Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Transportation Cellphones Communications

Text While Driving In Long Island and Have Your Phone Disabled 364

An anonymous reader writes: A District Attorney in Long Island, NY is stepping up efforts to combat distracted driving. Kathleen Rice says motorists who are caught texting while driving should have hardware or apps installed on their phone to prevent them from using it at all while driving. She likened such barriers to the ignition interlock devices that prevent people convicted of drunk driving from using their cars unless they're sober. "Hardware and software solutions that block texting during driving are currently produced by various manufacturers and software developers, and are constantly under development. The DA's office does not endorse any particular company and is in the process of reviewing specific solutions based on their features and services. Critical features include security measures to make the solutions tamper-proof, and data integrity measures to ensure accurate reporting to courts, law enforcement, parents, and guardians." New York is one of many states who already have laws banning all handheld use while driving.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Text While Driving In Long Island and Have Your Phone Disabled

Comments Filter:
  • It should be (Score:5, Informative)

    by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @08:57AM (#47870567)

    It should be the car that is disabled (or your license taken away)

    • Why not both?
    • Re:It should be (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:08AM (#47870645)
      Ironically, if you do text and drive, you are likely to become disabled.

      How any automated system will know if the phone is used by driver vs passenger is a challenge, I imagine.
      • Ironically, if you do text and drive, you are likely to become disabled.

        Based on US auto-accident rates, unless virtually everyone (99.99+%) of the population does NOT text while driving, it is rather UNLIKELY that you will become disabled as a result....

      • How any automated system will know if the phone is used by driver vs passenger is a challenge, I imagine.

        My suspicion is that they will simply not bother discriminating. If the phone is in motion on a roadway (it has GPS so it can tell) then it cannot send/receive text messages. If this means you have to wait until the car stops moving to text then so be it regardless of whether you are a driver or passenger. Text messages aren't reliable enough for any life saving use so unlike the problem with disabling cell phones in theaters there is no compelling first responder problem to deal with.

        While having to wai

        • by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @11:08AM (#47871567)

          Text messages aren't reliable enough for any life saving use

          That must be why 911 systems are adding text capability.

      • Re:It should be (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jeffmeden ( 135043 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @10:10AM (#47871115) Homepage Journal

        Ironically, if you do text and drive, you are likely to become disabled.

        How any automated system will know if the phone is used by driver vs passenger is a challenge, I imagine.

        They are OK with ignition interlocks that could easily be defeated if a non-inebriated passenger were to provide the breath for analysis. The idea is to put a barrier in front of a known offender, not to properly filter the actions of would-be offenders. One would think that this sort of reform/punishment would be offered in lieu of alternatives (i.e. you can get your license back in half the time, if you agree to have your phone locked/monitored) such that you can opt out, if you want to receive the normal punishment.

      • How about this...Faraday cage the car, then provide a cell phone antenna. To use it, you have to jack-in. And each jack has a separate IP address, so that all subsequent communication on that address can be tied to an individual. Maybe you have to dock your phone in your door, so that you can't steal someone else's jack. Ok, this is getting complicated. How about you take a hammer, and smash everyone's phone before they climb in your car?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by KiloByte ( 825081 )

      It boggles me why, on the left side of the pond, you have people with multiple DUI convictions who still get permits to drive on selected routes.

      Here in Poland, quite a few people push for the first DUI mean losing the driving license for life. I'd say that's overkill, but 5 years or so of absolute driving ban for a DUI would be just right. It's a kind of a murder attempt, after all.

      • by Krojack ( 575051 )

        It boggles my mind why people thinking taking away ones license will prevent them from driving. Afterall they didn't care to follow the law the first time.

      • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @11:01AM (#47871529)

        It boggles me why, on the left side of the pond, you have people with multiple DUI convictions who still get permits to drive on selected routes.

