Senators To Apple: Pull iPhone DUI-Check Alerts 348
CWmike writes "Four US senators on Tuesday called on Apple to yank iPhone and iPad apps that help drunken drivers evade police, saying the programs are 'harmful to public safety.' The CEO of the company that makes one such app said the senators' demand was 'a knee-jerk reaction.'"
Hugh Pickens points out that "Similar apps are available for the iPhone and RIM. Apple released a set of App Store guidelines in September that spells out what apps are and are not allowed to do. Included on that list of 'don'ts' are 'apps that encourage excessive consumption of alcohol or illegal substances, or encourage minors to consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes.'"
No boobs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds fairly typical for America.
Re:No boobs (Score:5, Funny)
It is the moral declination.
Depending on where you are, the difference between grid moral and magnetic moral can be quite significant. In my area, the GM angle is like 13.5 degrees.... if I don't account for that, I can easily get morally lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Apple's problem lies with all the possible legal entanglements of selling porn in $DEITY knows how many jurisdictions and that they've figured that the profits from peddling porn are less than what they'd lose from people who don't want to shop in "that kind of store".
For all the whining about porn how much of yours do you pay for? How many people would pay for quality porn apps? How many picture-collection apps would be clogging up the App Store (do you recall when it was flooded by picture-collect
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's puritanical censors don't allow boobs in the app store but have no problem with violence in games? Someone's moral compass is a bit wonky...
There, fixed that for you. Seriously, DUI checkpoint reporting is no worse than speedcam or traffic jam reporting - it's just information bartering, albeit in a bit of a grey legal area.
Want to really prevent drunk driving? Criminalize alcohol, just like all other hard drugs. But then again, that would be a major financial blow to both taxes and political pocket
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In that same vein
Actually, that was nowhere near in the same vein.
Those apps can be used for completely legitimate activities,
Such as?
Re:No boobs (Score:5, Insightful)
evading a police checkpoint because even though i never drink and drive, i HATE getting stopped and being at the mercy of some lowly educated police thug who by law has all sorts of ways to make me uncomfortable and consume my time?
Granted, it might be a bit weak, but i consider that to be a very legitimate use of such an app, just because some people dont have the discipline to not drink when they will be driving (or not drive when they drank some beers), doesnt mean i should suffer right?
(disclaimer, dont have an iphone, dont have such an app since police checkpoints are pretty scarce here, and never drink when i drive)
Re: (Score:2)
"I've been drinking but I should be good to drive.... hmm looks like there's a checkpoint on my way home, maybe I shouldn't risk it..."
If you're too drunk to drive, you're probably also too drunk to operate a smart phone well enough to locate sobriety checkpoints.
Re: (Score:2)
^that's a very good point, here's another:
"I've been drinking but I should be good to drive.... hmm looks like there's a checkpoint on my way home, maybe I shouldn't risk it..."
not sure if i'm missing some massive sarcasm or anything, but that is NOT a good point, if you feel like driving past a checkpoint is a risk you dont want to take, then DRIVING should be a risk you dont want to take. Your wording suggests you dont have zero tolerance over there, so then DUI limits are non-zero, and probably at some level which WILL impact your response-time
I wouldnt have any trouble what so ever with a zero-tolerance law, provided you dont get nicked for eating a single chocolate with some
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is a good point due to the fact that the states were extorted into lowering the legal DWI BAC to .08...which is ridiculously l
Re: (Score:3)
A fully grown man can have about 3 glasses of wine with a meal and be dangerously close to the legal limit....but may not be anywhere near impeded to the point of not being able to drive a car safely
how hard is it NOT to drink three glasses of wine when you know you will be driving in the next three-five hours?
And honestly, i've had occasions where drinking one beer (a belgian triple in fact) noticably impacted my responsetimes, the same goes when i drink two glasses of wine. Granted i dont conform to the weight-range for an american fully grown man (only 85 kilos), but i shouldnt be driving in that state
I am fairly confident that in most cases (non-empty stomach), i should be able to drive just fine a
Re:No boobs (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted i dont conform to the weight-range for an american fully grown man (only 85 kilos)
Actually according to this [wikipedia.org] you are within 2% of the average weight, which is 86.6 kilos. Well within measurement error of your scale.
I wonder what other misconceptions you have and/or are completely wrong about.
Have you ever driven when tired? Frustrated? No one is ever 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
Traffic Situation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where in the Constitution? (Score:5, Informative)
Cops use this as the guise to engage with you to for purposes of observing your reactions and identifying the smell of alcohol or other substances so they can then secure probably cause to make you perform a field sobriety test and/or breath test.
