Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Aug 2010 22:19 UTC
Permalink for comment 438241
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-19
There are a few problems with your argument:
1. As stated in the article, in order to use the FM radio in mobile phones, you need the earphones.
2. Unless you design the phone to detect emergency broadcasts, the user would have to be actually listening to the radio at the exact moment the broadcast was sent.
3. Digital radio will soon replace analogue radio, removing the need for separate FM chips. So we are mandating the installation of an already obsolete technology.
4. You are twice as likely to be crushed under a vending machine than to die in a terrorist attack, and far, far more likely to drown in your own bathtub.
If we take the "It would save lives" argument then why don't mandate the compulsory wearing of life jackets at all times on the off chance you might fall into a river - It would eventually save lives. Good idea? No.