        First off, that doesn't happen very often and it's very unusual to see that. Most people with multiple convictions get their license pulled though some decide to drive without one which is obviously illegal. But sometimes life is more complicated than one sentence rhetorical questions. In a lot of the US it is impossible to be gainfully employed unless you have access to a car. There simply is no alternative transportation available. It's easy and glib to just say "screw em" but that's not really any sort of solution to the problem. Do that and you are often condemning a person to a life of poverty which may not be an appropriate punishment depending on the circumstances. While drunk driving is serious and should be taken seriously under the law, one size fits all punishments are rarely appropriate.

        I have a guy who works for me who did time in prison for a drunk driving conviction. Good person but an alcoholic who has been sober for 10 years now. He got his act together and is a reliable and valued employee. He screwed up and served his punishment but it wouldn't be right to never give him a second chance.

      • It's a kind of a murder attempt, after all.

        No, it's not. At all. There is no premeditation nor intent. If you get behind the wheel while drunk, you are making a more or less informed and conscious decision to increase your chances at causing an accident, and reduce your chances at avoiding one.

        I know that the comparison to murder is a popular view though; here (NL), some people call for the first DUI to mean losing your license, your car, your genitalia, or your head. In reality, there are degrees of being over the limit, and the punishment

  • 2nd phone (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrL0G1C ( 867445 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @08:58AM (#47870573) Journal

    What's to stop them buying a cheap 2nd phone?

    • by Shatrat ( 855151 )

      The ubiquitous surveillance that this measure would also advocate...

      • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        I read the articles and didn't see any such thing.

        DA Riceâ(TM)s Five-Point Plan to Reduce Driving While Texting focuses on using smartphone operating systems, auto insurance rate structures, court discretion, enhanced enforcement and enhanced public awareness efforts in order to help end the distracted driving epidemic

    • The phone is not the problem . . . the driver is the problem. That's why it would be better to suspend their license for a week or so.

      • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        A week, come on, that is not a deterrent. Over 20% of drivers are texting etc but only a small few get caught so what are the chances of getting caught twice?

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • she agrees that her hands can be lopped off as a "deterent" when she is pulled over for driving and eating/drinking.

  • by i.r.id10t ( 595143 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @08:59AM (#47870583)

    How would a system tell the difference between a driver and passenger in the car?

    • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:10AM (#47870661)

      I suppose the same way PawSense [bitboost.com] detects whether a cat or a human is using the device: when you text and drive, you have a funny way of using the device - because you're constantly switching between texting, putting down the device and driving, picking it back up after 10 seconds, and doing that over and over, as opposed to a human that's fully committed to the task of inputting text.

      • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        I usually get car sick if I don't spend most of my time looking out of the window / I don't think this would work for phones.

        And if the app is installed to one phone the driver can simply buy another phone. I don't know about the US but in the UK there is (was?) nothing stopping you buying a cheap phone with cash.

        If a person can't drive safely, ban them from driving... I can't wait for autonomous cars (with caveats), they will make it much easier for judges to make the decision to ban bad drivers.

        • In the US, you can not buy a phone anonymously - even prepaid. The retailer is supposed to ask for ID to link to it (not sure whether every oneactually does) or when you activate it you need to give the necessary information.
          • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

            Apparently that doesn't apply to pre-paid sims and I doubt it is enforced or applies to 2nd hand phones.

          • Not true at all. If you're buying a prepaid SIM, in some cases, they'll ask, but there's no real check - I know for a fact that a carrier with a large presence in South Florida has several hundred phones registered to "Dan Marino."

      • ... when you text and drive, you have a funny way of using the device - because you're constantly switching between texting, putting down the device and driving, picking it back up after 10 seconds, and doing that over and over, as opposed to a human that's fully committed to the task of inputting text.

        The people I have observed in traffic, seem to fall into the latter (fully committed) category. It's the driving task that gets put on hold for 10 seconds and then picked up again.

      • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

        You've never seen my wife text then.

      • by Krojack ( 575051 )

        I not only do that while riding in a car but also while sitting at my desk at work.

      • I suppose the same way PawSense [bitboost.com] detects whether a cat or a human is using the device: when you text and drive, you have a funny way of using the device - because you're constantly switching between texting, putting down the device and driving, picking it back up after 10 seconds, and doing that over and over, as opposed to a human that's fully committed to the task of inputting text.

