backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by JakLee.. on Jan 5 at 7:05 PM


Blocked Sirius radio stations  (Source: Ford)
Explicit radio stations can be blocked

Parents that purchase new model Ford vehicles for kids, or companies that supply vehicles for employees in the field are likely to take advantage of Ford's new MyKey feature. MyKey has controls for the vehicle that will allow the parent or employer to place limits on how the vehicle is used by the driver.

Ford has announced a new update to the MyKey system that adds in another way for parents to help ensure kids follow the rules when driving. The new update allows the blocking of certain satellite radio channels that have explicit content. The new feature will first be offered on the Ford Taurus and new Explorer with the feature rolling out to other Ford and Lincoln vehicles later.

“Ford wants to give parents peace of mind that their kids are following practical household rules in the car,” says Graydon Reitz, director, Ford Electrical and Electronic Systems Engineering. “Parents obviously like this type of feature, and many teens are okay with it when they hear parents may give them the keys more often if the car comes with a technology such as Ford’s MyKey.”

The MyKey system already has the ability to limit speeds of a vehicle. The vehicle owner can limit it to 65, 70, 75, or 80 mph when the programmed key is used. The system also sounds a chime each time a speed level is reached. The MyKey system can also allow the car owner to force the radio to mute until front seat belts are fastened and can limit the radio volume to ensure that drivers can hear emergency vehicles.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Needs slower settings
By chmilz on 12/30/2010 11:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
Why can't it be set to limit the vehicle to even slower speeds? 80mph sure doesn't seem to be limiting your kid much.

Good technology though.




RE: Needs slower settings
By Drag0nFire on 12/30/2010 11:16:03 AM , Rating: 4
I'm not so sure. That sounds horribly unsafe to me. There are times when a bit of extra speed is entirely necessary for safety purposes. For example, if one is limited to 65mph, it could be unsafe to merge onto a highway. Or if limited to 75, one could get stuck trying to pass a truck on a highway.

Certainly, there are unreasonable speeds that would seem to depend on conditions. For example, even 30 might be too fast on a snowy day or a back country road. But these decisions need to be made on a case by case basis.

This system may give parents a sense of false security, but I'm not so sure they're really doing their kids a service by installing it.


RE: Needs slower settings
By Flunk on 12/30/2010 11:27:58 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, by that logic we need to limit all vehicles to the same level. 65mph governors for all!

*This post was meant to be irreverent and sarcastic, if you didn't get it I suggest you drive your car off a bridge into a river.


RE: Needs slower settings
By Souka on 12/30/2010 11:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
For major freeways many cities are putting in variable speed limit signs... which will change the speed limit based on traffic density...which in turns will help increase the CPM (Cars Per Minute) passing a reference point.

Expect in the future, probably by fedral law, auto makers will put govenors in that will limit the top speed of cars. Cars would read the current speed limit and adust accordingly.

**Now to really irritate people; people who are unwilling to discuss topics, or let poeople speak** :)

You have a "right" to free speech, a "right" to bear arms (depending how you read the 2nd amendment), etc etc... but you do NOT have a right to drive a car, let alone how you want to...it is a privilege.


RE: Needs slower settings
By invidious on 12/30/2010 12:17:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You have a "right" to free speech, a "right" to bear arms (depending how you read the 2nd amendment), etc etc... but you do NOT have a right to drive a car, let alone how you want to...it is a privilege.

This is exactly why there was so much opposition to the bill of rights. It leads people to assume that if its not in the bill of rights then the government is free to swoop in and tell you what to do.

That is NOT how it was supposed to work.

The constitution was supposed to be a the the rights and responsibilities of the government and if it wasn't in the constitution then they weren't supposed to get involved. As times changed and more was required of the government amendments were to be added. But our government is completely out of control now and it decides its own rights and responsibilities.

Really its mainly the fault of citizens for not holding our state representatives responsible for the decisions they make on our behalf.


RE: Needs slower settings
By bah12 on 12/30/2010 12:37:23 PM , Rating: 1
Although I agree with the federal government's abuse of the original constitutional intentions. I am sure we can all agree that no individual right should impede another persons right or safety (yelling fire and such). I don't think any logical person can argue that there should be NO regulation on driving in a public space.

You are arguing semantics, the federal government may not be "legally" allowed to do this, but the states sure are. In fact most of the driving laws are State not federal. So yes, driving is a privilege regardless of your constitutional arguments.


RE: Needs slower settings
By invidious on 12/30/2010 12:49:35 PM , Rating: 4
You could make an argument that everything of the bill or rights reduces the safety of others in some way. I am more concerned about the irresponsibility of the few resulting in the loss of freedom for all. I would have no problem with those who are proven unable to safely operate a vehicle over 55mph be restricted to such a speed rather than everyone.

You will never be completely safe and being completely free is recklessly unsafe. At some point you need to draw a line of how much freedom your safety is worth. I think the founding fathers drew a pretty good line.


RE: Needs slower settings
By Lerianis on 12/30/2010 3:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly right. The fact is that government should ONLY be intervening when someone is causing a DIRECT AND PHYSICAL danger to someone else, period and done with.

If we allow them to intervene just because people don't like something someone else is doing (even if someone of disparate age), we are going down the road that we trod with homosexuals being thrown into prison simply for being homosexuals and exercising their RIGHT to have sex with whom they wish.


RE: Needs slower settings
By knutjb on 12/31/2010 8:14:21 PM , Rating: 1
You all have missed the point. If GM were doing this then your argument might have validity but last I checked Ford is still in private hands.

This kind of tech has been around for a while in commercial vehicles. I would by a vehicle with this to help create good driving habits with my kids. This isn't mandatory since the parent must buy, then enable them.


RE: Needs slower settings
By Lerianis on 12/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Needs slower settings
By Souka on 12/30/2010 7:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
say what?


RE: Needs slower settings
By JKflipflop98 on 12/30/2010 9:03:29 PM , Rating: 1
"Now, if you are doing something that is a danger to someone... THEN, it falls out of the right zone, but only because you are creating a danger to someone else."

It amazes me that people living in this country are all about "muh rights!". . . and they don't even understand the concept. Let me let you in on a little something - you don't have any rights in this country. None. Any privilege that can be taken away at a government entity's whim is NOT a "right".


RE: Needs slower settings
By Solandri on 12/31/2010 2:15:46 PM , Rating: 3
You have a right to drive a car. If you want, you can put your 5 year old behind the wheel and let him drive to his heart's content. He has a right to drive a car too. So long as it's on your property.

If you wish to drive your car on public roads built and paid for by government, then you need to fulfill their license and registration conditions. But if you just want to drive your car on your own property (or your neighbor's property if they agree to let you), then you can go do whatever you want.


RE: Needs slower settings
By cmdrdredd on 12/30/2010 10:08:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Wrong. Driving a car went past a privilege and into the 'right' area a long time ago, regardless of what 'da law' says


Nope...you have to pass a test to obtain a license to drive. You are not have this at birth. You have a right from birth to have an opinion and state it (free speech) and you need no permit for it. You also do not need a permit in most states to purchase a firearm (2nd amendment). The difference is, the operation of a motor vehicle is not something you are automatically granted permission to do.


RE: Needs slower settings
By Motoman on 12/31/2010 11:42:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong. Driving a car went past a privilege and into the 'right' area a long time ago, regardless of what 'da law' says.


That right there proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you are a catastrophic failure. You really don't have the slightest idea about how the world works, do you?


RE: Needs slower settings
By Cardboardtoast on 12/30/2010 11:30:22 AM , Rating: 4
I would agree. And, quite frankly it can be unsafe to drive 65 if everybody is doing 75, and you need to change lanes (you'll have some mad drivers then)

The radio volume could cause other problems. What if they just start using their ipod's headphones? Now THAT's unsafe, but some kids REALLY like music. I would be distracted by the fact I couldnt hear my music!

What it comes down to is: you can't know beforehand what is appropriate when driving. Setting a speed limit could do as the above poster said, and just get you stuck in a bad situation.

Sounds like the company is playing the "child safety" card to make some sales.


