Each post shows how little you know. Statistics are more than just forms. You think the entire legal and insurance industry bases everything on a check mark on a police form, which is different from state to state and even county to county. Alcohol related is not an absolute cause of the crash, rather a factor. To get the definitive cause, one uses many other factors. Quick question for you: Who was responsible for 9/11? Will tell you why I ask later..
Actuaries don't single sourced, they get multiple sources, they correlate, cross check then triple check.
>>>I know, there is no one that is debating the fact that the police will mark any accident with a driver who has perceivably had alcohol as "alcohol related".
And what is the problem with that? Alcohol and driving don't mix.
But that is precisely why they have breath meters. And if the blood alcohol level reaches a certain level, it is clearly an issue.
But the real question is, why are you defending such drivers?
>>>>still* you don't see bridges falling apart more times than not as you can see software projects (and the bigger the project the more easier it'll wreak havoc),
>>>it must be software production is quite more complicated than rising bridges
Your logic has made me speechless. Or should I say your illogical comment.
dude, you are so wrong.
You are trying to compare apples/oranges.
What do you mean by complex?
I working alone can create a web site, with backend database using ssl certs.
Can anyone create a bridge alone?
You know nothing about civil engineering.
talk to a civil engineer for 5 mins and you will see how wrong you are.
Slashdot Mirror
what a silly comment, of course it is.
TYVM (thank you very much) no guess :)
true.
but who would use 50,000 megabit keys to deal with the quantum threat?
boon means good, right :)
who said that?
what???
what are those akronyms?
yeah, but when quantum crypto starts shipping, crypto as we know it will be worthless.
good comment.
i have seen way toooo many clueless people run forensics tools expecting to find the smoking gun.
the tools are like 15% of the job.
it is smartness and more to really make it work.
sorry scriptkiddies!
there is soooo much available FREE online.... why buy books?
users are still 5.0 years dumb. :)
this book will still help them
>> they do a lot of good research
research is great.... but you need a product that works!
other than that, how is it :_)
>>> worst anti-virus and firewall software I've ever seen
can you expand on that?
>>So, you will lie, deceive, exagerate, and use whatever other tools you need to try to convince people that your social/political agenda is correct.
Yes, me, MADD, the FDA, the insurance industyr, the alcohol industry and more!!
We are all conspiring!!
What's next, Lady Di was killed by the CIA and not by a drunken limo driver?
Do me a favor, check out http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/01/24/hill.az.drunk.driver.laughs.sentence.cnn
this is a perfect example of drunk driving deaths.
i am sooooooo waiting for your comment on this one.
>>>I usually talk to civil engineers and -ho and behold, they tend to agree to my points of view regarding these issues.
prove it.
and if there was documentation... u think anyone would read it :)
Each post shows how little you know.
Statistics are more than just forms.
You think the entire legal and insurance industry bases everything on a check mark on a police form, which is different from state to state and even county to county.
Alcohol related is not an absolute cause of the crash, rather a factor. To get the definitive cause, one uses many other factors.
Quick question for you: Who was responsible for 9/11?
Will tell you why I ask later..
>>>I know of police reports which we know are faked, and no one is debating that they are faked.
So what... u want sig sigma results?
>>>"And what is the problem with that? Alcohol and driving don't mix."
>>You even support the use of faked data in the debate. Amazing.
No one is faking data.
>>>Point blank. Do you support the use of faked data in the drinking and driving discussion?
No.
But you have shown no real evidence that data is faked.
Please do that.
Actuaries don't single sourced, they get multiple sources, they correlate, cross check then triple check.
>>>I know, there is no one that is debating the fact that the police will mark any accident with a driver who has perceivably had alcohol as "alcohol related".
And what is the problem with that? Alcohol and driving don't mix.
But that is precisely why they have breath meters. And if the blood alcohol level reaches a certain level, it is clearly an issue.
But the real question is, why are you defending such drivers?
We do know.
from the insurance inst. for highway safety to many others.
dude, speak to an actuary and you will know.
you are so wrong!
>>security" isn't a binary yes/no concept.
excellent point.
Yeah, and those blood alcohol readings on those drivers... to hell with those readings!!
and the smell of alcohol on their breath.... its really listerine.
are you out of your mind? Drunk driving is a problem.
Ok, say its not 18,000 deaths a years, its 5,000.... that still is a horrendous number.
dude, this is /., not Harvard Spelling bee.
you want the truth or pretty spelling?
>>>>still* you don't see bridges falling apart more times than not as you can see software projects (and the bigger the project the more easier it'll wreak havoc),
>>>it must be software production is quite more complicated than rising bridges
Your logic has made me speechless. Or should I say your illogical comment.
dude, you are so wrong.
You are trying to compare apples/oranges.
What do you mean by complex?
I working alone can create a web site, with backend database using ssl certs.
Can anyone create a bridge alone?
You know nothing about civil engineering.
talk to a civil engineer for 5 mins and you will see how wrong you are.