Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:For some, no other usable choice (Score 1) 6

by damn_registrars (#47905391) Attached to: More Than Enough - Comcast declares war on Tor

the morons and idiots who reelect the politicians that make all this happen have only themselves to blame

And who are the anti-capitalist-empire candidates, pray tell? I haven't seen any. The empire is simply too strong for anyone to mount a resistance at the ballot box. Voting for Mickey Mouse doesn't accomplish anything either.

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 3, Insightful) 294

For certain very lucky values of "safely", sure. Taking your eyes completely off the road to do something is, quite simply, never a good idea.

Nonesense. You take your eyes off the road all the time in order to specifically drive safely. You take your eyes off the road when you check your speedometer, tack, warning gauges, mirrors, to read road signs and look for crossing traffic, and so on as a function of driving safely.

Every one of those functions take less time than writing a text message. Furthermore all those functions are designed to be easy and safe to do while driving. Text messaging was never designed with that in mind.

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 2) 294

Is it against the law almost everywhere?

I really only know about locally... The only place here it is illegal is in school zones.. otherwise, talk and text away while driving...

Texting while driving in most places can be classified as distracted driving. It doesn't need a special classification; if you were reading the newspaper while driving you could be pulled over and fined for that, texting is often handled the same way.

Some places have additional statutes and fines on the matter, but that is just to try to raise awareness - or revenue.

Comment: no, they don't Re:Fines work better ... (Score 1) 294

Fines and public education work better than a technical solution to stupidity.

Unfortunately it appears that fines and education have been completely ineffective on the matter. I lived in a place for several years that would have annual campaigns to discourage drivers from texting while driving, followed by announced enhanced enforcement of the offense.

So what happened? Were people at least smart enough to send fewer messages during the enhanced enforcement period? No. Not even close. Every year the tallies went up.

People understand when it hits their wallet directly

For one, most of the people doing this are young and their insurance - and phone bill - are paid by the parents. So nothing is hitting their own wallets directly.

and when their phones are confiscated.

I have yet to hear of anyone having their phones confiscated. Although again as the offenders far more often than not are getting everything they need from their parents, confiscation won't do much but prevent them from sending messages for the next 24 hours or so.

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 1) 294

For the most part, people can safely do it.

For certain very lucky values of "safely", sure. Taking your eyes completely off the road to do something is, quite simply, never a good idea.

Well, in a technical sense it is less safe than not texting while driving but so many people do it without incident each and every day that they consider it safe enough for them to do it.

A lot of people drive drunk and don't cause accidents (or only harm themselves) yet we don't consider it to be safe.

It is a lot like driving with one hand verses two at the ten and two positions.

No, it is far much more like driving drunk.

Many people can safely drive with one hand but it is safer to be in the ten and two positions with two hands which is why we need to do it to pass most driving tests.

Generally only the case if your car has an automatic transmission. Rather hard to do that if you are taking a test with a standard transmission.

Comment: For some, no other usable choice (Score 1) 6

by damn_registrars (#47899929) Attached to: More Than Enough - Comcast declares war on Tor
The cable companies have such a stranglehold on local high-speed internet in some markets that people don't have any other practical choice. If your choice is either cable - and deal with the awful terms and atrocious customer service - or dial-up, you will almost certainly go with the former.

Some markets are starting to see various fibre-to-the-home initiatives (usually by local telcos) that might give cable a run for their money, we'll see how that pans out. Downside is you often end up talking about a contest between two repeat contenders for the title of worst company in America.

Comment: A different tack (Score 3, Interesting) 294

How about we just put lights on top of cars that light up brightly when a text message is being sent from anyone in the car? Then the rest of the drivers on the road can avoid those idiots, as the ones who have texting passengers in the car (aside from taxis and such) are generally no better than the ones who are attempting to text while driving.

The bright light would also make it easier for cops to know who to pull over when they are doing enhanced patrols for these shit-heads as well.

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 3, Interesting) 294

If someone has so little self-control as to be unable to avoid talking or texting while driving, why are we allowing them to drive in the first place?

It is against the law pretty much everywhere. However that law is enforced pretty much nowhere. It is just simply too difficult to enforce it, as a police officer has to catch the person in the act to even write a ticket. And then the ticket is so laughably small in terms of the monetary penalty as to be pointless to even write.

In other words, people do it because they (wrongly) think they can do it safely, and then (unfortunately correctly) believe that they have nearly a zero chance of getting busted for it.

Comment: Re:You wanted his strategy... (Score 1) 9

by damn_registrars (#47899807) Attached to: Heh

As is your attempt to change the subject. Which you brought up.

Exactly how did I change the subject? I was asking for you to actually define a situation where President Lawnchair could share enough information with the American public without that getting to be "too much" for ISIS. You can't define such a situation because none exists.

Comment: Re:You wanted his strategy... (Score 1) 9

by damn_registrars (#47897961) Attached to: Heh
... and there you go, pretending that the written word has some static value to you. You are perfectly content to treat the word as 1000% fungible when a guy of your own choosing is in the white house, but if the guy there happens to have the cursed letter D after his name - regardless of what he has actually done policy-wise - then you quickly whip out for favorite tomes to rally the impeachment cries.

Your rampant inconsistencies are well noted.

Comment: Re:You wanted his strategy... (Score 1) 9

by damn_registrars (#47897477) Attached to: Heh

These are key concepts. Let me know if you need me to break them down further for you.

All i want is for you to stop moving the goal posts and describe clearly a situation where President Lawnchair could describe the strategy to the American public enough to satisfy you without you claiming that he is giving it all away to The Enemy.

If the

overarching strategy

That you eluded to was really all you wanted, then simply saying "we're going to defeat ISIS" should have been enough (and it is noted that you were happy with that level of strategy when we invaded two countries around a decade ago). Clearly you wanted more. You are not defining well - arguably you are not defining at all - what you want revealed and what should remain

hidden

Comment: You wanted his strategy... (Score 1) 9

by damn_registrars (#47896593) Attached to: Heh
How could President Lawnchair have shared his strategy for ISIS with the American public without it becoming viewable to the rest of the world? You would not have been satisfied has he shared it only with congress under the secrecy veil of "national security interests" - and for that matter some republican would have leaked it had he done that anyways.

Is that cowboy hat supposed to be part of his "rodeo clown" getup?
Republicans

Journal: 9/11 versus Benghazi 1

Journal by damn_registrars
On "Patriot Day" this year it occurred to me that 9/11 and Benghazi have some interesting parallels. Indeed these parallels, when considered in the context of how completely different the conservative responses to them are, are indicative of how much the conservative right has changed in the past decade-plus.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...