RE: Needs slower settings
By bah12 on 12/30/2010 12:29:15 PM , Rating: 4
I disagree most fleets of 18 wheelers are limited for financial reasons (MPG plummets above 65). Although you might make up one or 2 situations where 80 is "necessary", I call BS. If a MUCH longer 18 wheeler can safely merge at 65 so can a car/SUV. What is needed is not more speed, but proper training in traffic merging.

I already know your counter argument, but that truck is slow and dangerous and it could cause an accident. NO what it does is slow traffic, and inconvenience you. Does it irritate me too, sure, but if people drive correctly there is no public danger here.

We operate a fleet of 200+ trucks nation wide, and in our 40 year history we have never had an accident while merging into a highway.

Fact is the worst it would do is slow down traffic and possibly back it up. Even IF (big IF) it causeed a rear end collision 6 cars back, it was the fault of following too close that caused it not the lack of merge speed.


RE: Needs slower settings
By ClownPuncher on 12/30/2010 12:32:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
but if people drive correctly there is no public danger here


Do you see the problem with this statement? It isn't going to happen.


RE: Needs slower settings
By bah12 on 12/30/2010 12:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ok so what does that have to do with anything? You kind of missed the point the OP said 80 is needed for safety reasons, when in fact that is a fallacy. Accidents involving sub 80 speed is driver error NOT the result of speed, thus no matter how much or little speed there is it matters little if the driver is at fault.

My point was that 80 is not needed and you can safely merge at 65. If you have a counter point to that, feel free to list it. Pulling out a 1/2 sentence to troll is hardly worth clogging the thread. Of course driver error is a public danger, ADDING speed won't help is my contention.


RE: Needs slower settings
By Cardboardtoast on 12/30/2010 1:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you bring up trucks. There's a problem there. Do you know how much of a b***h it is to drive with trucks all the time. They only can merge going 65 because they will simply move over, and have you get out of the way (they're bigger than you). Don't believe me? I lived by a port and got to deal with this.

Trucks get away with it because you cant mess with them. You try that in your sedan and I might not see you.


RE: Needs slower settings
By 91TTZ on 12/30/2010 4:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok so what does that have to do with anything? You kind of missed the point the OP said 80 is needed for safety reasons, when in fact that is a fallacy.


You seem to be forgetting that there are roads in the US where the speed limit is 80 mph. It's not like that setting is there so you can speed on highways, it's there so you can set it to go the lawful speed limit in certain states.


RE: Needs slower settings
By dananski on 1/2/2011 8:57:03 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, the settings correspond to the different speeds in the different states in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_U... (but they've missed out 60mph for some reason).

I think the 80mph limit will probably be most useful generally - it's not really limiting in any everyday situation, but stops your kids doing high speed races and showing off.


RE: Needs slower settings
By ClownPuncher on 12/30/2010 6:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
It simply depends on the situation. I'm no truck driver, so take it as you will, but an imposed artificial limit doesn't seem like a solution to me.


RE: Needs slower settings
By cmdrdredd on 12/30/2010 10:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example, if one is limited to 65mph, it could be unsafe to merge onto a highway. Or if limited to 75, one could get stuck trying to pass a truck on a highway.


Maybe the whole idea is...your kid can't drive on the highway.


RE: Needs slower settings
By bildan on 12/30/2010 12:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
I've suggested this several times.

Link the speed limiting system to posted speed limits using the GPS navigation database. Its GIS database should contain all posted limits anyway. The speed limit database could be updated in real-time through the telematics system.


RE: Needs slower settings
By CharonPDX on 12/30/2010 2:42:16 PM , Rating: 3
TFA says you can limit it to as low as 65.

And to those who complain that limiting the speed can create unsafe conditions where the driver is going unsafely BELOW the predominant speed of traffic, obviously if you live in parts of the American West where the speed limit is 75, and everyone drives 85, you wouldn't limit the car to 65.