        How would that be different than someone, say, texting while masturbating in the passenger seat of a moving car? A lot of sudden awkward pauses, shifts in position, device gets put down to pinch a nipple.

    • by pavon ( 30274 )

      They are evaluating different technologiess, some of which are implemented on and affect a single phone, others implemented with hardware in the car and affect all phones in the car. But even if it disables all phones in the entire car, I am completely fine with this. Yes it is inconvient, but it's not like it is being required as standard equipment on all cars all the time. It is only being applied to cars of people who broke the law and put others around them at risk. You want to keep using your phone whe

    • How would a system tell the difference between a driver and passenger in the car?

      The probably answer is that you don't bother. You simply determine if the vehicle is in motion on a road (via GPS) and disable sending and receiving until the vehicle stops moving for some period of time. I'm trying to figure out a reason why we need to care whether the texter is driving or not and honestly I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why we should worry about it. Yeah people will whine about it but we've proven that people can't help themselves so maybe a little tough love is in order?

      If you

      • by Krojack ( 575051 )

        Just this past summer I went on a family trip. I was a passenger in one car and we had 2 other cars going with us. One was following and the other was coming from another direction. I was often texting the passengers in the other vehicles finding out where they were, if they were stopping for a rest break or to get some food and where.

    • I'd expect a device (RFID?) that's active when the car is in operation would be installed in the owner's car, and the phone would have an app that's paired to the device check for its signal. Depending on the range, it may or may not reach passenger seats, but this would only be an issue when the person is a passenger in their own car.
  • The reason (Score:5, Funny)

    by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:00AM (#47870587)

    They don't want anyone texting out to warn people not to come to Long Island.

    • The U.S. will always be at war now, until the government is bankrupt. Should have listened to Eisenhower.

      No, you don't seem to understand. The US needs wars to keep its industries from bankruptcy. But yes, "will always be at war now" seems to be true.

  • If my wife is driving and I am riding then what?
    When we are driving together the passenger is in charge of all devices. When I am driving I set up my podcasts to play and nav before I start off.

    • by c ( 8461 ) <beauregardcp@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:16AM (#47870709)

      If my wife is driving and I am riding then what?

      It's supposed to be applicable to people caught (and, presumably, convicted) of texting and driving. I'm sure being stuck as a passenger with no interesting distractions other than the company of the driver and other passengers might be considered a living hell by some people, but such is life.

    • If my wife is driving and I am riding then what?

      Then you wait until the car stops moving probably. I don't mean to be snide (seriously) but it probably won't kill you to wait a few minutes/hours to receive or send a text message.

      When we are driving together the passenger is in charge of all devices.

      An excellent idea and bravo to you but FAR too many people clearly cannot be trusted to be so responsible. It's kind of gotten to the point where we simply cannot trust anyone to act responsibly. My question would be do you *really* need to receive text messages while moving in a car? Is the information THAT critical? I think

      • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

        "Then you wait until the car stops moving probably. I don't mean to be snide (seriously) but it probably won't kill you to wait a few minutes/hours to receive or send a text message."
        Why? Really why should I wait? I have an app on my phone that reads my text message if I am in my car. I never respond and it is no more distracting than the radio.

        Until you pass a law that says that you are never allowed to drink again once you have a DUI conviction or even better pass a law that says if you hit a motorcyclist

  • But... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:03AM (#47870615)

    But if you a cop you get a free pass.

    • by Isaac-1 ( 233099 )

      The sad thing is yesterday when driving home from work there was a cop in the other lane next to me texting while driving, the funny part about it was he had a neon blue smart phone cover.

      • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        That's similar to the Dunningâ"Kruger effect, it reminds me of a taxi driver that I admonished for his shitty driving, which he though was OK because he had passed an advanced driving test!

        Better trained so ok to act more dangerously.

      • The sad thing is yesterday when driving home from work there was a cop in the other lane next to me texting while driving, the funny part about it was he had a neon blue smart phone cover.