Legalized checkpoints (Score:5, Informative)
I'm told by a currently employed police officer that this is largely what motivates many suburban districts to perform speed traps. It has nothing to do with concern about speeding, but it enables them to stop and interview drivers essentially at random, fishing for other possible crimes.
He also said that it was "widely believed" that vigorous traffic enforcement was a general deterrent to crime, the theory being that people involved in criminal behavior were sensitive to police presence and the risks associated with being stopped with incriminating items, flagged for parole violations/outstanding warrants, etc.
To me it seems like a good excuse to run a police state.
Re:Legalized checkpoints (Score:5, Informative)
It should be a requirement for every American citizen to read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Tactics-Criminal-Patrol-Discovery-Survival/dp/0935878122/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1300891075&sr=8-3 [amazon.com]
The publisher won't sell this to civilians. You have to prove somehow that you are LEO-affiliated to obtain one but I received a copy from a friend who is currently a deputy sheriff and I read it cover-to-cover. IMPORTANT PART: THIS MANUAL DESCRIBES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AN ARSENAL OF STOPPING, INTERVIEWING AND OBSERVATIONAL TACTICS TO GET YOU TO RELINQUISH YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN TO ALLOW OFFICERS TO INSPECT YOUR PERSON AND VEHICLE. The techniques and methods described are AMAZINGLY effective and proven. It teaches them exactly how to let a suspect incriminate themselves and the exact legal boundaries for an officer to skirt while in your presence.
If you have the chance, PLEASE read this book. It applies to you as a citizen regardless of whether you are a criminal or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution has nothing to do with this. A few senators were standing around one day and somebody mentioned this app, and thew others said it's a bad idea. The headline may as well read "3rd-grade teacher, zookeeper, astrophysicist, and bus driver to Apple".
Now, if there's public support for this idea, then there might be a proposal for legislation, which would likely be a large complicated mess falling under the "interstate commerce" clause, but I doubt that will happen. There's far too many assholes
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just four Senators; you need 60 to actually do anything. Just because someone is a Senator does not mean that they give up their Constitutional right to whine about everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prove your innocence (Score:4, Insightful)
Then get the dangerous driver off the road. Sobriety checkpoints aren't the way to do that.
In typical bureaucratic fashion, we get an approach that penalizes everyone [reason.com], without effectively addressing the real problem.
Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Tom Udall (D-NM) asked Scott Forstall, the head of Apple's iPhone software group, to pull an unspecified number of apps from the company's App Store. The senators also made similar requests of Google's CEO Eric Schmidt and Research in Motion's (RIM) co-CEOs, James Balsillie and Michael Lazaridis.....
4 Democrats, who would've guessed? The party that thinks it can save us from ourselves. Look guys, you want to help? Get me some of that money like you gave to the Wall Street guys. How come no one wants to "save me from myself" in that fashion?
Public Information (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A friend was heading home on an empty highway late one night after work, hadn't had anything to drink, was doing the speed limit, and obeying all traffic laws. He got pulled over.
Why? After determining my friend was free to go, the officer said there's plenty of drivers who know they're just above the legal limit (recently revised downward here, to a blood alcohol level of 0.05%, so quite a few women can't even have a single drink now) and do everything to avoid suspicion by being the best possible driver.
T
Re:Public Information (Score:5, Interesting)
They HAVE to be publicized to be legal in the US. This is because part of the legal logic used to find checkpoints OK is they serve as a deterrent, which can't happen if they are kept secret.
And yes, it is a good idea to avoid the checkpoints like the plague. The vast majority of citations and arrests they make have absolutely nothing to do with DUI. At any particular moment there are likely dozens of violations on your car which you can be written up for. Even when I drove my brand new car off the lot it had equipment issues I could be ticketed for (the dealership put those plastic things around the license plates).
non-illegal use. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, this doesn't fly for me. If an app is produced that is 100% for evading police I would say it wasn't appropriate, but believe it or not there are actually uses for this app that have nothing to do with evading a drunk driving charge. I don't drink at all and if I still lived in Indianapolis I would probably download it because I don't want to be involved with such checkpoints. I don't see how that is wrong.
Besides, how is a drunk person going to be able to use the app anyway. They'll break the phone first.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, how is a drunk person going to be able to use the app anyway. They'll break the phone first.
I see that your (perfectly valid) choice not to drink, leaves you ignorant of the basics of drunkenness.
