Something that the NRA fights tooth and nail.