You see, our government loves acronyms and obfuscation. NHTSA is really a cleverly disguised division of the FBI created in the wake of 9/11 and we've all been duped.
Here, NHTSA is the National Homemade Terrorist Surveillance Association and the funding is used to push the FCC agenda (Find, Create, Convict).
I feel like this is a win for consumers in one way, with the potential for a huge loss in another way. While cord cutting is great, and I'd be happy to cut the cord myself if it wasn't for being unable to watch the things I want to see without it, I can see where my costs will be shifted under this kind of deal, not reduced.
With restrictive data caps on cellular services and cable companies wanting to put caps on their offerings as well, and more offerings like this hopefully becoming available, data usage will have to increase. The potential consumer raping that could follow isn't going to be any better than what we get now with traditional cable, and really has the potential to be far worse for those who want to rely on streaming services.
It's a good step forward, but one I think we need to take cautiously.
I get that it looks like a bomb. Great. And rules are rules, whether we agree with them or not.
My issue here is that they should not have confiscated it. They could have easily pulled the passenger aside, checked it to be sure it wasn't actually dangerous and then given the passenger two options:
1. Return the clearly, checked, non-bomb to the passengers' checked baggage where it can be safely stowed and inaccessible during the flight.
2. Allow the passenger to have the item boxed and shipped, at his own expense, to his final destination or home.
Either way, the passenger gets to keep his item. I think it's a fair compromise, one that might even help the TSA earn a bit of an image of being more than just government thugs.
I am not glossing over your point. I made the same point in my original comment, that manufacturers will make a product to meed the requirements set forth by the state of California. Because of that, the rest of us who DO NOT live in California will essentially be subjected to their laws, and there is a pattern of this happening throughout the U.S. because of laws passed in California (and apparently others as well, as you mentioned).
I agree that manufacturer's are also to blame, and really so is the public for not being more vocal about it. For the manufacturers though, they have to respond to changes in the law in order to sell their product. And they have to make a profit too, or at least break even, so they will naturally do things as cheaply as possible (i.e. one method of producing the product instead of 50). They get away with it in part because people outside of California aren't saying "hey, I don't want to buy your Widget with California's requirements" loud enough.
I understand that in reality, California doesn't have the authority to trump any laws of other states and the Feds. However, in practice this is what happens, precisely for the reason you've stated and as I stated in my original comment.
To you point about Texas, I agree as well. However, I don't see warning labels smeared all over everything citing the State of Texas. You could say the issues coming from Texas are a little less visible to many.
No. I'm saying the way that California's laws tend to trump and undermine Federal laws and impact other State's and their residents is a problem.
If I wanted to pay higher taxes, higher prices on consumer goods and have my choices dictated to me above what they already are, I'd move to California. I don't, and I should be free to live my life free from what passes as State Government in the state of California. My concern is, like many other things that come out of California, this law will affect me even though it shouldn't.
I merely used the emissions standards as an example because I am aware of it, and figured many others were as well.
Can we just agree to kick California out of the Union? Seriously.
I live on the East coast, and I've lived in the Mid-West. I've still had to deal with labels that say this product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause blah blah blah. Cars are mostly designed to meet some of their stricter emissions standards. I have a hard time believing that this will stay in California when the phone manufacturers decide it's simply cheaper to only build phones that meet the California requirements and sell them everywhere.
So please, lets kick them out of the Union before their poorly thought out ideas pollute our country any further.
Maybe we need a day of protest on protecting Net Neutrality kind of like SOPA. But instead of a blackout, get sites to agree to drastically cut their speeds for a day so people can see first hand what these policies will be like. Some sites could operate as normal. Or as an alternative, get sites to put up a mock webpage that notifies them that the page they are trying to access is not supported by their current access plan, sorry for the inconvenience. It worked before, it could work again. Just a thought
I tend to agree with you on this issue, though I am admittedly under-informed on the issue of Net Neutrality as a whole. But the one thing I can't help but think about what will happen if the broadband providers get their way is this video:
On the post: Feds Hand Out Funds To Be Used For 'Traffic Safety;' Local Agencies Buy License Plate Readers Instead
I see what happened
Here, NHTSA is the National Homemade Terrorist Surveillance Association and the funding is used to push the FCC agenda (Find, Create, Convict).
On the post: Canadian Court Ponders If A Disagreement On Twitter Constitutes Criminal Harassment
Re:
On the post: As Merger Mania Rises, Cable And Broadband Customer Satisfaction Worse Than Ever
I'm optimistic that things will change...