After, say, 2 pints of beer, you can walk without swaying, talk without slurring, and certainly operate a phone. You'd be perfectly capable of driving a car, too, if you could guarantee there wouldn't be any surprises. It's when the car in front brakes suddenly, or there's a loose bit of tyre in your lane, etc. that you'd discover your reactions aren't as quick or accurate as you'd like them to be.
Almost
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, it was a VERY weak joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. I have genuinely met people IRL who where convinced that half a bitter turned you from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hyde. It wouldn't surprise me if such people held local government positions in some places.
Re: (Score:2)
Well alcohol inhibits inhibitory (GABAergic) neurons first - the problem is not so much one of reaction time (the classic yet false argument) or not being aware of your surroundings. You need far more than 0.08mg/dl for that. There is minimal reflex loss but in a vehicle it always comes down to speed and braking distance. 0.5 seconds (I exaggerate, you don't lose half a second from your reflex time with 2 beers in you) or so is not the end of the world at 30mph - that's not even a foot of distance traveled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple Says No. (Score:2)
Remember the stupid story making the rounds yesterday about Apple sending a free iPad2 to the man who reported, "Wife said No."?
Yeah well Apple should send the elected officials, "Apple Says No."
Is there a law against harming public safety? (Score:5, Insightful)
And in what capacity do these apps encourage excessive consumption of alcohol?
Re: (Score:2)
anything can encourage that.
the problem with apples rules are that they really wouldn't allow even donald duck comics stories from seventies. would they allow britney spears? and why do they then allow a lot of music with lyrics that encourage drinking..
Re: (Score:2)
Police: Adapt and be more effective (Score:5, Interesting)
I always get a chuckle from the police that freak out over apps like this.
Police: Learn to use the false sense of security that these apps give lawbreakers.
Run the same apps in your police car. Have the department buy you a smartphone if needed, they are much cheaper than some of your other police toys.
When a speedtrap app spots you, you'll get an alert since it thinks you're just another speeder. Move 1 mile against traffic and trap the speeders before they get the alert.
When a DUI checkout app spots your checkpoint, post a couple of police on the obvious alternate routes that DUI people would use to avoid the posted checkpoint.
Hell, save time and post the checkpoint yourself, and then give a closer inspection to all of the people that take the gravel road the GPS recommends to avoid the checkpoint that NO ONE ever drives on. Your % of DUI drivers should be higher in that group.
These things make it easier on the police, not harder, if they would adapt to it!
Re: (Score:3)
Yay arms races. They always benefit society.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you think it is better to try to ban an app (only on non-jailbroken iPhones, as Androids and rooted devices can certainly still run these apps) and pretended it isn't something to worry about anymore than to use the app to your advantage?
I'm not suggesting an arms race. That would be more like trying to detect the users of the app with some tech, and then more tech to hide the users (see radar detector detector detectors).
I'm suggesting turning your adversary's weapon into your advantage. Very differen
Re:Police: Adapt and be more effective (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not making a point about whether or not it's right to suppress (not ban) the app, here.
I'm just pointing out that if the police start doing what you suggest, an arms race is pretty much inevitable.
- public use app to avoid DUI checks
- police reposition DUI checks to defeat the app
- public leave bad app reviews since app is now giving inaccurate results
- developers somehow improve accuracy of app
- GOTO 10
Re: (Score:2)
...which is all moronic.
You don't need special purpose Constitution shredding roadblocks in order to catch the serious problem drinkers.
That's pretty much what the definition of a problem drinker is: Someone that gets caught on non-holidays.
All that's needed is good old-fashioned non-Gestapo police work.
Re: (Score:2)
most people driving under influence wouldn't care to check such an app, it's an extra bother.
there's this saying that "nobody would drive drunk if they were sober", a reference to drunks who use "i was drunk, it's not my fault" excuse when they get caught DUI.
but posting information where you saw cops.. well, that should be free to report. and if somebody doesn't like that kind of freedom, they can always move to syria.
Re: (Score:2)
[police], save time and post the checkpoint yourself, and then give a closer inspection to all of the people that take the gravel road the GPS recommends to avoid the checkpoint that NO ONE ever drives on. Your % of DUI drivers should be higher in that group.
These things make it easier on the police, not harder, if they would adapt to it!
Please mod parent up. It makes a lot of sense. Of course, that's why the police won't take any of the suggestions....
Re:Police: Adapt and be more effective (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly, here in Denmark, police welcome these kinds of apps. They are not in the business of writing tickets, but they try to make roads safer; if an app alerts that there's a speed trap on some major highway, that means a full afternoon of *most* people driving like they should have been.
