Slashdot Mirror
Road Rage Linked To Automobile Bumper Stickers
Ponca City, We Love You sends news of a study by Colorado State University psychologist William Szlemko that recorded whether people had added seat covers, bumper stickers, special paint jobs, stereos, or plastic dashboard toys to their cars. Szlemko found a link between road rage and the number of personalized items on or in people's vehicles. "The number of territory markers predicted road rage better than vehicle value, condition, or any of the things that we normally associate with aggressive driving,' says Szlemko. What's more, only the number of bumper stickers, and not their content, predicted road rage... Szlemko suggests that this territoriality may encourage road rage because drivers are simultaneously in a private space (their car) and a public one (the road). 'We think they are forgetting that the public road is not theirs, and are exhibiting territorial behavior that normally would only be acceptable in personal space,' the researcher says.
Really? Natural selection is scientifically invalid?
Perhaps we can have this conversation when you can get over your emotional responses, and realise that morals are not absolutes, and what is right or wrong is not necessarily that which is effective or efficient, or what works.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
It's been tried.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Mod everything but parent in this thread: Offtopic.
I don't have enough points, and will take the karma hit gladly.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Too bad people who are able to put aside their emotions and make the hard decisions that need to be made entirely on logic and reason are needed so often, or you could have your perfect little world were we don't exist.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
...I mean, many people have no compunction about terminating a pregnancy due to convenience (too young, not ready for a kid, etc)...it would seem to be even easier to make the decision on terminating a potentially very damaged child, which would drain all the parents' time, and monetary resources. I would conjecture that the difference between choosing to terminate a pregnancy for convenience and choosing not to terminating even when it's a damaged baby are the parents in question. There's a lot of people in each camp, but I imagine very few with feet planted in both.It's not hard to understand, the one of the key tenets of the anti-abortion camp is pretty well known, that life can begin inside the womb(starting at different stages of gestation for different people). If the baby in the womb is alive, then it's no longer a defective product, it's now
I probably wouldn't though. But then, I also don't have pregnancy hormones flushing through me(guys go hormonal too).
I would have thought it would be more about ensuring that the child could lead a happy life rather than worrying about it draining resources :p One obvious argument against this is that we wouldn't have people Stephen Hawking if we just aborted everyone who was crippled, etc.. hopefully he is just happy to be alive and thinking but I don't know. Perhaps if he was more mobile then he wouldn't have developed such a keen mind. It's still a bit of a gamble though, I certainaly wouldn't want to feel responsible for someone leading a life as a cripple unless I knew that they were going to lead a happy one.
:/ And it may turn out that you can't have a genetic 'superhuman' that is super-healthy, super-smart, etc without also giving them some serious problems! Maybe the very thing that made Steven Hawking crippled also made him 'smart'..
Personally, I feel I've got enough mental problems without being physically crippled too. I'd hate to be me inside a crippled body as well. Saying that, if I knew I'd be free of any possible hereditary mental problems then I'd seriously consider choosing being physically crippled rather than having mental issues though - there was one point in my life where I'd just come off anti-depressants (I later found out, from Wikipedia no less, that the type of anti-depressant I was taking was actually found to make people's symptoms worse in some cases, so I assume that some types of depression link in to OCD somehow too), but I'd done it far too abruptly and ended up having a period of pretty intense OCD. I didn't know why I was having all these weird worries about stupid things that I knew weren't true, but then someone told me about OCD and looking back I could see that I'd had it mildly all my life: obsession with certain numbers, always wanting to take the exact same route back as I took to get to a place, having to spin back the opposite way if I'd spun in one direction while doing stuff (like in the kitchen drying dishes for example, if I span round 360 one direction I'd make sure to go back the other direction soon after..), touching things a certain number of times; there was one point in my life where I used to have to bounce on a seat an odd number of times, preferably 3 or 7, before I would sit on it, I stopped after my dad kept yelling at me about it, it must have looked really weird >_> I wish I'd known that it was a recognised problem rather than just me being frickin weird, as it is I was 22 before I even found out what OCD was, and a lot of the things I'd worried about or done in life were classic OCD.
I guess most geeks probably have some level of autism, OCD or other mild mental problems that are beneficial in some ways (interest in numbers and patterns for example) as well as being debilitating in others..
which is totally what she said
You won't save enough to bother with. That is like driving out of your way to sace $0.05 per gallon. If you buy 20 gal that would be a whole dollar! Oops can't even get a Starbucks for that.
You can save that money if you wish but I choose to get where i am going slightly sooner. I'm going to wear out this car no matter what.
Or are you of the mind that it is your job to force me to save a couple bucks and go the speed you like? Would you like it if I took my truck and pushed you up to the speed I want you to go?
My mother in law, a Californian gave me a funny statistic on the savings of driving at 55MPH, which she assured me was accurate because she heard it in the TV. "It saves $0.43 per gallon". Cool. I have heard that in some Central American nation gas is still $0.17 per gallon so driving at 55 will pay $0.26 per gallon there!
Bottom Line: Get out of the way, Let the speeder go past the life you save could well be your own.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy