Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Oct 30, 2013.
Ah, yes. The political bully rears his head.
Yeah you go ahead and try that in court.
"Yes your honor I realize the girl was 15, however, there are higher laws than those that the state imposes, as it is fundamentally dangerous to allow the government to decide what rights I want to have because I feel like doing it my way.
Human sacrifice, by its very nature, directly causes the death of another human, violating that person's right to control their own body, and by extension their right to life. The concept of human sacrifice and the action of taking someone's life are inseparable.
Speeding, however, does not automatically hurt someone in the way that human sacrifice does. It is entirely possible to drive fast and not put anyone at risk. It is entirely possible to drive slow and put a whole bunch of people at risk. Unless a driver either causes damage to person or property or puts them at such a risk that it constitutes a threat of violence (e.g. near misses or people have to dodge out of the way or it is aggressive in such a way that people have a credible fear of their life), there is no ethical or moral justification for using coercion and aggression on a person for speeding.
You have a right to life but that does not extend to banning every conceivable risk to that life. Everything we do involves risks. If we banned every activity that could remotely kill someone, everyone would be dead of starvation (after all, every time you eat, you have a risk of contracting deadly food poisoning or accidentally ingesting a deadly poison or choking).
That seems like a man made of straw.
Just because the government is a bully does not make them in the right. Might does not make right.
Perhaps you feel the same way about, say, Iran. After all, the all-mighty state has decided that certain people don't have rights and that it is perfectly OK, for example, to execute a rape victim. If you derive your rights from the state, then where is your justification for condemning the actions of brutal dictators? After all, they are merely following the laws of their respective states.
i eat the cheeseburger and drive stick. what now
So many glass apologists in this thread...
Music and talk radio is also a distraction. Banned. So is talking to passengers or having kids in your car. Banned. The lights on your dashboard are distracting. Banned. You do shit my way or you go to jail. I'm looking out for your best interests.
Doesn't matter. If you want speeding, go build your own country in some other planet.
This will do nothing.
People will not stop. It'll be like prohibition.
If you want focus while driving - automated cars. Until then, people will continue doing dumb shit in cars and crashing.
People used to read the newspaper while driving. At least that's stopped somewhat now that no one reads newspapers.
It also falls under "inattentive driving".
Wow so much distain for cops and people jumping on the side of the woman who was ticketed and the whole story has yet to be told... damn !
People drive like crap out here they speed everywhere and it's rare anyone will admit to any wrong doing when being busted for anything. Northern Ca and Southern CA has shi t ty drivers .
Her original post made it seem like she was just pulled over for wearing GG when in fact she was speeding which she had to later confess too. See comment above about people not confessing to their guilt so It would not surprise me if she copped and attitude toward the cop. Poop it would not surprise me if she was tooling around with her glasses ,watching a video and the feed was still active when the cop was walking up to the car.
Honestly every day I run across GG wears down town in San Francisco it could be 2 - 6 different people walking around with them on... out of the ones I see at lease one wearer of them I see walking into something or stumble while walking so to answer some question about them being a distraction to the wearer , YES they can distract someone who's wearing them. That's my opinion made by my daily observations...
errrrr something like that bla bla bla blaaaa
Meh, whatever. If she admitted to using Glass while she was pulled over for speeding, there's little defense for arguing against that infraction*. Google Glass wearers look totally douche-y anyways. If you can't take it off when driving or while interacting with normal people, a few "life lessons" should be a good slap back to reality. Maybe she should have just started crying when pulled over. That seems to work sometimes.
* lol, traffic school for speeding would normally nullify the insurance rate increases since it prevents the infraction from going on the driving record along with the points used by insurers when setting rates. Multi-fail tickets = may as well fight because your insurance is going up significantly.
Not sure why people are calling California the "ban state" because of this one issue. If I read correctly, the law just may need to be updated to accommodate Google Glass and other similar devices.
So speeding here is the primary offense and Google Glass is secondary. Had she not been speeding, I assume she would not have gotten a ticket at all.
When WA state banned cell phones while driving, I remember reading that it's a secondary offense so the police can only ticket you for using your phone if you had a primary infraction like speeding, running a stop sign or driving into a house.
Running into a house and driving dangerously are already illegal.
I don't think it will be allowed. The very act of enabling it requires that the user look up (eyes off the road), never mind the interactivity of navigation needed to work with it. Even with voice commands, it's squarely in the category of distracted driving.
I can't imagine any state at all would allow its use while driving.
Yeah, I am a little shocked. I can't believe people here think it's a good idea to drive a car with video displays pumping advertising directly into their eyes.
I think they should wait till Google perfects the self driving cars before driving with GG on.
.. she was using the GPS maps, not watching Transformers 3.
just a thought, you all do realize that driving is a privilege granted by the state, not a right as a lot of these strawman arguments for the woman seem to imply.
I think you're right. The law still probably needs to be updated to explicitly govern the use of these devices though. Else you'd have 6 pages' worth of forum arguments every time someone gets pulled over while wearing Google Glass.
Or 3 if your really [H].
She was probably being a glasshole about it.
Freedom of movement is a right.
erroneous! erroneous on all accounts! Judging by the people responding to her tweet I'd imagine she'll have more than a few people coming down to help with this. If the law doesn't get overturned right then I'd imagine it's going to get a swift kick in the nuts and keep all other cases of this out of the court system.
Your right. But that freedom of movement does not dictate that you have the right to own a motor vehicle.
You must not be in California.
Yea I agree. I mean as far as I know, I haven't heard of any studies or laws approving of GG use while driving. In the state of Maryland, it's illegal to use your cellphone at all while driving unless it is hands free. IMO, you don't need to be wearing it while driving. Seems like more of an unnecessary luxury than anything else.
LMAO. fight the power guys ....
Up to a point ... your freedom of movement doesn't allow you to fly an airplane (unless you are trained) ... your freedom of movement doesn't allow you to move through my house or property without my permission (and in Texas I can shoot you for doing so ) ... your freedom of movement doesn't allow you to move through a company's place of business ... not all laws are reactive in nature ... sometime society decides proactive laws (reckless driving, speeding, DUI, etc) are better than waiting until you kill someone and then prosecuting you for that ... if you live alone then you can do whatever you want ... if you live in a group then the group gets a say on what other members of the group can do
They aren't going to change the law to accomodate GG, they are going to make it easy for the cops and increase revenues, GG=Ticket=$.
What, you didn't see that coming?
This way they avoid any BS like was it on? Were you displaying maps or youtube fails? Any of that is immaterial. If they see them on your face and your face behind the wheel, ticket.
Water flows downhill, and so rolls the shit.
...Speaking of strawmen.
Yea, that was stated in the article?
And in California you can get a ticket for having a cell phone in your hand, even if you are not using it.
In theory, if the phone is running a GPS app, it's suppose to be treated the same as a stand alone GPS, but it comes down to your word against the cops. If your phone is mounted on the dash running GPS, and not in your hand, then you are likely safe.
Freedom of movement is significantly restricted without a motor vehicle. Try going without one for a while. Unless you live in a big city New York or Chicago it is impossible to function in daily life without one. As such, it is not proper to call it a mere privilege
I think I will stick with my indash movie watching while driving, texting while in motion, no safety belt on with my radio turned way up and can still drive the speed limit and pay attention to the damn road. (unless maybe if I was getting a BJ) If people were BETTER drivers we wouldnt have to restrict every little thing. No one in the government gives two shits because its all a money maker for them which will drive more county funds for the officials to get more H&B.
So to test this theory, damicatz will go visit kbrickley and his guns at 3am this weekend to test his rights of movement... I'm betting that under Texas law, damicatz loses this argument...
But seriously, as an Engineer, I could bore you with many reasons why and how speed limits are determined but you'd all be asleep. Try Googling "stopping sight distance" some time and you'll see there are some good reasons for most limits. Or look up "85th percentile speed" to see why speed limits are (supposed to be) regularly adjusted so that at least 85% of drivers aren't breaking the law. Just because you think you can safely drive a certain speed doesn't mean everyone can. And just because a speed is posted doesn't mean you're always safe from a ticket - there's also something call safe speed for the conditions. Try driving 55 in a 55 in pouring rain with limited visibility, hitting someone, and telling the judge "but I was driving the speed limit!"...
Sorry, damicatz, whether you like it or not, the law is the law. Don't like it? Then you have 3 choices: work to change the laws, move somewhere with laws you like (Germany and the autobahn sound right for you), or deal with the consequences of knowingly breaking the laws...
Maybe next time she'll learn to use a map.
Just what people need, another distraction while driving.....
It's only a strawman if I'm misrepresenting the issue, which I am not. If it is legal to use an on dash GPS, it should also be legal to use Google Glass GPS. There is no difference. If the driver is driving recklessly, they will be charged with reckless driving.
The stupid bitch should get ticketed. Just like talking on a cellphone or texting, it's a distraction when doing it while driving. Wonder how she is going to feel when she hits a kid while checking out something on google glass.
Because that person that caused the accident probably doesnt know how to drive correctly. I live where it rains a lot most of the morons here can barely stop for red lights let alone know how to drive correctly in the rain at whatever the speed limit is lol