During high drinking seasons (Christmas and Easter for instance) they are always out in the newspapers warning people that they will be making more checks and focusing on this.
But of course, for this to make sense it requires the police to be in the business of preventing and not collecting.
Re: (Score:3)
iPhone apps are just new CBs (Score:3)
Thank you Senators! (Score:4, Insightful)
CEO is so full of shit - he could be a septic tank (Score:2, Informative)
The idea is fine. The idea is what police departments, in testimonials on their own site, defend (note that I'm not counting the ones that state the service is legal, that's not a defense
Re: (Score:3)
CEO is so full of shit - he could be a septic tank
for a second there, i thought you were using british slang for yank :P
Anybody who DUIs is an asshole... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just start talking in slightly more stilted language(try "Guilty of disseminating information harmful to public safety") and you'll be basically indistinguishable from the average translated kangaroo-court verdict...
Re: (Score:3)
Wait until you read about the immigration checkpoints in Arizona. It's a rabbit hole of WTF with similar time-wasting potential as a link to TVTropes, but with added horror.
Missing the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, Indiana had a series of billboards - nothing but the image of an orange traffic sign that said "Drunk Driving Checkpoint Ahead". Of course, the billboards were everywhere, and there was no actual checkpoint - but again, it's (supposed to be) a deterrent.
If police forces do not want people knowing about the checkpoints, they should not announce them publicly. If it's a matter of the public record, then they can't fault an app for aggregating that public record.
Re: (Score:2)
If police forces do not want people knowing about the checkpoints, they should not announce them publicly. If it's a matter of the public record, then they can't fault an app for aggregating that public record.
I don't know about other states, but here in NH the courts require the police to give public notice x number of days in advance. The courts won't sign off on the checkpoint otherwise. So at least in my own state, there shouldn't be any argument over the app.
They post the results afterwards. The last few I've seen, they didn't arrest any drunks. What they're really doing is looking for registration and inspection stickers, lights out, and such. To me, these roadblocks are just a lazier way for the polic
I'd like to see a drunk use a phone... (Score:2)
Illegal in the UK? (Score:4, Informative)
In the UK, warning others of a police speed trap e.g. by flashing your lights is a criminal offence [dailymail.co.uk] which will get you hauled into court and fined. So I wonder if these apps would even be legal in the UK (I don't have an iOS device, so I don't know if such things are on sale here).
On the other hand, satnavs with speed camera warnings seem to be legal, but in that case you can argue that the aim is to help you keep your speed down in dangerous areas, i.e. to avoid committing the offence in the first place, whereas with dodging DUI checks, the offence has already been committed, you're just trying to avoid being caught.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't have DUI checks here in the UK. I've experienced one once, while on holiday in the US. Basically they narrow the road down with cones, put up signs telling you to slow down, flag your car down as you pass, ask you if you've been drinking, and assuming you say no, and they haven't a reason to think you're lying, they send you on your way.
Of course, that's my experience as a white man in a hire car, with the English accent of a tourist.
So it's quite different from speed traps. I personally think spee
Can I get this in a car analogy? (Score:5, Funny)
BS....politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
They know this will hurt their wallet, and are using this as the only means to pin point a good reason why not allow it.
First off, someone failing a D&D test would also not be smart enough to remember to use an iphone to evade cops.
And if someone realizes that this is to avoid speed traps, to warn people of possible traffic because of accidents, then become a bit more cunning in setting up your traps, once you nab 2 or 3, move to a next vantage point, and stop thinking that you can sit there for 3 hours to get your monthly quota of tickets. I have friends that are cops, but they never tell me where they will be, I get to find out when i speed past a trap, so if I have a website or app that tells me this, I will consult it to watch my speed, not to change course...
They should also ban the iPhone because you can open it up and stash some drugs inside if you remove the hard drive, and they would never know at the airport....they should ban the iphone for that....or wait they could ban politicians altogether, because you can hide drugs by sticking some up their *sses, so technically it is being used for something it was not designed to, so let's abolish all politicians because people can use them to carry drugs across borders.
Less donuts, more brains, please (Score:2)
Who cares (Score:2)
Where's the Android app for this?
