What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
302 Comments
- robwicks, on 10/12/2007, -15/+204The day is rapidly approaching where all behavior will either be forbidden or required. I never would have thought the trans-fat ban would have gotten far, but that seems to have gained steam, so I would not be surprised if something like this eventually gets through. It's pretty sick that people roll over for these types of rights violations but that's government for you.
- nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -13/+165How long before Boston pulls this? "oh no, it's got a battery and wires!!!!"
- jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -6/+121The real point here is a couple of dolts are hit by a car, because they "needed that new ring tone" is not determinative of the majority of the people's ability to cross the street without being hit by a car. This sort of paternalism is dangerous.
- negativefx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+113Umm, how about "You're not allowed to use an iPod or Cell Phone while crossing the street if you're a complete ***** retard that can't look both ways before crossing."
I've seen DOGS look both ways before crossing the street. In my opinion, everyone should be required to talk on a cell or listen to an ipod...weed out the idiots. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -82/+183Thank you Democrats. You wanted trans fat banned, now starts the slippery slope to "protect you."
- ohmytodd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+91what they really need to ban are Light Brights!!! Those are the real threat!
- Klisk, on 10/12/2007, -26/+109The trans-fat ban makes sense, though. America is the only country without a restriction on transfats, and it shows doesn't it?
Ipods, on the other hand, that's just silly....
I wish I could get my mom to stop using the cellphone in restaurants, though. She just give me angry glares if I tell her it's impolite to talk on the phone while ~eating~. So we end up having entire evenings where she's obnoxiously clammering away on the phone, and everyone in the restaurant is pissed.. She's oblivious to it. Makes no sense, but her attitude is, "OH NO ONE CARES I DON'T GIVE A *****. WHO WROTE THOSE RULES? I CAN USE MY CELLPHONE ANYWHERE." Nevermind that I haven't spoken to her in over 4 years without her cellphone interrupting. So what are you gonna do? - sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -3/+73#2. Help the chicken across if you can.
- plgonzalez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+66Rule #1 about crossing the street... look both ways!
- mturlock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+58Why does there have to be a law for EVERYTHING? What happened to common sense? I think that if someone has an pod in their ears and they don't bother looking before crossing a city street, they deserve to get hit. Seems cold hearted to say, but it's survival of the fittest. We need to thin out the heard.
- awm4, on 10/12/2007, -8/+64anti gun, anti smoking, anti trans fat it is all for the same reason, the US government feels that it can do a better job protecting us than we can do ourselves.
I am not a child and I should be able to make my own decisions about my own body. It is becoming socially acceptable to support this babysitter type govt based upon what may seem like a good health practices for the masses. But in reality every time a law is made to "protect us from our unhealthy decisions" more of our rights a being stripped from us. - NICU, on 10/12/2007, -24/+72They're only introducing the bill... nothing says its going to pass. Even if it does pass, they'll never be able to enforce it.
- dstreelm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42So while walking down the street with my ipod, i will be required to take out the earbuds or face ticketing/fines?!?!?
I think you can all join me in a big "***** you" - jspegele, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40It'll be like jaywalking, or talking on cellphone while driving . . . one in a thousand people who break the law will actually get a ticket for it.
- jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41That's not the point. The fact that someone wants to introduce this bill is staggering. Face it. There is a segment of socialism within our electorate. Look at Hillary saying she wants to "take those profits" from oil companies. Now you may or may not think the record profits are fair but to advocate taking legally gained profits from a company is patently socialistic if not communistic in nature. The movement in this country is to slowly lull us into these ideas. Banning cigarette smoking here and there, banning trans-fats, etc. As an interesting side, one of the replacement fats food companies are looking at substituting, as it turns out elevates your risk of diabetes and hurts cholesterol levels itself. Remember the freon scare? Now refridgerators account for more pollutants during production than the old systems did during their usage. We're all ready to give up someone else's rights but eventually it comes around. By then, what can you do? Get pissed, like those before you!
Think about this: Our children will never know the level of freedoms we enjoy today. - jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30@jspegele
That's not the point. The point is they CAN enforce it if they want to... It's on the books, and will go on your record, and so on. The point it, it shouldn't be a worry at all. I will not sit around and say "sure, tell me what to do (regardless of how rediculous), as long as you aren't enforcing it now." What happens when these things begin getting enforced? - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Whether we realize it or not, most of us are happy that our government protects us to some degree. Most of us are happy that the government regulates our roads by installing street lights and arresting drunk drivers. We're largely happy our government protects health care by regulating prescription drug safety and licensing doctors. Most of us are thankful that the government protects consumers with anti-fraud regulations and lemon laws.
Most of us also prefer that the government regulate restaurants. Do you really want to eat at a restaurant with rats running around the kitchen and the counters are never properly washed? A local restaurant inspection recently discovered an ice machine that hadn't been cleaned in years and was full of mold. I'm sure most of us wouldn't want restaurants to be allowed to use unsafe meat and produce, so is trans fat really any different if it is dangerous to our health? (honest question) Personally I would at least support a requirement that restaurants identify foods containing trans fat, so that the customer can make an informed choice.
We want government safety regulations, but where do you draw the line? There needs to be a significant, confirmed threat to our safety, and the benefit of the regulation needs to be weighed against the cost to our pocketbooks and freedom. The government should concentrate on protecting us from external and/or unseen threats. For example it would be impractical for me to personally inspect a restaurants kitchen before eating there. The government should also almost never attempt to protect me from myself (although what that constitutes can be argued).
I think this bill fails on both fronts. I don't really see a significant danger, and it seems largely crafted to protect people from themselves. I suppose you could argue that a pedestrian's actions could lead to the injury of other people, but it seems to me that risk is small compared to the loss of freedom. - BeerRules, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30So now you can't use your phone in your car in some places, you can't use it in the restaurants who ban then(i agree with this part) and you can't use them on the street, where can you use your cell phone, in your office or home. People should be more careful with distractions but that no reason to ban them. After all more people are killed with cars, are we going to ban driving next???
- macaddct1984, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27New York City streets have now become like High School hallways?
Soon we'll all have to walk single file... - brendanc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28You're an idiot.
First of all, trans-fat is *the worst* fat you can possibly introduce to your body. It gives you NOTHING. No nutritional or beneficial values what-so-ever. It's the purest, most useless form of fat that exists.
Why then, you ask, do restaurants and chip companies, etc. use trans-fat? Because it lasts for a *very* long time. It's easy to ship (it comes in solid blocks... the weight doesn't shift around like oil does, and there's no risk of spillage).
Having worked at a fast food joint, I can tell you first hand that the grease your fries are fried in has probably been sitting in there for a few days (up to week+half). And guess what happens to it when it cools down? It turns as hard as a rock, not to mention black, and the fact that when it gets delivered to the place, its a solid white block that they just unwrap and drop into the fryer pan.
Now I'm not saying the whole grease block is "trans-fat" but the reason it comes in a block in the first place and has all it's other wonderful properties is because it's LOADED with it.
Anyway, just thought I'd try and explain... I'm not for this ban, but the trans-fat thing was definitely a *GOOD* thing. - awm4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25@enigmatics
We can't afford to take the bill with a grain of salt because our representation is stupid enough to pass this stinking bill as is. - andydumi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Lawsuits is what happened.
It used to be common sense that eating McDonald's everyday would make you fat, and then some fat person sued. It used to be common sense that coffee is hot and you should not spill it on your crotch, and someone sued.
Its also common sense that you should look both ways when you cross the street, and then when you don't and you get run over, you get angry and sue... so laws will decide ahead of time that if you're stupid, you deserve to pay for it. - LMControl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Ahhhh... welcome to the slippery slope. Watch your step! (No pun intended)
- selrahc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17"...and any other electronic device while crossing the street"
ANY other electronic device? What about hearing aids??? - pgup, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19What was that things that Americans had.......oh yea, freedom.
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Carl Kruger can suck my Brooklyn d*ck.
- jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Beside the rediculous rant part... You are right. Dems are always sitting around wondering "why aren't we maintaining power?" The answer is simple, whenever you get ANY you use it to tell us what to do... This paternalism is the problem. And now we must put up with it from Republicans too (its just shadier). Instead of "it's illegal to read e-mail" it is "better becareful sending or reading that, because I'm reading it too." Rediculous.
- bluejet, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22The trans-fat ban is to keep companies from putting cheap crap in your food. It's an FDA issue. It's the same thing as limiting the amount of rat parts going into your can of soup. Hydrogenated vegetable oil is an industrial shortcut which basically amounts to putting cheap bacon grease in everything. IMO, if a company respects its consumers it will not put something in its products that harms them...without them knowing about it.
As far as the iPod and cell phone issue. If you're dumb enough to walk out into traffic wearing headphones, you shouldn't be surprised if you get hit. Darwinism in action! - butIdiggress, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I guess NYC is trying to one-up Boston's ban on Mooninites.
I wonder if there's any place left in the world where I can just dress up in a bunch of LED's and stand in a public place smoking my trans-fat cigarettes while I listen to rap on my iPhone (TM) without wearing a seat belt.
Maybe Vegas? - musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@awm4
You really blame any of these ridiculous bans on the Federal Government (as you would like), it is the State and city officials that you need to blame. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@klisk
"I wish I could get my mom to stop using the cellphone in restaurants, though... So what are you gonna do?"
I'm gonna bitch-slap your mom. - ChillHomie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Anyone up for a revolution?
- phanfo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14this is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. If they are so worried about terrorism in NYC and living here, I do catch myself wondering as I stare out my window looking downtown or on the subway that someone wants to blow this up. Then having police worry about ipods and cellphones is counter productive.
And in new york, this will never fly, most people have ipods, you can't stop them all, many of those are also playing on their blackberries, good luck ending business as well.
even if it doesn't get passed it will never go through. Cops hate to do paper work for people smoking weed, and will tell you to put it out.
Do you think they will take the time out of girl watching to write you a ticket - never. - Phearce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11RTA. Only while you're crossing the street. Doesn't apply to walking on sidewalk.
Like jay-walking, this would probably only matter when an accident occurs. IE, pedestrian would be partly at fault if they're struck by a vehicle while wearing headphones. - adent1066, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11On the Opie & Anthony show this morning, they were joking about the idea of extending the ban to deaf or blind people crossing the street. If someone can't safely cross the street with ear buds on, what chance do the deaf or blind have ?
- Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I thought it was a good idea to carry an automatic weapon while attempting to cross the street in NYC.
- Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I'd call for a massive protest where everyone crowds the streets wearing iPods, but we'd all probably be hit by an oncoming car driven by a guy talking on his cellphone.
- WiZZLa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12RTFA.
"...ban the use of MP3 players, cellphones, and any other electronic device while crossing the street..." - adriyel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16@ andydumi
Ok, I truly hate Paternal Governments and I also hate litigiousness, however, blatant laziness in fact finding is just annoying.
The woman sued, not because the coffee was hot. She sued because McDonalds (in typical fashion) was squeezing every possible ounce of coffee out of each load in the machine by making the water essentially boiling hot. This was outside of corporate regulations and previous complaints had been filed.
Nothing was done, they kept right on doing it, with or without the tacit consent of corporate.
The water was so extremely hot that when it landed on her crotch she was in the burn-ward for weeks and never completely healed.
Excuse-*****-me but I've dumped tea and coffee on myself a few times and it never so much as made my skin red.
That water was way too ***** hot. They had fore-warning, they got smacked in the nose for it.
Regrettably the media saw an opportunity to spin it as, "OMGZ WOMAN SUES CUZ COFFEEZ IS HOT, A LUSER IS SHE, HARRRRRR"
***** orgiastic idiocy of it all. ***** read will you? Just once?
God dammit if I hear another reference to that ***** woman again, there is no verb for the unspeakable acts I wish to commit, nor adjectives to describe the destruction and pain I want to wreak upon the next ignorant ***** that quoth the incident again.
/end rant
On another note, does anyone know of a country that has less of a mommy/daddy government? Nothing Canadian/British/Euro seems to be an improvement. Any ideas anyone? - raoulduke87, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14As a New Yorker, all I can say is: wow, remember when we used to have a reputation for being hard-asses?
Now:
No smoking in New York
No trans-fat in New York
and now they propose this?
Let me just say, I will ***** down the throat of anyone who violates my personal freedoms any more.
Mike Bloomberg, go ***** yourself. - SSX4life, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Up next on stupid bills......
Walking / Talking / and hailing a cab.
Sheesh wtf is wrong with this country.
--ssx-- - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I gotta say, at first I thought this was a joke or "protest legislation" like the law requiring married couples to have a kid. It's sad that this is serious. I think what the law forcing married people to have kids misses is that it is not absurd that the legislature has the power to pass stupid laws, it's absurd when stupid laws actually get passed. I lived in Anchorage for a while and a legislator was riding in a taxi and got pissed off that the taxi driver was loudly eating french fries while driving him, so he made a law banning taxi drivers from eating or drinking on the job . . . and it passed. C'mon people, less is more.
- akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7i more or less agree with the no cell phones while driving laws (ear piece usage really does seem to solve a lot of the problems since bad drivers get to use both hands that way), and i love that restaurants have the right to ban cell phone use if they like (honestly, if i'm sitting in the mall food court, i don't care if the girl next to me is screaming into her phone, but it's a different story when i'm eating someplace nice). however, i really hate the idea of banning them on the street. what is the point of having a cell phone if you can't use it while you're between places? seriously. while i think that more people should try to have better etiquette while using things like cell phones or ipods or walking down the street, i hate the idea that it has to be legislated. are we really that far gone that we can't be polite to each other for the sake of being polite?
honestly, i'm really just hoping that there's a generational backlash coming soon, when the children of rude parents rebell against them and become socially conscious members of society. or maybe enough parents will start to realize that they actually have to raise their kids properly (you know, by interacting with them and teaching them and not just leaving it up to their peers, teachers and television), and they'll start instilling a sense of courtesy for others (such as the rudeness of talking on a cell phone during dinner, for instance). - LMControl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Now, now... let's not let facts get in the way. State Sen. Carl Kruger (D) Brooklyn is the one putting this bill forth.
- ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I suppose that might be why handguns and automatic weapons are already banned in NYC?
- ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Next will be no chewing gum while walking because some idjit swallowed his and choked to death.
Welcome to the Nanny State. - ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8From the article: "The proposed ban follows two recent pedestrian deaths in Kruger's district where at least one is said to be the result of a person "listening to his iPod.""
So, I have to ask....is this ban also going to include maps, newspapers, notebooks, napkins with directions written on them, watches (analog or digital), and personal organizers (of the paper variety)? You could certainly wander out in front of a car looking at any of those. - Zzone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Millions of people in NYC, and 2 people dying is all it takes for us to lose our rights?
- mrwiggles123, on 10/12/2007, -20/+26Thank you democratically controlled house
- haggie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If iPods and cell phones are banned on sidewalks, none of the marketing chicks in our company will be able to get to work...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 306 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is