We love to quote Benjamin Franklin and speak of the 1st Amendment as if it were written by gods. None of those signatories would have wanted to see civil rights used as an excuse to bend the law. We love to think we are blessed with some wider perspicacity that everyone else lacks and we are seeing 1984 in its infancy but the truth is this is stopping mindless, selfish morons from destroying real lives.
Sure it won't stop it on its own, sure the information is still available, but why present it to people in a nice neat package and let them abuse it?
This is a common sense request and I hope Apple grant it. I believe they will.
I don't even drink and find this totally offensive, it attacks a basic human right to communicate. Beyond that there are a number of good reasons to avoid DUI checkpoints even if you are completely sober. For one the delays can be excessive. Second they are a safety hazard to both the drivers and the officers involved. Third the line of questioning often degrades into things that are no bodies business but your own.
For example I've hit a number of these check points and frankly had questions asked that I really shouldnt have to answer. The where are you coming from or where are you going questions have nothing to do with drunk driving. Frankly I've heard these enough when I was going to college nights four or five times a week. Beyond that is the assumption that everybody on the road after 6:00 PM is drunk. That was years ago but I still run into these roadblocks from time to time and still find them offensive.
As others have stated there are better solutions out there. One of the best would be to simply screen everyone driving away from a bar. At least then you have probably cause.
In any event if these asses get away with this request what do you think will be requested next? If this isn't an example of people using their power in a damaging way I don't know what else would be. More so it looks like the age old technique of making noise over something minor to take focus off your failings.
I was amazed to read a poll that actually discovered most people on the internet (I assume that means blogs) spell 'hear hear' incorrectly as 'here here'.
Meanwhile I personally feel that it's a bit like saying radar detectors should be banned or as someone else pointed out CB radios should be since they are used all the time for the same purpose. Frankly there are more important issues out there and I seriously doubt removing this app will stop a drunk from driving.
Here is a more serious issue IMHO ... using a cell phone while driving should be illegal. It's easy enough to have hands free systems. I see drivers every day go through red lights and wander all over the road while messing with a cell phone.
I'll ignore the patronising spelling correction. Its 4 AM here so you'll forgive the odd brain fart.
It might not stop a drunk from driving, but it will stop him driving and getting away with it as easily as loading an app. That might stop him driving the week after and killing someone.
I'll ignore the patronising spelling correction. Its 4 AM here so you'll forgive the odd brain fart.
It might not stop a drunk from driving, but it will stop him driving and getting away with it as easily as loading an app. That might stop him driving the week after and killing someone.
No, I was seriously surprised that more now spell it that way. It is like people saying 'I could care less' while meaning 'couldn't care less'. Here in the States if enough people change spelling or usage it ends up being accepted as correct. I was not intending to be patronizing. That spelling is now in use more so I assume it will be considered correct soon.
Back on the app ... Perhaps having the app would mean they'd hand over the keys if they knew the blocks were on the way home ... it can be argued both ways.
If that is correct then those senators had better be trying to get those laws changed as well.
Forget that. Make it the bars responsibility. After all they failed to cut someone off and then didn't call a cab. Let them pay the price. One month suspension of your liquor license each time the cops catch a drunk driver that is traced to that location. 3 times within six months and it's a total loss of the license.
And if the person causes an accident etc then the bar is charged with aiding and abetting or whatever.
You say make the bars responsible for your drinking habit, Then maybe we should make Cell Phone companies resposible for putting text messaging app on the phones for those who text and drive who are as dangerous., I could go on all day with the list but I am not going to.
I have been driving for over 38 year, and have gotten 1 ticket and that was speeding because I was trying to make my Dad's funeral, so obey the law and you will be fine.
I'll ignore the patronising spelling correction. Its 4 AM here so you'll forgive the odd brain fart.
Not all criticism or corrections are patronizing and based on the phrasing his comment was not patronizing. (BTW, the correct way to spell patronizing is with a ?z? unless you?re a limey bastard. )
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
No, I was seriously surprised that more now spell it that way.
While technically incorrect and shouldn?t be used in any formal writing it?s one that I let slide and think will be adopted as acceptable in future dictionaries. My reasoning is the original usage of ?Hear! Hear!? was to express agreement with what is being said aloud, yet with internet forums you are quoting what has been expressed previously in text so ?hearing? doesn?t work, but the homonym ?here?, as in ?look here? does work. I think it works brilliantly that way for the voice of the internet generation.
Quote:
It is like people saying 'I could care less' while meaning 'couldn't care less'. Here in the States if enough people change spelling or usage it ends up being accepted as correct..
OK, this one I do take issue with. The exclusion of ?not? completely alters the meaning and a little critical thinking should make most realize that. Even though we all exclude a negative like ?not? from our writings every now and then, it?s the excessive exclusion without understand what they could or couldn?t care less about that I feel is ignorant.
Tell that to the parents whose child has been run down by a drunk driver.
My cousin was killed by a drunk driver and a friend of mine was killed by a kid on drugs. I know about loss personally yet I know that government will take any bit of power it can. Though a letter isn't a law, it does have more influence due to the people who wrote it and support it being high ranking officials.
Government never gives back power or influence it has taken from people. Give government power to get results from complaining via a letter and they'll hold that as a precedent for them doing it again. Their ego's will be so inflated that if their letters don't get results they'll feel more offended and come at companies with laws and regulations in retaliation. Even if they fail at getting a specific law passed, they'll still hold sway over companies that don't comply by using tax codes or creating other regulations to spite companies that didn't do as they "requested".
Senators and Representatives can pass whatever unconstitutional legislation they want without fear of prosecution, while they themselves call for the execution of those who publicly expose their traitorous deeds. If it bothers them so much why not pass a law prohibiting this application?
This isn't about child porn, it's about publically available information that is legal to have and legal to share. Dodging searches is different than actively committing a crime.
People have the information... it is valuable... they will find a way to sell it.
That's all immaterial. For US Government officials to call for removal of information in the public domain it is flat out a priori censorship. The exact kind of governmental censorship the Constitution and the Amendments don't allow except in very controlled circumstances.
There are reasons for the government to quash free speech, like making it illegal to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater unless there really is reason to believe there is one. If they want these apps out I invite them to write a simple bill to do it, have it ratified, signed and we can let that get challenged in the courts to see if they did a good job of writing it or not.
Short of that, this is just good old publicity hounding at someone else's expense. It all sounds so cut and dried, mostly like a great thing to do. But when you actually think about it, it changes nothing other that letting a couple grandstanding elected officials drop a press release/conference. The chances a drunk will use it are slim to dropped. And if they are going to look ahead of time before getting drunk they are just as likely to watch the 6PM news where it gets announced ahead of time anyway.
I bet all you high and mighty posters that are standing behind these four senators are most guilty of exceeding the speed limit, accelerating upon an amber light and texting while driving. Get off your high horse, hypocrites.
And none of you have ever used or owned a radar detector?
You're talking like people are going to drink more, then get behind the wheel because they have the added security of a DUI checkpoint app. I mean, jeeze.
I bet all you high and mighty posters that are standing behind these four senators are most guilty of exceeding the speed limit, accelerating upon an amber light and texting while driving. Get off your high horse, hypocrites.
And none of you have ever used or owned a radar detector?
You're talking like people are going to drink more, then get behind the wheel because the have the the added security of a DUI checkpoint app. I mean, jeeze.
Yeah, I don’t see how one can be so foolish as to decide to drive drunk yet at the same time to have the presence of mind to check for DUI checkpoints on their iPhone.
If heavy drinking celebrities (like with Kiefer Sutherland and Mel Gibson) with excessive amounts of money can’t think of hiring a driver I can’t think the average person will think of checking for DUI checkpoints.
PS: Do people even use radar detectors anymore? I had friends that had them when i was a teenager. They didn’t seem very helpful.
Yeah, I don?t see how one can be so foolish as to decide to drive drunk yet at the same time to have the presence of mind to check for DUI checkpoints on their iPhone.
If heavy drinking celebrities (like with Kiefer Sutherland and Mel Gibson) with excessive amounts of money can?t think of hiring a driver I can?t think the average person will think of checking for DUI checkpoints.
PS: Do people even use radar detectors anymore? I had friends that had them when i was a teenager. They didn?t seem very helpful.
My man Solip!! I sure do miss you and your balanced, common sense words of wisdom. This forum sure isn't the same without you. Good to see you pop in every now and again in between your busy schedule.
My man Solip!! I sure do miss you and your balanced, common sense words of wisdom. This forum sure isn't the same without you. Good to see you pop in every now and again in between your busy schedule.
Thanks! My schedule has loosened up quite a bit. I should change my sig, but I was hoping to find something more productive to do with my time than posting on an internet forum for half a day. This place is addicting.
1st Amendment) Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech
4th Amendment) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I seldom drink, and when I do it's always at home. So a DUI isn't of concern to me, but I want one of these apps. While in most respects I am quite liberal/progressive, I strongly object to my constitutional rights being eroded and having big brother scrutinize me more & more every day.
Sacrifice your freedom for security and soon you will have neither.
i don't condone drunk driving, but there's probably a free speech argument in there somewhere. What's to stop two truckers on a CB radio from telling each other where the cops are located? Should the senators write letters to radio manufacturers
And that's exactly what CB radio users do, especially in the 70s - tell each other where law enforcement is hanging out.
Folks are having a hard time between avoiding law enforcement and encouraging illegal activity. The re-charting of your path to avoid law enforcement is quite a mental exercise. Speeders can do this - I'm not sure about the drunk.
Law enforcement does have a point with devices made to reduce the radar/ladar cross section of your vehicle - you actually *are* making it easier to break the law in their presence.
Potential murderers, otherwise known as drunk drivers, should not have any apps that aid them in their crimes. I believe that drunk drivers should be given the death penalty if their actions cause the death of somebody else.
What's next? An app for serial killers, to help them locate potential victims? How about an app for rapists while we're at it? \
The joke that a drunk driver would be to drunk to use the app isn't funny. You could be pretty drunk and still work an iPhone but that doesn't mean you should drive. I strongly believe that this APP should be removed.
What's next an APP that informs people where a drunk chick is passed out so guys can rape her? The DUI APP is a terrible idea.
What's really funny is that using a cell phone has been found to impair a driver more than being drunk!
Also if the apps end up making drivers more careful and observant (in the case of photo controlled intersections) or more aware, or even keeps them off the road (in the case of sobriety checkpoint apps,) I see no harm. Although I've never run a light or driven drunk, I doubt these apps will prevent a lawbreaker from being caught. I've always noticed that people with radar/laser detectors always seem to be in trouble with speeding tickets anyway.
Comments
We love to quote Benjamin Franklin and speak of the 1st Amendment as if it were written by gods. None of those signatories would have wanted to see civil rights used as an excuse to bend the law. We love to think we are blessed with some wider perspicacity that everyone else lacks and we are seeing 1984 in its infancy but the truth is this is stopping mindless, selfish morons from destroying real lives.
Sure it won't stop it on its own, sure the information is still available, but why present it to people in a nice neat package and let them abuse it?
This is a common sense request and I hope Apple grant it. I believe they will.
For example I've hit a number of these check points and frankly had questions asked that I really shouldnt have to answer. The where are you coming from or where are you going questions have nothing to do with drunk driving. Frankly I've heard these enough when I was going to college nights four or five times a week. Beyond that is the assumption that everybody on the road after 6:00 PM is drunk. That was years ago but I still run into these roadblocks from time to time and still find them offensive.
As others have stated there are better solutions out there. One of the best would be to simply screen everyone driving away from a bar. At least then you have probably cause.
In any event if these asses get away with this request what do you think will be requested next? If this isn't an example of people using their power in a damaging way I don't know what else would be. More so it looks like the age old technique of making noise over something minor to take focus off your failings.
I was amazed to read a poll that actually discovered most people on the internet (I assume that means blogs) spell 'hear hear' incorrectly as 'here here'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear
Meanwhile I personally feel that it's a bit like saying radar detectors should be banned or as someone else pointed out CB radios should be since they are used all the time for the same purpose. Frankly there are more important issues out there and I seriously doubt removing this app will stop a drunk from driving.
Here is a more serious issue IMHO ... using a cell phone while driving should be illegal. It's easy enough to have hands free systems. I see drivers every day go through red lights and wander all over the road while messing with a cell phone.
I'll ignore the patronising spelling correction. Its 4 AM here so you'll forgive the odd brain fart.
It might not stop a drunk from driving, but it will stop him driving and getting away with it as easily as loading an app. That might stop him driving the week after and killing someone.
I'll ignore the patronising spelling correction. Its 4 AM here so you'll forgive the odd brain fart.
It might not stop a drunk from driving, but it will stop him driving and getting away with it as easily as loading an app. That might stop him driving the week after and killing someone.
No, I was seriously surprised that more now spell it that way. It is like people saying 'I could care less' while meaning 'couldn't care less'. Here in the States if enough people change spelling or usage it ends up being accepted as correct. I was not intending to be patronizing. That spelling is now in use more so I assume it will be considered correct soon.
Back on the app ... Perhaps having the app would mean they'd hand over the keys if they knew the blocks were on the way home ... it can be argued both ways.
If that is correct then those senators had better be trying to get those laws changed as well.
Forget that. Make it the bars responsibility. After all they failed to cut someone off and then didn't call a cab. Let them pay the price. One month suspension of your liquor license each time the cops catch a drunk driver that is traced to that location. 3 times within six months and it's a total loss of the license.
And if the person causes an accident etc then the bar is charged with aiding and abetting or whatever.
You say make the bars responsible for your drinking habit, Then maybe we should make Cell Phone companies resposible for putting text messaging app on the phones for those who text and drive who are as dangerous., I could go on all day with the list but I am not going to.
I have been driving for over 38 year, and have gotten 1 ticket and that was speeding because I was trying to make my Dad's funeral, so obey the law and you will be fine.
I'll ignore the patronising spelling correction. Its 4 AM here so you'll forgive the odd brain fart.
Not all criticism or corrections are patronizing and based on the phrasing his comment was not patronizing. (BTW, the correct way to spell patronizing is with a ?z? unless you?re a limey bastard.
No, I was seriously surprised that more now spell it that way.
While technically incorrect and shouldn?t be used in any formal writing it?s one that I let slide and think will be adopted as acceptable in future dictionaries. My reasoning is the original usage of ?Hear! Hear!? was to express agreement with what is being said aloud, yet with internet forums you are quoting what has been expressed previously in text so ?hearing? doesn?t work, but the homonym ?here?, as in ?look here? does work. I think it works brilliantly that way for the voice of the internet generation.
It is like people saying 'I could care less' while meaning 'couldn't care less'. Here in the States if enough people change spelling or usage it ends up being accepted as correct..
OK, this one I do take issue with. The exclusion of ?not? completely alters the meaning and a little critical thinking should make most realize that. Even though we all exclude a negative like ?not? from our writings every now and then, it?s the excessive exclusion without understand what they could or couldn?t care less about that I feel is ignorant.
Tell that to the parents whose child has been run down by a drunk driver.
My cousin was killed by a drunk driver and a friend of mine was killed by a kid on drugs. I know about loss personally yet I know that government will take any bit of power it can. Though a letter isn't a law, it does have more influence due to the people who wrote it and support it being high ranking officials.
Government never gives back power or influence it has taken from people. Give government power to get results from complaining via a letter and they'll hold that as a precedent for them doing it again. Their ego's will be so inflated that if their letters don't get results they'll feel more offended and come at companies with laws and regulations in retaliation. Even if they fail at getting a specific law passed, they'll still hold sway over companies that don't comply by using tax codes or creating other regulations to spite companies that didn't do as they "requested".
This isn't about child porn, it's about publically available information that is legal to have and legal to share. Dodging searches is different than actively committing a crime.
People have the information... it is valuable... they will find a way to sell it.
That's all immaterial. For US Government officials to call for removal of information in the public domain it is flat out a priori censorship. The exact kind of governmental censorship the Constitution and the Amendments don't allow except in very controlled circumstances.
There are reasons for the government to quash free speech, like making it illegal to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater unless there really is reason to believe there is one. If they want these apps out I invite them to write a simple bill to do it, have it ratified, signed and we can let that get challenged in the courts to see if they did a good job of writing it or not.
