That is an incredibly misleading headline. According to your article, the California Senate WILL BE VOTING on WHETHER OR NOT to legalize it. The headline claims that they HAVE VOTED "to legalize" it.
You're both wrong. The headline is mildly misleading, but "whether to" is implied and the sentence is literally true. Also, the article does not state the bill has passed - the bill it mentions that was passed simply legalizes the GPS units themselves.
Well I'd just suggest you actually read what you just typed. "legalize the use of portable GPS navigation" is not the same as "Senate Bill 1567 would add an exemption for the use of a seven-inch GPS screen mounted." "The bill now heads to the state Assembly for consideration..."
There are two different bills being discussed. Maybe instead of reading the fucking article, you should've read the fucking article to the end.
The vote has passed the senate. The vote was for the bill number that you quoted. The bit where it says 'would legalize' refers to the fact that the assembly now has to vote on it. Title to the post is fine. My point is fine. You need to wash your mouth out with soap and water.
If you knew the legislative process you would understand the article. The senate voted, now the bill has to go to the assembly . Assuming it passes with no further amendment (which would then make it go back to the senate) then the governor has to sign it into law. If everything goes well it should take effect January 1st 2009.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
That is an incredibly misleading headline. According to your article, the California Senate WILL BE VOTING on WHETHER OR NOT to legalize it. The headline claims that they HAVE VOTED "to legalize" it.
according to the linked article the vote has already passed, so the headline is fine, the article is misleading!
Good point, I guess I should RTFA, RikF.
OK so the post is more than misleading -- it's blatantly wrong. "the California Senate will be voting on Senate Bill 1567" -- they already voted.
You're both wrong. The headline is mildly misleading, but "whether to" is implied and the sentence is literally true. Also, the article does not state the bill has passed - the bill it mentions that was passed simply legalizes the GPS units themselves.
"The California state Senate voted 38-1 last Thursday to legalize the use of portable GPS navigation units in automobiles."
Now I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the ins and outs of Californian legislation, but that sure sounds like it passed...
Well I'd just suggest you actually read what you just typed. "legalize the use of portable GPS navigation" is not the same as "Senate Bill 1567 would add an exemption for the use of a seven-inch GPS screen mounted." "The bill now heads to the state Assembly for consideration..."
There are two different bills being discussed. Maybe instead of reading the fucking article, you should've read the fucking article to the end.
Oh, you were so close, and yet so far....
The vote has passed the senate. The vote was for the bill number that you quoted. The bit where it says 'would legalize' refers to the fact that the assembly now has to vote on it. Title to the post is fine. My point is fine. You need to wash your mouth out with soap and water.
If you knew the legislative process you would understand the article. The senate voted, now the bill has to go to the assembly . Assuming it passes with no further amendment (which would then make it go back to the senate) then the governor has to sign it into law. If everything goes well it should take effect January 1st 2009.