Whoever it was apparently bought a smartphone without an unlimited data plan - what do you think?

However, it is still an "end around" of one of the central principles of a non-totalitarian government. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but it's an obvious head-first dive down the slippery slope.

I liked your response - I don't necessarily agree with some of it, but your response was pretty well thought through.

As of the writing of this post, I see 3 responses to my post and apparently I got marked down as a "troll".

I would encourage all who have posted about about what "studies" say to read:
http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=cellphone

This is an actual study. While it does point out that cell phone usage is a problem, it is not the boogie man that some make it out to be.

It seems closer to the "If I can't do it, it must be impossible" argument - the fallacy in this argument should be apparent. What I have found is that the people who back the anti-phone arguments fit a particular pattern:

1.) They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and, thus, anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirs
2.) They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radios
3.) They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never more to ban passengers/pets
4.) They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car, it caused the accident, no matter what the actual cause was
5.) To such people, the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is like
6.) They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to do

The truth is that when bad things happen, people inevitably seek to blame whatever thing/behavior that they don't like but think they have good enough chances of hanging the blame on. Aren't there any studies on actual distraction level and human tolerance for such? Statistics taken at the scene of accidents are just as unreliable as they were in the 80's when any car with any amount of alcohol in it, regardless of form (groceries, sealed bottles, etc) was considered an "alcohol-related" accident.

Let's hope that they got permission from the patients' doctors first.

I would think that getting the patients' permission would be a little more important.

If it were the case that an unfortunate side effect of the upgrade was the loss of interoperability with a competitor product, I would agree with you. However, the situation we find ourselves in is one where we purchase hardware with the manufacturer's fingers still in it. They are able to modify the product after the original purchase (read: modify the deal after the money changes hands) and able to exercise some direct legal rights to prevent the owner of the hardware from modifying the behavior of the device (DMCA in the case of circumvention) as well as use some indirect strongarm tactics such as loss of online service should the owner of the hardware refuse a firmware upgrade. (I have seen this on the Sony PSP)

It would be a simple matter to hide behind the "unfortunate side effect" argument if the manufacturer really was using their dominant position in one product to edge out competition in another product.

- The lesson to be learned here is not to purchase proprietary hardware.

I think it would be interesting to see if there is anything in this arrangement that could be used to legally strip the manufacturers of their DMCA protections. I know that this is the exact reason companies push for "tort reform" that eliminates class action lawsuits - they don't want their customers able to organize a posse to come after them when they do actually cross a legal boundary.

It's probably the materials difference. Custom composites, titanium and aircraft aluminum (fighter jet bodies) are expensive - so is the ruggedized computing equipment (aka avionics).

I work for a defense contractor (not LM) - the profit margins are not the bonanza that everyone makes them out to be.

This job is mostly labor - probably not much in the way of parts.

I read the article yesterday at Yahoo - the one thing that kept coming to mind was this:
The best way to avoid being the victim of false accusations is to not be in the subset of people eligible to be accused. With a system like this, everyone's inclusion is automatic unless you're willing to be an "unperson".

Maybe I'm making my self a target for ageism, but aren't a lot of FOSS activities typically conducted by your handle (i.e. not your name)? How could anyone know your gender with any certainty? I suppose someone could say that a person's choice of a handle speaks to their gender, but I've seen quite a few people who manipulate others by intentionally choosing a misleading handle.

If the game was set in 2112, you'll have a bit of a wait - the factory hasn't been built yet.

This is great for games set in the current day, but if the game is set in, say, 1942 - Microsoft, BMW, Google, Mitsubishi and Sony are probably not good choices for in-game advertisements (well, BMW and Mitsubishi were around then but the ads would not have the desired effect). Likewise, you wouldn't want to advertise the "all new 2010 Camero" in a game set in 2112.

And how long before some dumbass makes an antimatter bomb - and then we have antimatter antiproliferation treaties and the UN has to put together a watchdog group and the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket.

Next we'll be having to worry about terrorists getting their hands on antimatter - remember, some of these morons don't have an escape plan.

This isn't condemnation - this is putting people in groups that operate with similar speed and direction. As for learning to deal with "less intelligent undisciplined" people, I agree that everyone needs to do that, but I disagree that the academic environment is the proper place for that.

It's the fundamental problem with schools - divide the students along two lines - intelligence and discipline.

High IQ/Disciplined - fast track to higher learning
Low IQ/Disciplined - fast track to skilled job training
High IQ/Undisciplined - try to salvage them but not at the expense of those above - there may be diamonds in the rough here, but don't mess up the good ones finding them.
Low IQ/Undisciplined - just keep them away from the rest

There needs to be a method of changing groups as well. A student wanting to change their category needs to prove that they belong in the category of their desire. Students in the different categories should not have contact with each other while in school. Sure, everyone needs to learn to deal with idiots and assholes, but that's not what school is for.

Most students will fit into the top 2 categories, the fewest in the third category - thresholds as to what High and Low are would need to be set to produce the maximum number of non-screwups to be produced by the school system.

Teachers should also be divided - better teachers should have more choice of which students they work with. Of course the problem here is determining an objective criteria for grading a teacher.