On the post: Weather Channel Tackles Criticism For Airing Too Much Fluff, With New Ads Attacking Competitors For Airing Too Much Fluff
Re: Sorta amazed it's still a thing
On the post: Weather Channel Tackles Criticism For Airing Too Much Fluff, With New Ads Attacking Competitors For Airing Too Much Fluff
I can't wait...
On the post: How The NBA's New Deal With Disney/TNT Takes One Step Forward, One Backward On Streaming
With restrictive data caps on cellular services and cable companies wanting to put caps on their offerings as well, and more offerings like this hopefully becoming available, data usage will have to increase. The potential consumer raping that could follow isn't going to be any better than what we get now with traditional cable, and really has the potential to be far worse for those who want to rely on streaming services.
It's a good step forward, but one I think we need to take cautiously.
On the post: Skies Safer Than Ever After TSA Prevents Passenger From Boarding Flight With Cartoonish Novelty 'Bomb'
Re: Re:
And there is a law, a secret one no doubt. Long ago we outlawed common sense and most deductive reasoning skills in this country.
On the post: Skies Safer Than Ever After TSA Prevents Passenger From Boarding Flight With Cartoonish Novelty 'Bomb'
My issue here is that they should not have confiscated it. They could have easily pulled the passenger aside, checked it to be sure it wasn't actually dangerous and then given the passenger two options:
1. Return the clearly, checked, non-bomb to the passengers' checked baggage where it can be safely stowed and inaccessible during the flight.
2. Allow the passenger to have the item boxed and shipped, at his own expense, to his final destination or home.
Either way, the passenger gets to keep his item. I think it's a fair compromise, one that might even help the TSA earn a bit of an image of being more than just government thugs.
On the post: Police Militarization, Citizen Journalism And The Suppression Of Free Speech: The Ferguson Fiasco Highlights Systemic Problem
Re:
Mike doesn't want the Ferguson P.D. to come trample on his first amendment rights and to try and make him reveal his sources.
On the post: Bad Idea: California Legislature Passes Bill To Mandate Mobile Phone Kill Switches
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree that manufacturer's are also to blame, and really so is the public for not being more vocal about it. For the manufacturers though, they have to respond to changes in the law in order to sell their product. And they have to make a profit too, or at least break even, so they will naturally do things as cheaply as possible (i.e. one method of producing the product instead of 50). They get away with it in part because people outside of California aren't saying "hey, I don't want to buy your Widget with California's requirements" loud enough.
But hey, just my opinion on the matter.
On the post: Bad Idea: California Legislature Passes Bill To Mandate Mobile Phone Kill Switches
Re: Re:ThatFatMan
On the post: Bad Idea: California Legislature Passes Bill To Mandate Mobile Phone Kill Switches
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To you point about Texas, I agree as well. However, I don't see warning labels smeared all over everything citing the State of Texas. You could say the issues coming from Texas are a little less visible to many.
On the post: Bad Idea: California Legislature Passes Bill To Mandate Mobile Phone Kill Switches
Re: Re:
If I wanted to pay higher taxes, higher prices on consumer goods and have my choices dictated to me above what they already are, I'd move to California. I don't, and I should be free to live my life free from what passes as State Government in the state of California. My concern is, like many other things that come out of California, this law will affect me even though it shouldn't.
I merely used the emissions standards as an example because I am aware of it, and figured many others were as well.
On the post: Bad Idea: California Legislature Passes Bill To Mandate Mobile Phone Kill Switches
I live on the East coast, and I've lived in the Mid-West. I've still had to deal with labels that say this product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause blah blah blah. Cars are mostly designed to meet some of their stricter emissions standards. I have a hard time believing that this will stay in California when the phone manufacturers decide it's simply cheaper to only build phones that meet the California requirements and sell them everywhere.
So please, lets kick them out of the Union before their poorly thought out ideas pollute our country any further.
On the post: USPTO Tried To Hide Abuse And Fraud By Patent Examiners From Inspector General
Re:
On the post: Patent Examiners Regularly Engaged In Fraud And Abuse Via Telework Program
Re: Problem not really the Patent Office but Patent Examiners Union
On the post: UK Finally Changes Copyright Law To Allow Private Copies, But Music Industry Says It May Challenge Move In The Courts
On the post: Pay Different Prices To Access Different Sites: Virgin Mobile Leaps Through Net Neutrality Exemption With Gusto
On the post: FCC Is 'Deeply Troubled' By Verizon Wireless's New Throttling Plans
On the post: Reclassifying Broadband Under Title II Becoming Politically Feasible
Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso
It's true now, but it would only get worse I think with the proposed fast lanes (as I understand it).
Next >>