Easy Fix for the App (Score:2)
Dude, where's my bacon? (Score:2)
Giving up more and more rights... (Score:2)
Tell your government to F-Off (Score:2)
Defense against Lawlessness (Score:2)
When police are flagrantly violating the 4th amendment to the US constitution, interfering with the freedom of travel on what in Britain is called "the King's highway", and costing drivers time and fuel, and making some late to appointments, surely the citizens have every right to warn each other of where the illegal activity is being conducted so they can simply avoid going there.
iPhone Drivers vs. Drunk Drivers (Score:3)
People are so hyper about drinking and driving, which is often tragic, but mostly goes unnoticed and without incident. From what I've observed, people on cell phones are even more dangerous and absent minded behind the wheel. I'm not sure that I'm for a ban, but I find it hypocritical to condemn one action while implicitly endorsing the other (so long as you aren't using this app, of course).
Second thoughts (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they pulled that app after their fanbois protested [edibleapple.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
While drinking and driving is horrible, what's worse are government actors who conduct searches without a warrant or probable cause.
Yes, I'd complain to the actors' Union.
Re: (Score:2)
before i re-read the GPs post i thought you were making a charlie sheen joke...
Re: (Score:2)
The whole legal proceeding with modern DUI prosecutions seem to be extremely problematic in constitutional law. Maybe I'm missing something, but how is it legal to:
> compel someone into a "breath test" which amounts to a warrantless search (Fourth Amendment)
> compel someone to bear witness against themselves in a criminal proceeding by either bearing witness against themselves in a breath test (Fifth Amendment), or going to jail for not (due process, also Fifth Amendment)
I know there's some law schol
Multitaksking (Score:4, Insightful)
Believe it or not, a Senator [and his staff] can do more than one thing at a time. Besides, since young males account for the largest share of the American drunk driving population, and since young males have a large potential to contribute more to the federal tax base over then they receive in government benefits, keeping them alive and healthy does cut the deficit. Same goes for wars -- we need soldiers, and young men make fantastic soldiers.
P.S. The deficit isn't the problem. The deficit is the symptom of an economy which hasn't recovered for the middle and lower class. A lack of decent jobs is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH alcohol excise tax is a significant source of budget income, so maximizing ability to consume alcohol would be profitable for the budget...
It's easier to booze it up (Score:3)
if you're not in jail or wrapped around a tree...
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you end up killing people because of it. It's going to take a LOT of alcohol taxes to pay for even a single injury. Deaths tend to be even more costly as you lose entire input of that person into economy forever.
Re:Multitaksking (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually..you're not far off the mark.
Back in the 80's...LA was one of the last states (if not the last) to raise the drinking age from 18yrs to 21yrs after being extorted by the Feds. One reason they held out so long was that they figured they'd lose WAY more money in lost tax revenues from raising the drinking age than they would lose from Fed. Highway funds.
Sadly, one of the big oil crunches hit about then, and the state was hurting for money and finally succumbed.
The feds really need to get their nose the fsck OUT of national legislation like this...this should be up to the states.
Re: (Score:3)
keeping them alive and healthy does cut the deficit.
Considering that the deficit has increased over time along with population, I'm not sure I follow your logic. More people = more services demanded = more spending. And more spending means it's easier to hide frivolous spending, which means the overall efficiency goes down too. The tax base in no way approaches the deficit - which is why there is a deficit in the first place. So "keeping them alive and healthy" will not reduce the deficit and in fact may contribute to the deficit. But of course something li
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have it all wrong -- you want to keep young males alive and healthy so they can pay into the system. When they cease paying into the system they are either old, unemployed, and/or disabled males, and need to be gotten rid of before they ask for too much back out of the system.
Social Security is an entirely reasonable system if you expect to pay out less than 5 years to any given individual -- when people start not dying when they're supposed to that changes entirely...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Irregardless
People without the brainpower to realize that this is not a word, annoy me.
I think the "system" is designed to swallow all money you throw at it and beg for more, regardless of quantities. It's a bottomless pit. Saying you will fill it with more people doesn't stop it from being bottomless.
You've been hanging around the Tea Party/Ree Tardy crowd too much. "The System" works more-or-less as it is intended to work: to try to balance the schizophrenic, contradictory desires of the population.
Serio
Re: (Score:3)
And in a country where just 400 people control over 50% of the wealth [politifact.com]
The article you link doesn't say anything close to that. In fact, the claim Moore makes doesn't come close to saying that. He's saying that the richest 400 control more wealth than the poorest 50%. The poorest 50% don't control 50% of the wealth - that would be impossible unless wealth were evenly distributed.
In fact, the article says that in 2009, the richest 400 controled 1.27 trillion, out of 53.1 trillion total wealth, or 2.4%. That's not close to 50%.