But if you live in a city, where you don't expect your teenager to be driving on 75 MPH roads, 65 is perfectly fine. Portland, Oregon, for example. You have to drive quite a way from my house to hit a 65 MPH zone, the top limit in Oregon. And while there are areas where the predominant speed is higher than the speed limit, it is not frequent that the predominant speed is 65 MPH or higher, except after you get out of town into the areas where the limit actually is 65. So for Portland, 65 MPH is a perfectly good limit to set.


RE: Needs slower settings
By cmdrdredd on 12/30/2010 10:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why can't it be set to limit the vehicle to even slower speeds? 80mph sure doesn't seem to be limiting your kid much.


You can't read.

Quote from article: "The vehicle owner can limit it to 65, 70, 75, or 80 mph when the programmed key is used."


RE: Needs slower settings
By KC7SWH on 1/3/2011 10:37:59 AM , Rating: 2
The freeway speed limit by my house is 75mph. The 80mph limit would keep the kid from doing 90-100+mph joy rides while allowing them not to feel like they are driving miss Daisy.


Useful?
By FoundationII on 12/30/2010 12:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
So now teenagers will wear earphones in the car with their ipod.
What happened to good old fashioned trusting your kids and trusting yourself that you raised them well?




RE: Useful?
By JakLee on 12/30/2010 1:13:08 PM , Rating: 5
that went out of style with spankings & letting your kids be responsible for their actions....


RE: Useful?
By SunTzu on 12/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Useful?
By Alexstarfire on 12/31/2010 5:07:19 AM , Rating: 3
I seriously hope that's sarcasm, else you're calling everyone on the planet a bad parent.


RE: Useful?
By Lerianis on 12/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Useful?
By cmdrdredd on 12/30/2010 10:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We realized a L O N G time ago that spankings for 'bad behavior' were mostly parents trying to force their personal likes and dislikes on their children, which they have NO right to do P E R I O D, through physical force.


You don't know shit. Some people, children included do not respond to non physical negative reenforcement. The act of spanking a child or another physical act will instill a fear of retaliation for a bad act. Many kids do not respond to "you aren't supposed to do that, don't do it". They laugh at you.

The reason people don't discipline their kids is because everyone wants to second guess how someone raises their kids and sticks their fucking nose where it doesn't belong. It's not your business, I am not punching my kid or anything like that. These days everyone calls social services for everything. Fuck that. I used to get the leather belt and that shit set me straight. I am a better person because of it.


RE: Useful?
By jeff834 on 12/31/10, Rating: 0
RE: Useful?
By Alexstarfire on 12/31/2010 5:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you know the difference between a beating and punishment/disciple.

I think "instilling fear" sounds a lot worse than what he means. The reason people don't go around doing whatever they want is because of consequences. If there are no consequences for doing something bad then people will most likely do it, that's provided they don't know there are no consequences like a kid would. Just telling a child that something is bad, scolding them, or whatever else besides physical punishment just doesn't work some of the time. Physical punishment should always be a last resort, not your go to form of discipline.

Everyone parents different and not every kid responds the same. I never needed physical discipline when I was younger, but I also know that I was one of the few.


RE: Useful?
By Lerianis on 12/31/2010 1:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
99% of the time when a child is acting 'bad', the fact is that they don't know that the thing in question is 'bad either because they have never done it before or, as I pointed out: parents trying to force their own personal likes and dislikes on their children.

You are right in that anyone who think that they have to 'instill fear' in ANYONE has some severe mental problems, whether they are a child or an adult.


RE: Useful?
By JakLee on 1/5/2011 7:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
well, I can understand while you feel that way. Next time someone goes rampaging through a building with an office with a gun I will let you go explain to them why what they are doing is wrong & you can discuss why that behavior is inappropriate.

Children have to be taught how to behave, how to act, what is appropriate, what is not. It does NOT come natural, it is not "built in". One of the most common ways of teaching (partially because it is so effective) is the "carrot & the stick". Do this & you are rewarded, do this and you are punished.

Some children have bad teachers, they go on to be bad parents who then teach their children poorly. Some people choose to be bad. Some children have poor teachers & learn better ways of doing things anyways & become good teachers.

