MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Hail to Chief Reagan!

Next they will try to pass a law making it illegal to be alive... give me a break.

so they didn't ban walkmen in the 80's nor portable cd players in the 90's? why the ipod, huh?

I assume you New Yorkers will be voting this a-hole out of office...

non starter
this bill will never make it out of committee, in fact it may just get tabled until it dies

The weirdos that get elected...geeze!

Don't care what you think about Pres. Reagan and his politics (I personally liked the guy), but what's relevant is that he's right in this respect, government CAN go to far in protecting us, and I believe this bill is an exmple of that.

Sort of like making it illegal to hang yourself.

They need to ban schizophrenia, too. All the voices are really distracting when Joan of Arc and I are beaming messages to our Martian overloads from the Apple kabba. I mean, duh-- it just makes sense.

Please, government-- save us from ourselves!!!!

Yeah WOW, you just can't describe how rediculous this is getting. I can understand while driving because then it's not just your life you messing with, but walking?

I guess while we're at it, impose it on joggers. For Christ sake they may run into you why changing a songs and you could be killed or maimed.

"Next they will try to pass a law making it illegal to be alive..."
Life is a sexually transmitted sickness with a 100% mortality rate!

mw: nature

New York State Senator should suck my thumb.

leave it to liberals. there is not an issue they can't legislate around. next up: banning looking at members of the opposite sex and same sex. we must equally protect heterosexuals and homosexuals from each other. you must now gaze at the sidewalk when you move about town. ah but wait, there is a fine for gazing at the sidewalk when you walk about, you are not "tuned in" to your surroundings and will be fined.

democracy at its finest. useless legislation - what liberals are great at.

gow

starting now is illegal to say: give me a break.
you've been warned

But I can still use my glorious and more superior brown Zune, right? GREAT!

Sounds like a stupid law to me, luckily it won't affect me, the british government are still going on about who's gonna lead after Blair....

Taking cash from ATMs is asking to be mugged.
Ordering hot food or drink is asking to be burned.
Walking upright means you'll eventually fall down.
Fast talking is asking for high blood pressure.
Hand shaking is asking for diseases.
Being in any public facilities is asking for worst diseases.
Being born is eventually asking for death.

You're not agoraphobic just properly governed.

Well----Nu Yawkuz---What do you expect?

You can't legislate against stupidity.

Between a cell phone and an iPod, the cell phone is ten times worse...but I digress. Let's also ban these distractions while crossing an intersection:

Picking your nose
Beautiful women with large jiggly breasts
Ugly bermuda shorts
Sunglasses
Blind people
Deaf people
Dumb people (the Zune Tang kind not the cannot speak kind)
Anyone walking with scissors or a sharp pointy stick


In fact, it is just safer to ban crossing an intersection altogether.

Yeah, you just try to pry the BlackBerry (and soon iPhone) from the hands of the average NY business person and see how far you get. Hey, I have an idea, why don't we ban them from Washington DC so politicians stop listening to Rush Limbaugh's podcast and start working for US for a change? Who's with me?

-c

Makes more sense to ban the damn cars, if you ask me.

"Beautiful women with large jiggly breasts"

Someday I will not be allowed in New York at all. I mean, they already banned Trans Fat...

Aye, Dios mio!

"leave it to liberals. there is not an issue they can't legislate around. next up: banning looking at members of the opposite sex and same sex. we must equally protect heterosexuals and homosexuals from each other. you must now gaze at the sidewalk when you move about town. ah but wait, there is a fine for gazing at the sidewalk when you walk about, you are not "tuned in" to your surroundings and will be fined.

democracy at its finest. useless legislation - what liberals are great at."


Funny, most of what you are discussing here was brought about by conservatives. You know, the ones who "say" they are for smaller government then try to legislate their morals on you.

I am hoping that you are writing this tongue in cheek, but with dubya's evangelists you ever know.

Another attempt to legislate common sense (or what should be).

If only Reagan said something about exercising better judgement so government doesn't the need to do it for you. Maybe that's the natural extension to this quote, anyway.

Hit by a car.
Hit by a blaring ambulance.
Mugged.
Missed emergency phone call.
etc...

---

Let's stand up for the right to be hit by cars if we want!

Instead of saving people from their own stupidity, why don't we let morons improve the gene pool by deleting themselves from the human database?

Back about the time of the Mandatory Seat Belt Laws, I read an essay in Car & Driver making this recommendation regarding seat-belt usage. I think it applies here as well.

As to the liberal bashing posts above (webbyswim, for example), how can someone be for personal freedom (and against big brother government) and oppose free choice for women seeking abortion services? It's not just liberals that seek to restrict people's private decisions.

does it still make sense to say that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom?

Indeed, you can't legislate against stupidity, but certain kinds of stupidity can be discouraged by having financial consequences - a fine. Because common sense isn't that common.

Alternatively, why not make everything legal? If you survive, you're smart. If not, society is simply improving the gene pool?

Or is it a matter of striking a balance - some things are so bad/so stupid that we want to strongly discourage them, particularly if the consequences (public hospital care) are significant and expected.

If you ban them will there will be fewer Darwin award winners?

MW=idea as in "Passing this as a law would be a DUMB idea."

"leave it to liberals. there is not an issue they can't legislate around. next up:"

I doubt you even know what a true liberal is or even what liberal means. Of course you think you do because some neo-con pinhead has told you what it means. But if it makes you feel more comfortable blaming liberals for everything then go ahead. As long as there's some comfort in your life stopping you from going postal on people.

I for one think it's stupid to legislate this. We could just go on and on and on legislating behavior.

Here's one. Idiot people in malls with strollers not paying attention banging into people's shins. Let's legislate that away maybe.

Discuss.

(whacks bee's nest and leaves)

O.K., but add a codicil to the bill that excludes Zune users from having to comply. They're easy enough to spot.

Oh my God! The bodies of iPod users are piling up as high as the Empire State building! The sky is falling! (Er, is there another issue I can ride like a straw horse to advance my political career?)

MW: still. Be still Sen. Kruger and take your meds.

I live in New York City. Let them try to enforce that here... Everyone has an iPod. There wouldn't be enough police officers.

"Because common sense isn't that common."

Common sense is common, dead common. What is uncommon is good sense.

I generally agree that laws to protect people from there own stupidity are a bad thing. But even the brightest of people sometimes do stupid things. Deciding whether to pass a law to protect the public is, as usual, a matter of moderation and balance in all things. If people who are stupid enough to smoke were only harming and irritating there own lungs I would not support a law against smoking. But they are harming and annoying others, so I do support a smoking ban in public places. But seat belt laws? No, let the chlorine cleanse the gene pool!

THAT IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER STUPID LAW FOR STUPID PEOPLE INVENTED BY STUPID SENATORS.

Ahhhh....if someone is wearing an ipod, walks in front of a car and gets killed, how is that not affecting other people?. What about the driver of a car. He or she never asked to be scarred for life because of someone elses stupidity. Even committing suicide is the comfort of one's home cannot be said to not affect other people and except in cases of extreme illness is a immensely selfish and cowardly act.

It always amazes me how people who rant about their rights and freedoms think nothing of trampling others.

"Beautiful women with large jiggly breasts"

The ones with multitouch interfaces -- iBabes!

It is not ipods that kill people, it is the cars. In the US over 40,000 people a year are killed on the roads. Cars are a much greater danger to the average person than terrorism.

Just banning cars in NYC. That would make it much safer for everyone. As a side benefit, greenhouse gas emissions would also be reduced and NYC will not be flooded in 100 years. Oh yeah, and by not buying gas, the flow of money would be cut off to Iran and other "enemies" of the US. It is a win-win.

A lot of validity in that one.

I'm still waiting for them to legalize the Segway here in Ontario which would be a great boon in so many ways. Getting serious about global warming my asss. And yet the Ontario government is putting it a five year study in London Ontario to study whether the Segway makes sense. Whether it is safe or not. I suppose if you banned cars and replaced them all with Segways the injury rate would drastically (really drastically) go down. Of course the Segway is safe. Will people get hurt with them, of course. But certainly people getting injured was really an issue cars would have been much more severely regulated than they have ever been.

Hard to kill people on a Segway I would imagine. But certainly possible. (More likely if one is wearing an ipod I suppose)

Banning cars in large city cores - that is an interesting idea.

You would still need trains, buses, delivery trucks, taxis, limos, so you wouldn't be eliminating pollution/global warming. But it would cut it down a lot. 40%? 70%?

A simple approach with limited police involvement could be auto toll booths - license for personal cars is priced according to how badly you want to discourage cars - 50/month? 200/month? 500/month? I understand London England has this.

And, like some toll highways use, take a picture of your license plate if you don't have a pass resulting in a major ticket sent to the vehicle owner (say 500/incident). And you can't renew your plates with outstanding tickets.

@ChrissyOne


Perhaps you could get an exemption from th NTC mayor

errrr....the NYC mayor...not their transit commission

Let's Strike a Blow for Freedom
Let's all go to NYC, fire up our iPods, light up a cigarette (or a jay/roach/doobie) in a public place, walk around and gawk at the bottled water/granola/health club/suit & tie-nazis as they react in horror at people acting like humans (Oh! the humanity!). Mayor Bloomberg can KMA. The diesel exhaust in NYC will kill you just as dead as any second hand smoke from tobacco- ask the coroner for the late Ms C Reeve (a lifetime non-smoker and lung cancer victim). I'm not saying smoking isn't bad- just that it's a convenient whipping boy for the do-gooders and health nazis.

With all of the problems facing our nation and the world, the only thing I have to say to any elected official, of any party, is that they need a new line of work. The government that governs least usually governs best, and that includes personal choices as well as heavy handed regulation of business interests. If a fat-cat Wall Street investor is free to pollute my air by financing coal fired electrical plants in my back yard, I should be free to blow my second hand smoke in his face in his back yard. It cuts both ways.

MDN - the quote from Ronald Reagan is exactly what is wrong with New York. Our state government thinks it knows better than you and is out to protect you from you.

Well I should say that and being a freakin' well-fare state. The latest gift to the "poor" - our governor's proposal that personal property tax be partly based on a person's income. Two exact same homes and yards right next to one another will not necessarily pay the same in taxes. The person making more money will pay more in taxes. Why is it that 2 does not equal 2 and we call that fair?

I'm not sure how much BS I can stand coming out of Albany.

Peace. (For MY sanity.)

I'm still waiting for them to legalize the Segway here in Ontario

heh - you learn something new everyday. I had no idea Segways weren't legal in Ontario. I can understand banning them on account of how silly one looks on them, but for safety reasons? Come on!

Crossing a street in NYC is dangerous enough without having to try it with no ability to hear oncoming traffic.

Looking both ways does help.

Contemplating your navel does not help.

Perhaps the traffic hazard is merely doing nature's work and weeding out the unfit.

Future generations will thank the iPod for their better genes.

sweet quote, MDN.

Among the billion other problems we have here in NY...I'm sure walking across the street with your iPod isn't on top of that list.

How about lowering taxes a bit in the most taxed state...hm?

I would think that air pollution, smoking, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, lack of exercise, poor diet, nonadherence to medication regimens, medication errors, muggings, rapes, assaults, and murders in NYC are far more dangerous to the average person than wearing an iPod. If the Honorable Senator from New York would provide hard data regarding the hazards experienced by those living in NYC, I would be grateful to see them,

“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” - Ronald Reagan

Great quote and it certainly should be true. This is a waste of governments time and tax payers money. It's like everyone who has something against the iPod wants to create a stupid law or something. Totally rediculous!