        Yeah, but they're allowed to run you down and kill you if they're checking work email while driving so I'm sure texting is perfectly fine.

    • by GrBear ( 63712 )

      No, not usually. The law is typically written to specifically exempt law enforcement and emergency responders.

  • by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:03AM (#47870621) Homepage
    First of all, it can't determine if you're a driver or passenger, so it will then disable your phone if you're a passenger. Not a huge deal if this is just a punishment, I guess. However it's still easily defeated by getting another phone. The right solution is to take away their driver's license for a period of time (2 weeks to start, and increasing amounts after that). Use your phone all you want, but don't drive.
  • How to distinguish whether the phone user is driving a car or riding a bus?
  • A deeper problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:18AM (#47870713)

    I can't believe we even need to consider using a forced lockout solution to keep people looking at the damn road.

    The fact that there are people that think it is OK to cruise down the road without even looking is terrifying. But it fits right in line with the people that I commute with every day that don't know what a yield sign is, can't merge properly, and leave their turn signals on for miles if they even bother to use them at all. I have close friends that have driven straight over a roundabout and laughed it off. Hell I was almost t-boned by a lady who ran a red light at full speed (my advance green) and she had the confidence to turn out the window and yell at me for it (on her phone too).

    I hate how carefree we are about driving here. One easy paper test, and a road test to prove you understand which side of the road to drive on and where the pedals are and here you go, licensed to drive for life as long as you can pass a vision test every few years. We're up in arms about gun control, but we put our kids behind the wheel of a few tons of metal that hurtles around at high speed in a sea of other vehicles and we treat it like a god-given right.

  • I did recently see a device that plugs into the OBD-II port under the steering wheel. It apparently signals the phone when it's on the driver's side of the car and won't allow texting when moving - when the app is installed on said phone. If the phone is on the other side of the car, it's too far away to hear the inhibit signal and will work... when it's in the hands of the passenger or in a back seat. http://www.cellcontrol.com/tex... [cellcontrol.com] and probably a few other similar products.

    The solution for NY thoug

    • ... why the fuck would you ever want to plug a device into your odb-II port that has wireless communications? That's likely to get you killed.

    • I have a feeling we'll have to go full retard to forcibly stop drivers from texting while driving. Like, putting a microcell in the car. That would be a good way to handle vehicle-to-vehicle communications, though, which is probably coming whether we like it or not. If the microcells built a mesh it would also solve the last mile problem pretty conclusively.

  • Is that if the device in the car prevents the phone from functioning the manufacturer of the device will get a visit from the FCC. If it's accelerometer based - ok fine. But nothing prevents the person from using a different phone, a burner if you will. But another thought comes up - will passengers be able to text and use their phones? Or is the device indiscriminate?
  • Bad idea in NJ too. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ronin Developer ( 67677 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:25AM (#47870773)

    A friend of mine was nailed last month in NJ for simply picking up her mobile device and a cop happened to see her (yes, illegal to operate a hand-held device in NJ). She uses the phone hands free via bluetooth. She was using it as a GPS, in a town she didn't know well, and couldn't see the screen due to sunglare. She learned a hard lesson that day (as did a bunch of others) after a $160 fine and a mandatory traffic court appearance away during working hours. She now has her phone mounted in a better position rather than putting on the seat so she isn't inclined to pick it up. Judge said that met State requirements - at least in his court.

    A funny story - back in the late 80's, when radar detectors were all the rage, one of my enlisted men got pulled over by a VA Trooper. As the trooper approached, the kid got out of the car and threw his $200+ state-of-the-art radar detector on the ground smashing it into pieces and calling it a worthless POS. Trooper shakes his head and starts to laugh. Kids asks why? Trooper responds that they don't use radar in VA - they use VASCAR. But, he was being pulled over because his tail lights weren't working correctly and the trooper simply wanted to warn him about it.

