False. Speed (a.k.a. driving quickly) doesn't kill people; not driving alertly, improper following distances, not driving the appropriate speed for the lane you are in (e.g. using the left lane as a driving lane or the middle lane as the "slow" lane) and lack of/poor signaling kills people. In short people kill people.
There are numerous places on the Autobahn where there is no speed limit and there aren't a significantly greater number of "speed related" deaths.
I think the lesson would be that in jumping platforms, they elected to have Google as a competitor rather than a partner. They bet on MS hard, despite the market reality demonstrating a pretty bleak scenario for Windows Phone. So *if* you are going to finally jump platforms, don't jump to the last-place player.
The lesson in one word is: Innovation. If you are in an "active technology" based industry there can be no pause in your leadership of new and/or breaking technologies to maximize profits or focus elsewhere. By the time you recognize that things are starting to change it is too late to recover.
Define risk. Is it someone who drives fast on an open highway or someone who drives extra slowly in the left lane during rush hour?
You could argue that both are risky, but only one typically gets measured as "risk" by insurance companies. The argument that speeders are riskier is social programming because you can often see the direct cause and effect. It is difficult to directly see the cascading trouble caused of an excessively slow driver, but I would argue their impact on society and highway safety is worse.
Whatever you think..taxes should not be used for behavioral manipulations.
Taxes are for funding the govt services we all need...that should be it...period.
People should be free to choose to drive and spend in the fashion they wish.
Taxes weren't passed to allow a 'chosen' few to dictate citizen behavior....
So you advocate rolling back tobacco taxes?
Speaking for myself, absolutely. Taxes used for social engineering are wrong. Period.
The purpose of taxes are to pay for the government. If the specific role of fuel taxes are to pay for the roads, then raising them with the idea of forcing 'economy' is wrong.
It is also amazing to me that some of the same people who will practically demand such taxes in the name of the environment will turn right around and argue that a flat tax is wrong because it hurts the poor. As if the higher fuel tax doesn't?
Grants & subsidies are another way the government manipulates things and allows people to buy homes, provide food through local farming, discover new science and create new technologies, provide access to education for the non-wealthy and yes, even provide energy for our country.
To suggest that every part of modern society is not being manipulated in some form is naive; especially in these examples where their use is transparent and tend to be for the benefit of our collective well-being.
I like keeping as much of my own money as the next guy, but if everything was left 100% to market forces we would be living in a toxic waste dump with less individual achievement and education. To some degree every society needs direction and taxes and subsidies are the current tools.
The purpose for patents is not to protect the invention any more. It's to protect against ANY invention. And that's not what patents are for.
Unfortunately patents have not protected inventions for a long time, they are designed to be used to exclude others from copying your exact methods and do not necessarily allow you to do something.
"Law" Header -> "Effects"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
I would disagree that this is a COTS solution. The idea behind COTS is not to be tied to one vendor, e.g. use a general PC. All you have done is replace a specific purpose proprietary system with a slightly more general purpose proprietary system.
I agree with you somewhat.
Users should take a more active role in making sure that their computers are not causing serious damage to the system as a whole. But I also assign blame to the OS and application makers for not making that simpler.
Essentially what I am saying is... users should follow best practices (security, patches, A/V), but those practices should be easy to implement and the end user should not necessarily be required to understand how they work. This is where the end users have been let down.
It boils down to..... not everyone should have to be an expert in computer security to use the internet.
Since 99% of home users don't understand what is going on, all it would mean is more computers would be going to the shop for simple cleanings.
You say that like it is the users fault, however, poor documentation and complex UI design (although completely off topic) is equally, if not more at fault..... Does a pilot ridicule you when you fly on his plane but don't understand the aerodynamics?
While there are better music sites available to buy, think about how much publicity they are getting from "nay sayers" by buying a brand that is so doubted.....