Short of that, this is just good old publicity hounding at someone else's expense. It all sounds so cut and dried, mostly like a great thing to do. But when you actually think about it, it changes nothing other that letting a couple grandstanding elected officials drop a press release/conference. The chances a drunk will use it are slim to dropped. And if they are going to look ahead of time before getting drunk they are just as likely to watch the 6PM news where it gets announced ahead of time anyway.
And none of you have ever used or owned a radar detector?
You're talking like people are going to drink more, then get behind the wheel because they have the added security of a DUI checkpoint app. I mean, jeeze.
I bet all you high and mighty posters that are standing behind these four senators are most guilty of exceeding the speed limit, accelerating upon an amber light and texting while driving. Get off your high horse, hypocrites.
And none of you have ever used or owned a radar detector?
You're talking like people are going to drink more, then get behind the wheel because the have the the added security of a DUI checkpoint app. I mean, jeeze.
Yeah, I don’t see how one can be so foolish as to decide to drive drunk yet at the same time to have the presence of mind to check for DUI checkpoints on their iPhone.
If heavy drinking celebrities (like with Kiefer Sutherland and Mel Gibson) with excessive amounts of money can’t think of hiring a driver I can’t think the average person will think of checking for DUI checkpoints.
PS: Do people even use radar detectors anymore? I had friends that had them when i was a teenager. They didn’t seem very helpful.
Yeah, I don?t see how one can be so foolish as to decide to drive drunk yet at the same time to have the presence of mind to check for DUI checkpoints on their iPhone.
If heavy drinking celebrities (like with Kiefer Sutherland and Mel Gibson) with excessive amounts of money can?t think of hiring a driver I can?t think the average person will think of checking for DUI checkpoints.
PS: Do people even use radar detectors anymore? I had friends that had them when i was a teenager. They didn?t seem very helpful.
My man Solip!! I sure do miss you and your balanced, common sense words of wisdom. This forum sure isn't the same without you. Good to see you pop in every now and again in between your busy schedule.
My man Solip!! I sure do miss you and your balanced, common sense words of wisdom. This forum sure isn't the same without you. Good to see you pop in every now and again in between your busy schedule.
Thanks! My schedule has loosened up quite a bit. I should change my sig, but I was hoping to find something more productive to do with my time than posting on an internet forum for half a day. This place is addicting.
4th Amendment) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I seldom drink, and when I do it's always at home. So a DUI isn't of concern to me, but I want one of these apps. While in most respects I am quite liberal/progressive, I strongly object to my constitutional rights being eroded and having big brother scrutinize me more & more every day.
Sacrifice your freedom for security and soon you will have neither.
i don't condone drunk driving, but there's probably a free speech argument in there somewhere. What's to stop two truckers on a CB radio from telling each other where the cops are located? Should the senators write letters to radio manufacturers
And that's exactly what CB radio users do, especially in the 70s - tell each other where law enforcement is hanging out.
Folks are having a hard time between avoiding law enforcement and encouraging illegal activity. The re-charting of your path to avoid law enforcement is quite a mental exercise. Speeders can do this - I'm not sure about the drunk.
Law enforcement does have a point with devices made to reduce the radar/ladar cross section of your vehicle - you actually *are* making it easier to break the law in their presence.
The smart people can go where these spots are, assuming that the drunks are using other roads.
What's next? An app for serial killers, to help them locate potential victims? How about an app for rapists while we're at it?
The joke that a drunk driver would be to drunk to use the app isn't funny. You could be pretty drunk and still work an iPhone but that doesn't mean you should drive. I strongly believe that this APP should be removed.
What's next an APP that informs people where a drunk chick is passed out so guys can rape her? The DUI APP is a terrible idea.
What's really funny is that using a cell phone has been found to impair a driver more than being drunk!
Also if the apps end up making drivers more careful and observant (in the case of photo controlled intersections) or more aware, or even keeps them off the road (in the case of sobriety checkpoint apps,) I see no harm. Although I've never run a light or driven drunk, I doubt these apps will prevent a lawbreaker from being caught. I've always noticed that people with radar/laser detectors always seem to be in trouble with speeding tickets anyway.
What's next? An app for serial killers, to help them locate potential victims? How about an app for rapists while we're at it?
There're apps for that!
There're called Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Craig's List, etc.
Apparently they are also great for child molesters and, worst of all, . . . marketing and advertising executives.