    • Radar is widely used in Virginia (which I know from unfortunate experience). Also, radar detectors are illegal and are themselves enough to prompt the police to pull you over. The people who I knew that had radar detectors ultimately lost them to police seizure. None of this should have been a surprise to anyone, given the many "RADAR DETECTORS ILLEGAL" signs at the state borders.
    • A friend of mine was nailed last month in NJ for simply picking up her mobile device and a cop happened to see her (yes, illegal to operate a hand-held device in NJ). She uses the phone hands free via bluetooth. She was using it as a GPS, in a town she didn't know well, and couldn't see the screen due to sunglare. She learned a hard lesson that day (as did a bunch of others) after a $160 fine and a mandatory traffic court appearance away during working hours. She now has her phone mounted in a better position rather than putting on the seat so she isn't inclined to pick it up. Judge said that met State requirements - at least in his court.

      A funny story - back in the late 80's, when radar detectors were all the rage, one of my enlisted men got pulled over by a VA Trooper. As the trooper approached, the kid got out of the car and threw his $200+ state-of-the-art radar detector on the ground smashing it into pieces and calling it a worthless POS. Trooper shakes his head and starts to laugh. Kids asks why? Trooper responds that they don't use radar in VA - they use VASCAR. But, he was being pulled over because his tail lights weren't working correctly and the trooper simply wanted to warn him about it.

      Today that enlisted man would have been tasered, beaten, and arrested for assault on a police officer and resisting arrest.

      Ahhh, progress...

  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:27AM (#47870791) Homepage Journal
    You could apply hardware to the DRIVER [usatoday.com] that prevents them from texting while driving. That seems to work more effectively than more complicated technical solutions.
  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:28AM (#47870793)
    While I hate people that drive and text, I don't see the solution proposed by the article as effective. Phones are cheap enough and portable enough that there is no way to enforce such "interlock" if the user does not want to comply.

    Fundamentally, text and driving is an interface design problem. Instant messaging interfaces are designed to almost fully occupy your attention while information conveyed is nearly trivial to cognitively process. As such, removing the need to type with your thumbs on a tiny screen to text would be my recommended solution.
    • While I hate people that drive and text, I don't see the solution proposed by the article as effective. Phones are cheap enough and portable enough that there is no way to enforce such "interlock" if the user does not want to comply.

      Having your phone changed so it can't text while you are driving would be one thing. Being caught again with a different phone will probably get you into one hell of trouble.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:34AM (#47870831)

    >> Kathleen Rice says motorists who are caught texting while driving

    And convicted. So, this rule will only apply to the lower and middle classes who can't afford the lawyers to beat the ticket down to some other charge, then?

    • And it translates to MORE REVENUE for police departments have moved away from "protect and serve" to "find that revenue".

      Fines are supposed to discourage a certain behavior. And in the case of the poor, the fines are not reduced based on income -- they are a higher percentage of that person's income. The theory of discouragement is therefore false because the poor get a greater penalty relative to the rich, and they also are fined more frequently. Guilt or Innocence meet equal punishment as well, if not mor

  • What character set do I have to use in Firefox to stop "£ ÎνáÏfÎÏ gnÅsis, " from happening on my slashdot posts?

  • by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @09:46AM (#47870925) Homepage
    As a motorcyclist who does not own a car, I notice this constantly: totally distracted, careless drivers. Usually lined up in the median or shoulder in teams of two or three with a dumbfounded, perplexed look on their face as to how this all could have come to be and why the police are even present, despite extensive damage present to their vehicle. the key point ive noticed is that it is not just cellular phones. the problem is much, much bigger.

    1. the floorboard.: what in the hell is down there. drivers wobbling in lane face-down in the passengers seat or pretzeled around into god forbid the rear floorboard of the car. is it the shire? does frodo live down there? did you lose the one ring?
    2.Food: im not sure what it is about burritos and burgers, but they have the magical ability to turn any sane driver into a maniac. even the expression on their faces while shoveling calories into their face is disconcerting. Drivers multitask too, so its not uncommon to see some lard-lad juggling a starbucks liquid candy bar and some awful breakfast sandwich trying to merge into 5 lanes of good-morning gridlock.
    3.the goddamn car.: Acura and Audi drivers are the worst. im not sure what future-perfect ameneties these cars have to be saddled with in order to attract millenials and mid-lifers but id give anything if they were disabled during transit. Usually its some white-collar clown button-mashing the console or prodding in a dazed stupor at the enormous screen in the vehicle. that lane-change warning technology likely compensates for some kind of brain-damage induced by corinthian leather and more brass than sense.
    4. phones.: I get it, in gridlock it seems pleasant to text someone but speaking from experience its nothing short of stupid. Ive personally watched as an inattentive driver, at impulse speed, slowly mount a curb in their ford excursion and proceed to deacpitate a parking meter in plain view of a traffic cop.

    the reason drivers get away with this shit is because the repercussions are limited. disabling their phones isnt going to help, you need to start docking points from their license and sending them to remedial drivers ed. texting while driving should triple your insurance rate.
    • by u38cg ( 607297 )
      Quite. I cycle in central London. I would die every other day if I didn't take responsibility for dealing with other drivers' mistakes.
    • 1. What's down there? Probably their makeup, or electric razor, as appropriate.
      2. I never have understood why people who are eating on the road can't slow the shit down. On the rare occasion that I decide to do the same, that's what I do. I get over into the cud-chewing lane and stay there.
      3. Acura and Audi are among the marques with a stupid control scheme for their onboard display which controls everything. BMW and Mercedes do it, too.
      4. Motorcyclists can use phones now, too :p

  • It's pretty sad that situations like this lead down the road to a nanny state.. but the people texting and driving don't seem to realize they're the driving it in that direction.

    Also, to the comments about the popo getting a free pass, in some places LEO's and emergency response are specifically exempted under the law to use their data terminals and conversely their GPS apps.

  • No, it's all the other people who make accidents when driving and using the mobile. Not me. I can handle it. I can also handle my alcohol, won't get addicted, know when to stop, and all that. But I need the nanny state to keep all those other lesser humans in line, so I can be free to be an induhvidual and chase my american dream.
  • Since the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cell phones impair drivers as much as over-the-limit blood alcohol does, the penalties for cell-phone-distracted driving should be as severe as for drunk driving, and we also need a campaign to stigmatize it the way drunk driving has been.

  • Way too often do I see someone swerving around the Southern State Parkway playing with their little phone and trying to steer straight. I see at least one or two people per week doing their little "oh shit" swerve when they realize they are about to side swipe someone or run off the road. I say this is just as dangerous as drunk driving. Anyone caught swerving and texting should be arrested, car towed and impounded, and license suspended for no less than 6 months. Severe punishment but necessary to stop the

  • Given that governments usually buy the crappiest software out there, this will be easily cracked. Not that I'm suggesting people do this, mind you.

  • The only way this will problem will be corrected is when a horrific event occurs. Then people will care. Now they just check the phone and think they are in control.

  • Google Maps to get directions? I know that around here, they don't even make a distinction.
  • A driver who is legally deemed drunk faces far more serious consequences, while creating a similar degree of hazard to the public. Furthermore, the drunk has impaired judgement, while the texter has no such excuse. Or, to put it another way, "Git a rope."
  • by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @12:05PM (#47872277)

    except that the greedy Telcos are standing in the way of it. It would be trivial for Apple, Samsung, etc. to program their phones so that distracting features such as texting could be disabled once the motion detector in the phone detects that the owner is traveling at a given speed. When the car comes to a stop, it's all working again.

    Study after study has shown that texting while driving is at least as distracting as being moderately drunk and operating a vehicle. Yet the Telcos consistently lobby against any legislation that attempts to limit the use of texting. Why? Because the more text messages people send the more money they make. The more time your eyes are on that screen the more ad revenue places like Facebook make.

    So they will continue to fight it. Just like Budweiser would fight the notion of limiting patrons to 2 drinks at a bar. It's taking money out of their collective pockets. Unless and until corporations begin to think of the collective good none of this will ever change. We get the society that we deserve.

The solution of problems is the most characteristic and peculiar sort of voluntary thinking. -- William James

Working...