Right or wrong: brand name + decent service + publicity = $$$$$
Slashdot Mirror
False. Speed (a.k.a. driving quickly) doesn't kill people; not driving alertly, improper following distances, not driving the appropriate speed for the lane you are in (e.g. using the left lane as a driving lane or the middle lane as the "slow" lane) and lack of/poor signaling kills people. In short people kill people. There are numerous places on the Autobahn where there is no speed limit and there aren't a significantly greater number of "speed related" deaths.
I think the lesson would be that in jumping platforms, they elected to have Google as a competitor rather than a partner. They bet on MS hard, despite the market reality demonstrating a pretty bleak scenario for Windows Phone. So *if* you are going to finally jump platforms, don't jump to the last-place player.
The lesson in one word is: Innovation. If you are in an "active technology" based industry there can be no pause in your leadership of new and/or breaking technologies to maximize profits or focus elsewhere. By the time you recognize that things are starting to change it is too late to recover.
Define risk. Is it someone who drives fast on an open highway or someone who drives extra slowly in the left lane during rush hour? You could argue that both are risky, but only one typically gets measured as "risk" by insurance companies. The argument that speeders are riskier is social programming because you can often see the direct cause and effect. It is difficult to directly see the cascading trouble caused of an excessively slow driver, but I would argue their impact on society and highway safety is worse.
Whatever you think..taxes should not be used for behavioral manipulations.
Taxes are for funding the govt services we all need...that should be it...period.
People should be free to choose to drive and spend in the fashion they wish.
Taxes weren't passed to allow a 'chosen' few to dictate citizen behavior....
So you advocate rolling back tobacco taxes?
Speaking for myself, absolutely. Taxes used for social engineering are wrong. Period.
The purpose of taxes are to pay for the government. If the specific role of fuel taxes are to pay for the roads, then raising them with the idea of forcing 'economy' is wrong.
It is also amazing to me that some of the same people who will practically demand such taxes in the name of the environment will turn right around and argue that a flat tax is wrong because it hurts the poor. As if the higher fuel tax doesn't?
Grants & subsidies are another way the government manipulates things and allows people to buy homes, provide food through local farming, discover new science and create new technologies, provide access to education for the non-wealthy and yes, even provide energy for our country. To suggest that every part of modern society is not being manipulated in some form is naive; especially in these examples where their use is transparent and tend to be for the benefit of our collective well-being. I like keeping as much of my own money as the next guy, but if everything was left 100% to market forces we would be living in a toxic waste dump with less individual achievement and education. To some degree every society needs direction and taxes and subsidies are the current tools.
The purpose for patents is not to protect the invention any more. It's to protect against ANY invention. And that's not what patents are for.
Unfortunately patents have not protected inventions for a long time, they are designed to be used to exclude others from copying your exact methods and do not necessarily allow you to do something. "Law" Header -> "Effects" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
I would disagree that this is a COTS solution. The idea behind COTS is not to be tied to one vendor, e.g. use a general PC. All you have done is replace a specific purpose proprietary system with a slightly more general purpose proprietary system.
Sand is a fluid ..... so a fluid still flows on Mars ....
I agree with you somewhat. Users should take a more active role in making sure that their computers are not causing serious damage to the system as a whole. But I also assign blame to the OS and application makers for not making that simpler. Essentially what I am saying is ... users should follow best practices (security, patches, A/V), but those practices should be easy to implement and the end user should not necessarily be required to understand how they work. This is where the end users have been let down.
It boils down to ..... not everyone should have to be an expert in computer security to use the internet.
Since 99% of home users don't understand what is going on, all it would mean is more computers would be going to the shop for simple cleanings.
You say that like it is the users fault, however, poor documentation and complex UI design (although completely off topic) is equally, if not more at fault ..... Does a pilot ridicule you when you fly on his plane but don't understand the aerodynamics?
While there are better music sites available to buy, think about how much publicity they are getting from "nay sayers" by buying a brand that is so doubted .....
Right or wrong: brand name + decent service + publicity = $$$$$