Now, your conclusion that "we have a major oligarchy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The deficit is the symptom of an economy which hasn't recovered for the middle and lower class
It has recovered exactly like it was supposed to.
Re:Multitaksking (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the problem is a system that demands you HAVE a job even though your fellow man does NOT NEED your labor. We don't need more jobs. Obviously, we're getting the stuff we need to live quite comfortably with the jobs we have.
We're still linking 'having a job' to 'contributing to society' and therefore we're linking 'salary' to 'right to buy food and shelter'. At the same time it's every manager's duty to make his business more streamlined and thus efficient. Cutting jobs is their primary goal and rightfully so. It just runs contrary to that idea that everyone needs a job.
Full employment runs contrary to capitalism. The more efficient capitalism gets, the less workable the socialist idea of full employment becomes.
Re:Multitaksking (Score:5, Interesting)
And exactly what is supposed to happen to those who find themselves without jobs? Especially for men with no kids government will not help you. You don't qualify for state medical aid programs so better not get sick. You won't qualify for state monetary support. You may manage to squeak by for food stamps. You won't qualify for housing support. So... That's looking really great there.
Women on the other hand usually qualify for all of those when not working and not supported by someone else. They go to the top of the lists if they have kids. Men with kids rank just below women, though often still have issues with certain programs.
I have needed those very support programs before and been let down as a single man. I'm hardly alone either, the economy is much better for women than men in the first place. Women are in demand by business. So your suggesting we need less men (as the most often to be let go and who in their younger years make less than their female counterparts on average) who then can't get support to continue to live without family to take care of them. That so isn't a long term solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Just FYI, I am not an American, so things like food stamps are horrors I associate with post-war zones, or any kind of post-apocalyptic SciFi...
That being said, did I in any way insinuate that our system was in any way ready to get to where I think we need to be?
Re: (Score:2)
I would think the posting that what we need is a reduction of working people directly correlates with our system needing to be ready to deal with it. It was implied (though not stated) that current trends of capitalism already show the effect of which you mention.
A growing part of america is on foodstamps FYI and they programs have never gone away here. I had an ex who lived on welfare while going to college for her associates degree for instance. Though she had a child and so qualified for money, food, hou
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. The deficit isn't the problem. The deficit is the symptom of an economy which hasn't recovered for the middle and lower class. A lack of decent jobs is the problem.
Considering that technically we have had a deficit my entire lifetime (no, the budget was not balanced under Clinton, if you look, you will see that Federal debt increased every year under Clinton, which means that the Federal Government was spending more than it took in, even when they claimed a "balanced budget"), your diagnosis is also incorrect. The problem is that Congress spends too much. Historically, Federal Governemnt tax revenues have very consistently maintained between 18-19% of GDP, while Congr
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, many studies have show a large number of accidents are from drivers reacting to the sight of an unexpected police officer. Reports typically associate it to excessive speed but in reality, the accident would have been extremely unlikely had the police officer not been there or had the driver known where he was at and leisurely correct speed before he got there.
I do believe DWI check points should not be reported as that likely does endanger the public. Just the same, study after study proves the
Re:typical garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say this post highlights what is wrong with our country a lot more than the Senators request. "We should completely ignore Problem X because Completely Unrelated Problem Y is more important is a fucking retarded argument, and making it only proves that you lack the slightest understanding of how the world works.
Re: (Score:3)
Saving the children from drunk drivers and Supporting Our Police, on the other hand, is easy and nearly risk free!
Re: (Score:2)
If you remember to check you iPhone before getting in the car, you're not drunk enough.
Re: (Score:3)
> Apple can never win and please everybody
This is why it's a good idea to be not solely responsible for the content that appears on your platform.
You can implicitly allow this stuff by granting your end users liberty rather than being percieved as explicitly approving or censoring anything.
Re: (Score:2)
That's also an untenable position. Considering the flack that google is getting for allowing malware on Android and the problems Nokia had with viruses on their phones, they have to have some sort of quality control for apps. Also, certain countries like Germany(?) may not allow iPhones and other devices if they don't have some sort of parental restrictions or block illegal/pirate apps
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh "For FREEDOMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!! We must force retailer X to sell product Y!" I never thought it'd get old, but it is.
Re:Pick a side! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah! Why can't everybody have the same opinion? Get it together, people!
THANK YOU. (Score:2)
This subtlety is often lost on the Internet, and it drives me crazy. The First Amendment only restricts the action of governments to limit speech, not individuals or private entities.