But to say this form of discipline is NEVER right, well that is just naive. My oldest son does not ever need a "spanking"; just being "mad" at him is the worst thing in the world to him. My youngest HATES standing in the corner, more than anything. But I won't pull the spankings off the punishment table, because they may be necessary at a point in time.

There is no point in spanking them if it is not effective; that would as stupid as taking away their cell phone privlages (totally not effective considering neither owns a cell phone). Punishment is only punishment if it helpful in correcting behavior, and I can tell you spankings did that for my parents, worked for my grandparents, and worked for me. YOU may not agree, but that is the benefit of a free society, we don't have to agree.


RE: Useful?
By surt on 12/30/2010 4:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
It became impossible around the time that it became necessary for most families to have two incomes to afford food and housing for their children. You then have other people raising your kids, and no longer have confidence that they've been raised 'right'.


RE: Useful?
By Lerianis on 12/31/2010 1:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
With all due respect, that 'raised right' thing is totally viewpoint and should not be allowed to be used as a measuring bar.

As long as you have raised your children to adhere to the big 4 morals:

1. Do not kill someone unless they are trying to kill you or someone else at that very moment and it is your last choice to stop that killing.
2. Do not physically attack someone else unless they are trying to physically attack you or someone else and it is your last choice to stop that attack, or you are in a sports arena/something similar where you both know that you are going to attack the other.
3. Do not steal from someone unless it is your last choice between you and starving/freezing/etc. to death.
4. Do not force someone to do or not do something that they do not or do wish to do, unless they are breaking one of the first 3 rules or physically damaging someone else's property.

If you have raised them to adhere to those 4 things above, then you have raised them correctly.

Anything else is just you wanting to push your personal likes and dislikes on your children, which you have NO right to do period and done with.


RE: Useful?
By Skywalker123 on 1/2/11, Rating: 0
Mr. Mackey
By dj LiTh on 12/30/2010 11:34:56 AM , Rating: 5
Student: But Mr. Mackey why cant i listen to the radio stations i want to?

Mr. Mackey: Because their bad for you mykey

Student: But how come i can listen to my music at home and not in the car?

Mr. Mackey: Because in the car its bad for you mykey

Student: Well thats just bad parenting, its not like a song is going to make me do one thing or another

Mr. Mackey: Songs can be really bad mykey

Studenet: but...

Mr. Mackey: Look i think its time you get to class mykey




RE: Mr. Mackey
By SunAngel on 12/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Mr. Mackey
By dj LiTh on 12/30/2010 11:55:21 AM , Rating: 5
like your post does.


RE: Mr. Mackey
By surt on 12/30/2010 4:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
He could even bother to look up the cultural reference. That was clearly a song or a parody much more than a 'skit'.


RE: Mr. Mackey
By bigboxes on 12/30/2010 12:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like your parents need to install Net Nanny on your pc at home.


Have it phone home
By GatoRat on 12/30/2010 2:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
How about having the car phone home if it goes outside of certain boundaries. To this day, I remind my now 22 year old daughter about the extended weekend she put 1200 miles on my Civic. (She denied it until I told her what the odometer read when she took the car--when you have teenagers, you notice such things.)




RE: Have it phone home
By cjohnson2136 on 12/30/2010 2:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(She denied it until I told her what the odometer read when she took the car--when you have teenagers, you notice such things.)


That's actually really funny


RE: Have it phone home
By Lerianis on 12/30/2010 3:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
Um...... the fact is that if you allow a child to drive a car, you should tell them ahead of time where they can and cannot go and that if they want to 'drive around', to tell you where they were going.

My parents allowed me to drive up to 100 miles away from our home, as long as I informed them where I was going and paid for the gasoline for that long trip.


RE: Have it phone home
By Alexstarfire on 12/31/2010 5:25:19 AM , Rating: 2
That's not going to physically stop them. I think you'd agree that teenagers don't often listen to what they are told. Knowing when they aren't doing what they are told wouldn't be a bad idea.


RE: Have it phone home
By Lerianis on 12/31/2010 1:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
True, that won't physically stop them.... but there is also nothing keeping them from going online and learning how to override these things, and there is also a time where you have to T R U S T your children or they will get the feeling that you don't trust them and become resentful towards you because of that, starting to act out against you because of that.


RE: Have it phone home
By Alexstarfire on 12/31/2010 3:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt a teenager would actually be able to override the system if it's even possible.

And yes, I'd agree as well, but I don't judge how others raise their kids because everyone has a different parenting style.


Why Radio Restrictions ?
By wempa on 12/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Why Radio Restrictions ?
By cjohnson2136 on 12/30/2010 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 3
I would disagree that there is a time where you HAVE to speed up to be safe. There are times that I speed typically max of 75 but i can safely merge at 55 (I-695) and 65 (I-95) in Baltimore traffic during rush hour. The real issue in driving conditions is not speed. It is tail gating, that is where accidents and congestion occur. If you are tailgating chances are you won't have time to react if something to the car in front of you. Also with regards to congestion it occurs because people ride to close and merging cars can't get on which means typically one nice person has to stop to let that person in. This then creates your stop and go driving because there are gaps in the diving. If everyone backed off of each other and let other cars maerge into the highway then accidents and congestion would go down, it wouldn't go away because of course there is the one a$$ that would screw it up but it has to do with safe driving. Now one person might say "I can drive safe at 80" well another might only be able to drive safe at 65. There has to be some sort of guideline that says what is the average. That is way there are speed limits based on a persons reaction time it is safe to say that 65 is a responible speed limit. Honestly going 10 over the speed limit i fine with, but if your going over that going into 80, 90, and 100 then no I see no reason for driving that fast.


RE: Why Radio Restrictions ?
By cmdrdredd on 12/30/2010 10:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as I know, the lowest driving age in any state is 15. It's safe to assume that by 15 they have already been well exposed to most of the inappropriate/obscene things. How useful is that really going to be ?


There are a lot of talk radio shows on satellite radio. Maybe they don't want their children exposed to some of them. Liberal radio for example.


RE: Why Radio Restrictions ?
By dananski on 1/2/2011 8:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not familiar with the radio stations they're blocking, but I'd almost certainly agree that by 15 they've pretty much heard everything obscene anyway - and 15 is a particularly young age to be able to drive.

quote:
There are a lot of talk radio shows on satellite radio. Maybe they don't want their children exposed to some of them. Liberal radio for example.


Why would you want to block talk shows? Sure some of them can be biased or have nutters on them occasionally, but it's a good way to learn how to debate and form your own opinions on some big issues.


What the ....
By Qapa on 12/31/2010 11:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
So, you don't trust people to choose music, but you let them drive cars???

People with less then 18 should NOT drive anyway! as is in Europe.




RE: What the ....
By Alexstarfire on 12/31/2010 3:13:43 PM , Rating: 1
Welcome to the USA, where we have idiotic laws that make little to no sense. BTW, I wouldn't let most people drive their cars over here. I see about 95% of the cars on the road break traffic laws daily. The worst part is the cops around here don't give a shit. I live in Atlanta, GA where going 20 over is basically perfectly acceptable in all cases except for school zones.


So glad
By saganhill on 1/3/2011 10:58:25 AM , Rating: 3
Im so glad I grew up in the 70's. Back when cars had cool names and no BS technology limiting my driving experience.




Speed limits
By croc on 12/31/2010 12:02:42 AM , Rating: 2
Down here in AUS., we have way too many 'privileged' youth dying driving too fast for conditions, or as a result of drunken behaviour, etc. Well off adults seem to have a problem with denying their 'oh-so-special' children access to cars that are too powerful for the children, or access to alcohol before they are ready to be responsible in its use. I tend to refer to anyone under 25 as being a 'temporary Aussie'. Usually by 25 or so, they at least have SOME responsibility for their actions...

On the other hand, the less privileged youth seem to be more responsible at an earlier age. If they want a car, then they have to work for it. Education? Same. Booze? Same. Seems that responsibility must be related to one's hip pocket somehow.




This is of limited use.
By Cakemeister on 1/4/2011 4:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
I would trade all that stuff for a cell phohe blocker.




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki