When I lived in Germany, insurance companies had a limit on yearly profits. If they mad too much, customers got a rebate. It really does work. Companies have an incentive to make a profit, but not to the extent of really screwing people. However, I don't see how we can implement it as long as our government is "owned" by industry.
I work a branch of NIH. They seems to be sold on the idea of Microsoft. Some time back, there was a mandate (I think at the DHHS level) to consolidate everything into Active Directory. Unfortunately, the admins are clueless that this left out all of the non-MS systems. Now they are starting to use add-on software, like Centrify, to proceed with this dumb idea. I see all sorts of trouble ahead for people like me who work in an MS-free office.
If it were up to me, I would BAN any Microsoft systems related to email. Don't people realize that MS email products are the major computer virus vector?
I think he only showed public areas that thousands of people have access to. How can they say this was sensitive security information?
I thought the tarmac was supposed to be a secure area. Do the workers not go through any security screening at all??
In any case, it is obvious that TSA is just for show. We can assume that there will be no more successful hijackings for kamikaze purposes, because passengers will suspect it, and no longer be passive captives. All that TSA can prevent is the bombing of a single plane, which is less effective than bombing a movie theater, where there is no security screening.
The sad part is that there are so many naive Americans that are fooled by the TSA show.
Capitalism needs regulation to work well. We need government regulations to avoid "unfair" competition. Much of our recent economic failure could have been prevented by better regulation. The problem is that government regulation often degenerates into a corrupt system that actually breaks fair competition, as seen here by this article and by Stuarts comments. It is similar to the modern abuse of the patent system. We need to spend more effort on removing bad laws instead of always adding new ones.
It would a lot more sense to turn off analog transmission in steps in stead of all at once. Some people in the country can get a fuzzy but usable signal, but will not be able to tune in digital.
They should at least leave one analog channel running for a while for emergency/weather broadcasts for all of those portable emergency TV+radios. My guess is that they are in a hurry to make money from selling all of the new bandwidth.
It is a waste of the legal system to define specific types of inattentive driving. Do we need a law about driving with your eyes closed? Changing radio channels can be a distraction.
If your behavior shows inattention and therefore unsafe driving, you should get pulled off the road and ticketed. If you can do 5 other tasks and still drive well (i.e. because you are a helicopter pilot and cars are simple) then it should not be a problem.
Personally, I think cell phones should be hands-free, because you should always drive with both hands on the wheel. You have much better control in case of an emergency. But, drivers licenses are so easy to get in the USA that overall poor driving skills are a much bigger problem.
If the plan really was "for life", maybe the phone was allowed to expire. If you let the plan expire, even if you have minutes left, you start over with a new phone number and probably lose the double-for-life benefit (but you don't lose minutes until a few months.) They also send you text messages to warn of an approaching expiration.
I have used Tracfone for years and am very satisfied. It is a great system for someone that does not use a lot of minutes per month.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Joe K.