33 ms·

Because this thing that they have never used and isn't yet on the market is the most pressing threat to public safety? Methinks they just want an excuse to subp

by Evbn 14y ago

Because this thing that they have never used and isn't yet on the market is the most pressing threat to public safety? Methinks they just want an excuse to subpoena some devices to play with. Or are they going to ban dashboards next, since they distract drivers from the road?

alexqgb 14y ago
They don't give fig about playing with Glass. They care about money. It's a shake-down, don't you see? New technology emerges, gets a lot of buzz, and catches the attention of corrupt legislators, attracting "interest" in the way a successful fruit stand on the Lower East Side would attract attention from mafia types selling "protection". Google responds by commissioning studies showing the fear is baseless and hires lobbyists to present these findings, along with large checks made out to the reelection campaigns of the legislators in question. Wash, rinse, repeat. There's a variation on this racket in which a business with a competing product or service registers the development as a threat, commissions its own study detailing the dangers, and hires lobbyists to present these "findings" to lawmakers. And of course, these also come with checks. A skillful politico will play one side off against the other, shaking them both down for more and more contributions as the issue is "studied" in greater and more excruciating detail. Barring any reason for the general public to get involved, and start sending letters, this racket unfolds in peace, day-in-day out. "So why", you ask, "don't we set up a system of public election finance and attack this system at the root?" Because (mumble, mumble, mumble) Freedom! Also, "Ah don whan ta see mah tax dahllers goin' to some pinko commie freak tryin' to destroy America." Okaaay.
uptown 14y ago
Which is it? Do we want laws that are so archaic they test their own relevance ... or do we want laws that adapt to the changing world in which they're designed to apply? More often than not, we see the legal system trail far behind the technological realities of the society they're intended to regulate. While I'm no fan of legislation for the sake of legislation, I'm happy to see a more forward-thinking approach to these types of things. And yes - there currently are laws on the books banning things like entertainment systems in the dashboard to help prevent distracted driving.
- derefr 14y ago
  I would think that we want laws that react to real problems that come up, as they come up, once enough data has been collected to prove they're problems. Then, the law is enacted, the data is measured again, and we see whether the law solved the problem. :)

by Evbn 14y ago

alexqgb 14y ago

They don't give fig about playing with Glass. They care about money. It's a shake-down, don't you see? New technology emerges, gets a lot of buzz, and catches the attention of corrupt legislators, attracting "interest" in the way a successful fruit stand on the Lower East Side would attract attention from mafia types selling "protection". Google responds by commissioning studies showing the fear is baseless and hires lobbyists to present these findings, along with large checks made out to the reelection campaigns of the legislators in question. Wash, rinse, repeat. There's a variation on this racket in which a business with a competing product or service registers the development as a threat, commissions its own study detailing the dangers, and hires lobbyists to present these "findings" to lawmakers. And of course, these also come with checks. A skillful politico will play one side off against the other, shaking them both down for more and more contributions as the issue is "studied" in greater and more excruciating detail. Barring any reason for the general public to get involved, and start sending letters, this racket unfolds in peace, day-in-day out. "So why", you ask, "don't we set up a system of public election finance and attack this system at the root?" Because (mumble, mumble, mumble) Freedom! Also, "Ah don whan ta see mah tax dahllers goin' to some pinko commie freak tryin' to destroy America." Okaaay.

uptown 14y ago

Which is it? Do we want laws that are so archaic they test their own relevance ... or do we want laws that adapt to the changing world in which they're designed to apply? More often than not, we see the legal system trail far behind the technological realities of the society they're intended to regulate. While I'm no fan of legislation for the sake of legislation, I'm happy to see a more forward-thinking approach to these types of things. And yes - there currently are laws on the books banning things like entertainment systems in the dashboard to help prevent distracted driving.

derefr 14y ago
I would think that we want laws that react to real problems that come up, as they come up, once enough data has been collected to prove they're problems. Then, the law is enacted, the data is measured again, and we see whether the law solved the problem. :)