The Downfall of the Ipod.

[PAAI]

I feel sorry for you guys (and Gals) in New York These days:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/a_ban_on_ipods_.html

[AudibleSolutions]

It's not law yet. There are also laws against speeding and using cell phones without hands free devices while driving that are avoided and often left uninforced. As with most things, if you're not caught you must not have comitted any offense.

Alan

[Theaterworks]

If an I-Pod is left playing in the middle of the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, is it still breaking the law?

I'll see your I-Pod law and raise you a fois gras appetizer with a municipal fine on the side.

[2ndRick]

I think a more important development in the future of the iPod is the fact M$ Vi$ta is NOT compatible with iTunes...

Steve Jobs says that M$ are being uncooperative with Apple's developers in regard to giving Apple guidance to produce a Vi$ta compatible version of iTunes...

[tschulte]

Would that be like the first versions of the iPod that didn't come with Windows software? Mr. Jobs, it is a 2 way street.

[TedW]

did I miss something? doesn't MS own part of Apple now?

[2ndRick]

Would that be like the first versions of the iPod that didn't come with Windows software? Mr. Jobs, it is a 2 way street.
Nowhere near apples to apples... (pun intended)

Apple came out with their device and their software, which was compatible with their PCs... When it became crystal clear that this device would transcend the split between the Apple vs. Wintel camps, they put resources into creating the iTunes for Windows...

The thing is that iTunes for Windows was not a matter of Apple not allowing Microsoft to make it happen... It was Apple's software for their own device... so the development was all-Apple, and they brought it to market when they saw that there was a demand.

IMO, the Vista issue is just M$ trying to drive sales of their Zune machine...

[2ndRick]

did I miss something? doesn't MS own part of Apple now?
M$ bought 10% of Apple many years ago, but I don't know if they still hold that ownership, of it Apple bought it back...

[COMediaSys]

This is where the Libertarian comes out of a conservative fellow...

It seems like it's a bit Darwinian. If the idiots are losing common sense when they put the white earbuds in their ears then it means less stupid people down the road. Seriously, do we really need to be THAT protected? I thought I grew up a long time ago.

[djnorm]

Maybe there should be a helmet law... Like - you have to wear a helmet if you want to listen to your iPod and cross the street.

Just thinking out loud...

[AudibleSolutions]

The problem is the following and the law is wrong but as I understand it this is the law. If you cross in the middle of a busy street against the light and a car hits you it is the driver and his insurance company that are liable, even for your stupidity. If that driver is uninsured that it is everyone who pays for that person's health care or if he's seriously injured he gets disability. A driver ought to pay attention but if you are driving along at 30 mph and someone just steps into your path there isn't much you can do. Stupidity comes with few penalties in this case. I'm not sure you can legislate against stupidity but the theory behind seatbelt laws is that an individual's foolishness effects society as a whole in so far as society needs to pay, in the form of increased insurance premiums and Social Security, for that foolishness.

If you wish to drink in the privacy of your home, do drugs, fly aircraft, jump out of air craft, work without safety goggles then you assume the risk. When you then ask society to underwrite your risky behavior in the form of health, automobile insurance or Social Security society has the right to impose restrictions on your behavior. This is not a new concept. For millions of years sexual behavior was regulated by communities because the outcome of that act could result in the community having to support a child. Hence the colloquial "shotgun wedding." I certainly agree that this has gone too far but I do understand where it comes from. The social costs of individual stupidity can be quite high.

Alan

[Kelly]

I'm not sure you can legislate against stupidity .


Sure you can!

Many of the laws enacted over the years were enacted in an attempt, quite uselessly, to protect the dim ones in our society from themselves.

To stupid to wear a motorcycle helmet, we'll make a law forcing you to so. To stupid to wear the seatbelt that is in the car, we'll enact a law forcing you to do so. To stupid to realize that the Ipod prevents you from hearing a firetruck siren, we'll enact a law to force you to not use them where firetrucks are.

Best example? You're to stupid to realize that driving at 100 mph in town is not smart, we'll enact laws forcing you to drive a more reasonable speed.

And of course, as we all know, damn few pay ANY attention to these laws anway......:lol:


The social costs of individual stupidity can be quite high.

Alan


Now THAT we do agree on. Look at the social cost of "W".....:smile:

[FRR]

The social costs of individual stupidity can be quite high.

Especially when they're only maimed/crippled. Maybe Insurance companies should give incentives for being able to finish the job. That would have less of an impact on society. It could be classified as supporting the "Law of Natural Selection".;-)

I know a bad joke. :-(

[lowvoltguy]

Is this about Ipod's or more like listening to music using earbuds/headphones while driving?

[2ndRick]

Is this about Ipod's or more like listening to music using earbuds/headphones while driving?
It has always been illegal (or at least as long as I have been driving) to listen to headphones while driving...

this is a proposition to make it illegal to use headphones (or a cell phone earbud) while walking across the street...

[PAAI]

How I interpreted the article is not just on or across the street, but even on the sidewalk.

[Beau]

I swear...NY has really gone downhill. Another vote for California :mrgreen: