P.S.: do you ever stay up an extra 10 minutes at night, to finish reading that book chapter / checking your favorite news site? If you do, do you avoid driving the next day, because you've *knowingly decreased your driving ability* by sleep deprivation?
A common argument, but totally nonsensical. You're assuming 0.08 and even 0.05 means unaffected by alcohol. It doesn't.
With a BAC of 0.05, an individual’s vision may already be affected in terms of sensitivity to brightness, the ability to determine colours, and depth and motion perception. The brain’s ability to perform simple motor functions is diminished. This means that a driver’s reaction time will be slower and responses will be less accurate. The result is degraded driving performance and a significant increase in collision risk. The increased collision risk of drivers with a BAC from 0.05 to 0.08 (also known as the "warn range") is well documented:
Drivers with a BAC above 0.05 but below the legal limit are 7.2 times more likely to be in a fatal collision than
drivers with a zero BAC. In 2005, 16.7% of drinking drivers killed in Ontario had a BAC less than 0.08.
So if you're above 0.05, and below 0.08, you're still 7 times more likely to die. So, if you're also 7 times more likely to die by driving the next day after staying up late (completely unsupported as that assertion is anyway) then it's fine, because you're acting within the law, even if they do bring it down to 0.05.
Jesus, do some googling and grow some logic nodes.
With a BAC of 0.05, an individual’s vision may already be affected in terms of sensitivity to brightness, the ability to determine colours, and depth and motion perception. The brain’s ability to perform simple motor functions is diminished. This means that a driver’s reaction time will be slower and responses will be less accurate. The result is degraded driving performance and a significant increase in collision risk.
The increased collision risk of drivers with a BAC from 0.05 to 0.08 (also known as the "warn range") is well documented:
Drivers with a BAC above 0.05 but below the legal limit are 7.2 times more likely to be in a fatal collision than drivers with a zero BAC.
In 2005, 16.7% of drinking drivers killed in Ontario had a BAC less than 0.08.
7 Times more likely to DIE. How's that for a risk analysis? Just took 10 seconds of googling. Where did your "analysis" come from?
There are many things that can impair driving. Kids fighting, dog puking, sun shining in your eyes, messing with the radio [...]
Sorry, we've already handed out the last prize for most entertaining ignorant comment. Better luck next time.
0.08 is when performance is *already* decreased. It's the last "safe" limit, equivalent to - as you aptly describe - driving with children in the backseat, fiddling with the radio, texting, dog puking, etc. 0.08 is not unaffected. It was just a compromise. An acceptable risk. Like the sun shining in your eyes.
0.08 is about twice as impaired as 0.05 - which is also not unaffected. It's just less dangerous - which gives you more capacity to drive while the kids are fighting in the back seat, without being equivalently impaired yourself.
With a BAC of 0.05, an individual’s vision may already be affected in terms of sensitivity to brightness, the ability to determine colours, and depth and motion perception. The brain’s ability to perform simple motor functions is diminished. This means that a driver’s reaction time will be slower and responses will be less accurate. The result is degraded driving performance and a significant increase in collision risk.
The increased collision risk of drivers with a BAC from 0.05 to 0.08 (also known as the "warn range") is well documented:
Drivers with a BAC above 0.05 but below the legal limit are 7.2 times more likely to be in a fatal collision than drivers with a zero BAC.
In 2005, 16.7% of drinking drivers killed in Ontario had a BAC less than 0.08.
> like putting weekend at bernies on the tv while you're cleaning the house
I'm not letting you get away with that. The house doesn't get any cleaner while you're on WoW.
Nor do you make any new friends, get any exercise, practice a hobby, achieve further education, engage in the community, travel, see new things, talk to new people, etc. etc.
> complete burnout. left the game for 6 months at least
If that's "burnout", I'll envy your "mid life crisis".
Unless it's a calculated manoeuvre to begin disassociating Windows from "blue screen of death".
If Windows Blue is successful and widely liked, and their error screens are no longer blue... given time, the meme may go away. In a few years, when someone jokes about "blue screen of death", everyone will chuckle and remark how dated that phrase is.
Many of them I know generally spend $2k and get about 4 years out of the software before upgrading.
This also means they don't have to learn a whole new package every time, perhaps with new shortcuts, etc. What I haven't seen anyone raise yet, is what happens to workflow and efficiency, when everyone has to use the same software online, which may be updated every 6 months (to keep the market "impressed") and designers all over the world lose time learning new stuff when they could be working.
What happens to that advertising deadline when the UI is changed/upgraded, and you lose hours (and sleep) getting around the new UI?
On top of that, every user will be limited by the speed of Adobe's servers, where all image processing will be done. Want to upgrade your rig to make Photoshop REALLY fast? Too bad. On the upside, your laptop will work just as quickly as your desktop. Not that there's a lot of difference these days anyway.
People, it's PUBLIC. You should have no expectation of privacy in public. The government isn't installing cameras in your shower. They aren't bugging your house.
Serious questions. Considering you feel no expectation of privacy in public, would you...
1. accept mandatory personal ID & tracking for every site you visit on the internet (which is arguably "public space")?
2. accept mandatory wearing of armbands in public, identifying your religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation and income?
3. answer questions about your public activities (clubs you go to, items you buy, web sites you visit) when you apply for a job?
4. be ok with all your public activity being brought up in court, used as "character evidence" when, say, applying for adoption, divorce or fighting for custody of your child?
Or do you now understand that the expectation of privacy in public is, in fact, a cornerstone of democracy and law?
Doubtful. It probably bothers them more that articles like that are completely inaccurate, intentionally misleading and exaggerated for the sake of getting clicks. Not to mention the Radiation and Public Health Project itself, from where that story is sourced. Companies worry about bad press. Even if it's bad journalism as well.
> The problem is on the consumer end, where Windows is heading quickly to irrelevance.
Yawn. Wake me up when: a) Apple allows OSX to run on PC hardware, b) Something other than Windows makes inroads onto mass-market consumer PCs & laptops.
Then I'll concede than Windows is heading quickly into a relevant but more competitive future.
I'm not really at liberty to describe the research culture at CSIRO in great detail, but it is, or at least was, as the articles say, very application-driven and short-term, external-earning motivated. This was only in one division, I cannot speak for the whole of the organization, however these stories seem to indicate that the problem is widespread.
Sounds like the culture needs improving, but I don't hear anything in there about "fraud", "corruption" or any other "illegal" goings-on, as the article suggests.
The Internet as we know it is coming to an end. Everyone sees this but doesn't act. They just let Google steal all of their privacy.
Piffle. All you need to do is: a) Use a cookie blocker, and/or b) Use *separate browsers* for general surfing and apps. Apps means Google, Facebook, etc.
Suddenly, the internet as we know it is back in full swing.
The only problem here is lack of general user awareness, but we have people like Mozilla, and add-on developers, helping to educate people and providing the tools to get around these concerns if people are really worried about them.
It seems to me that the biggest bottleneck in making a ROI for something like this isn't even so much the logistics of getting up there, mining it, and bringing it back down gracefully. It's the fuel consumption. Short of nuke power, we haven't got anything approaching the energy requirements to make this efficient.
What about launching two payloads to land on the asteroid...
First payload is a bunch of small mining robots. Second payload as a bunch of small manufacturing robots.
Mining robots go to work and deliver materials to manufacturing robots. Manufacturing robots go to work building whatever it is we want from the asteroid. Upon next fly-by, final product is launched from remainder of asteroid into Earth orbit.
How is this "corruption" as opposed to, say, companies working with a set of rules defined by lawmakers whose political careers depend on raising contributions from said companies? That is, Democracy and Capitalism?
Not that I care, it's a post-privacy society, get over it.
I love how people generalise about "society" as if what certain companies do in one part of the Internet defines "society".
Most people aren't happy with being watched while in the bathtub, so no, it's not a "post-privacy society", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
So far, the evidence doesn't lead to a creator (i.e., a god).
Atheist here. Just saying, when we're talking about how the universe was created, ie. what "caused" the Big Bang (if indeed things are "causal" in a sense outside our universe), there is nothing to measure. Mathematicians may have hypotheses, assuming mathematical concepts exist outside our universe. Even so, we cannot observe anything outside the universe.
So, in the end, a "creator", of some kind or another is not so illogical. It's not inconceivable that some outside intelligence created - even accidentally - another universe, in which we happened to evolve. Whether they realise they did so, or can even observe what goes on within it, is debatable. But the idea of a "creator" isn't completely silly. It just probably wasn't one person with a beard who takes special interest in causing havoc on a single planet.
You kissed your privacy goodbye when you signed up for a social network.
Then you're doing it wrong. I signed up using a pseudonym - my real first name and a play on the last one. My friends (the real ones) know it's me of course. FB knows nothing about me except who my 17 friends are and, by association with a handful of likes, which city I live it.
FB doesn't know my address. It doesn't know my phone number. Nor the school I went to, the job I have, who my relatives are, my birthday or anything else. Anyone who gave up all that info about themselves just to sign up for a stupid web site are perhaps unfortunate, but I certainly don't get a lesser experience out of FB than they do with all their needlessly accurate personal data on it. Oh, except that the ads (if I allowed them to show) would be a bit less relevant for me.
FB doesn't even know what sites I visit, since I use Chrome for FB and Firefox to browse. Never the twain shall meet.
So no, it's quite easy to retain your privacy and still get what you want out of FB.
> You can encypher your data before uploading on *any* site.
Indeed. It has always astounded me that people upload files with the full name of the movie/software, and often as.avi, not even zipped, let alone encrypted. Then they complain about the service changing its policies or shutting down, after it came under scrutiny, when it's more or less their own fault. Very weird.
Speaking of routing around things, it's quite disappointing that every +5 comment here is pointless discussion on the merits of religion, rather than how to solve the problem.
When you rupture the field, and spill back into being causally connected with the universe
Wait, go back a bit. *How* did you leave the causal universe in the first place? Something caused you to leave it, but then you just left behind a cause which didn't have an effect - which clearly isn't possible in a causal universe.
And then you end up back in the causal universe, in which case you've just become an effect without a cause which, again, isn't possible in a causal universe.
Mentally health people don't go mow down other human beings - only those with severe mental deficiencies do.
Interesting perspective. The only difference between a soldier mowing down other human beings in combat, and a mass-murderer, is the soldier is given permission to do it. Is the soldier "insane"? Not by current social standards, no. He/she is just following orders.
Of course, this raises the obvious question: Is the person who told the solider to mow down other human beings mentally deficient? Well, we assume that, somewhere up the chain of command, mass murder has been determined to be necessary for some reason.
Fair enough. However.. soldiers often do not KNOW the real reasons they are out there killing other people. Many service-people overseas seriously have no idea if what they're doing makes sense. Iraq, for example.
This raises the most important question: Given we are putting people in situations where they are mowing down other human being on orders - and not being adequately convinced it is for a good reason - are we therefore teaching people that mass murder is a trivial undertaking? Something to be done at a whim, simply when it benefits us politically or economically?
The mental deficiency seems to go right to the top. That being the case, is it surprising that some people are imitating the lack of respect for human life that seems to be exhibited by their society's leaders?
Slashdot Mirror
P.S.: do you ever stay up an extra 10 minutes at night, to finish reading that book chapter / checking your favorite news site? If you do, do you avoid driving the next day, because you've *knowingly decreased your driving ability* by sleep deprivation?
A common argument, but totally nonsensical. You're assuming 0.08 and even 0.05 means unaffected by alcohol. It doesn't.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/fact-sheet.shtml
With a BAC of 0.05, an individual’s vision may already be affected in terms of sensitivity to brightness, the ability to determine colours, and depth and motion perception. The brain’s ability to perform simple motor functions is diminished. This means that a driver’s reaction time will be slower and responses will be less accurate. The result is degraded driving performance and a significant increase in collision risk. The increased collision risk of drivers with a BAC from 0.05 to 0.08 (also known as the "warn range") is well documented:
Drivers with a BAC above 0.05 but below the legal limit are 7.2 times more likely to be in a fatal collision than
drivers with a zero BAC. In 2005, 16.7% of drinking drivers killed in Ontario had a BAC less than 0.08.
So if you're above 0.05, and below 0.08, you're still 7 times more likely to die. So, if you're also 7 times more likely to die by driving the next day after staying up late (completely unsupported as that assertion is anyway) then it's fine, because you're acting within the law, even if they do bring it down to 0.05.
Jesus, do some googling and grow some logic nodes.
Because insight requires a little more thought than "50,000 frenchmen can't be wrong". Try doing an actual risk benefit analysis.
LOL. Try doing an actual fact check.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/fact-sheet.shtml
With a BAC of 0.05, an individual’s vision may already be affected in terms of sensitivity to brightness, the ability to determine colours, and depth and motion perception. The brain’s ability to perform simple motor functions is diminished. This means that a driver’s reaction time will be slower and responses will be less accurate. The result is degraded driving performance and a significant increase in collision risk.
The increased collision risk of drivers with a BAC from 0.05 to 0.08 (also known as the "warn range") is well documented:
Drivers with a BAC above 0.05 but below the legal limit are 7.2 times more likely to be in a fatal collision than drivers with a zero BAC.
In 2005, 16.7% of drinking drivers killed in Ontario had a BAC less than 0.08.
7 Times more likely to DIE. How's that for a risk analysis? Just took 10 seconds of googling. Where did your "analysis" come from?
There are many things that can impair driving. Kids fighting, dog puking, sun shining in your eyes, messing with the radio [...]
Sorry, we've already handed out the last prize for most entertaining ignorant comment. Better luck next time.
0.08 is when performance is *already* decreased. It's the last "safe" limit, equivalent to - as you aptly describe - driving with children in the backseat, fiddling with the radio, texting, dog puking, etc. 0.08 is not unaffected. It was just a compromise. An acceptable risk. Like the sun shining in your eyes.
0.08 is about twice as impaired as 0.05 - which is also not unaffected. It's just less dangerous - which gives you more capacity to drive while the kids are fighting in the back seat, without being equivalently impaired yourself.
Check your facts before making nonsensical statements.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/fact-sheet.shtml
With a BAC of 0.05, an individual’s vision may already be affected in terms of sensitivity to brightness, the ability to determine colours, and depth and motion perception. The brain’s ability to perform simple motor functions is diminished. This means that a driver’s reaction time will be slower and responses will be less accurate. The result is degraded driving performance and a significant increase in collision risk.
The increased collision risk of drivers with a BAC from 0.05 to 0.08 (also known as the "warn range") is well documented:
Drivers with a BAC above 0.05 but below the legal limit are 7.2 times more likely to be in a fatal collision than drivers with a zero BAC.
In 2005, 16.7% of drinking drivers killed in Ontario had a BAC less than 0.08.
> like putting weekend at bernies on the tv while you're cleaning the house
I'm not letting you get away with that. The house doesn't get any cleaner while you're on WoW.
Nor do you make any new friends, get any exercise, practice a hobby, achieve further education, engage in the community, travel, see new things, talk to new people, etc. etc.
> complete burnout. left the game for 6 months at least
If that's "burnout", I'll envy your "mid life crisis".
> an update named "Windows Blue"
Unless it's a calculated manoeuvre to begin disassociating Windows from "blue screen of death".
If Windows Blue is successful and widely liked, and their error screens are no longer blue... given time, the meme may go away. In a few years, when someone jokes about "blue screen of death", everyone will chuckle and remark how dated that phrase is.
Many of them I know generally spend $2k and get about 4 years out of the software before upgrading.
This also means they don't have to learn a whole new package every time, perhaps with new shortcuts, etc. What I haven't seen anyone raise yet, is what happens to workflow and efficiency, when everyone has to use the same software online, which may be updated every 6 months (to keep the market "impressed") and designers all over the world lose time learning new stuff when they could be working.
What happens to that advertising deadline when the UI is changed/upgraded, and you lose hours (and sleep) getting around the new UI?
On top of that, every user will be limited by the speed of Adobe's servers, where all image processing will be done. Want to upgrade your rig to make Photoshop REALLY fast? Too bad. On the upside, your laptop will work just as quickly as your desktop. Not that there's a lot of difference these days anyway.
People, it's PUBLIC. You should have no expectation of privacy in public. The government isn't installing cameras in your shower. They aren't bugging your house.
Serious questions. Considering you feel no expectation of privacy in public, would you...
1. accept mandatory personal ID & tracking for every site you visit on the internet (which is arguably "public space")?
2. accept mandatory wearing of armbands in public, identifying your religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation and income?
3. answer questions about your public activities (clubs you go to, items you buy, web sites you visit) when you apply for a job?
4. be ok with all your public activity being brought up in court, used as "character evidence" when, say, applying for adoption, divorce or fighting for custody of your child?
Or do you now understand that the expectation of privacy in public is, in fact, a cornerstone of democracy and law?
> It probably bothers TEPCO greatly, that this is out there
Doubtful. It probably bothers them more that articles like that are completely inaccurate, intentionally misleading and exaggerated for the sake of getting clicks. Not to mention the Radiation and Public Health Project itself, from where that story is sourced. Companies worry about bad press. Even if it's bad journalism as well.
Why not just install ClassicShell?
> The problem is on the consumer end, where Windows is heading quickly to irrelevance.
Yawn. Wake me up when:
a) Apple allows OSX to run on PC hardware,
b) Something other than Windows makes inroads onto mass-market consumer PCs & laptops.
Then I'll concede than Windows is heading quickly into a relevant but more competitive future.
I'm not really at liberty to describe the research culture at CSIRO in great detail, but it is, or at least was, as the articles say, very application-driven and short-term, external-earning motivated. This was only in one division, I cannot speak for the whole of the organization, however these stories seem to indicate that the problem is widespread.
Sounds like the culture needs improving, but I don't hear anything in there about "fraud", "corruption" or any other "illegal" goings-on, as the article suggests.
The Internet as we know it is coming to an end. Everyone sees this but doesn't act. They just let Google steal all of their privacy.
Piffle. All you need to do is:
a) Use a cookie blocker, and/or
b) Use *separate browsers* for general surfing and apps. Apps means Google, Facebook, etc.
Suddenly, the internet as we know it is back in full swing.
The only problem here is lack of general user awareness, but we have people like Mozilla, and add-on developers, helping to educate people and providing the tools to get around these concerns if people are really worried about them.
It seems to me that the biggest bottleneck in making a ROI for something like this isn't even so much the logistics of getting up there, mining it, and bringing it back down gracefully. It's the fuel consumption. Short of nuke power, we haven't got anything approaching the energy requirements to make this efficient.
What about launching two payloads to land on the asteroid...
First payload is a bunch of small mining robots.
Second payload as a bunch of small manufacturing robots.
Mining robots go to work and deliver materials to manufacturing robots.
Manufacturing robots go to work building whatever it is we want from the asteroid.
Upon next fly-by, final product is launched from remainder of asteroid into Earth orbit.
Profit.
Corruption is corruption.
And stop creating government regulations that give them lots of loopholes to exploit.
I think that second point contradicts the first.
Corruption is corruption.
How is this "corruption" as opposed to, say, companies working with a set of rules defined by lawmakers whose political careers depend on raising contributions from said companies? That is, Democracy and Capitalism?
He pulls in about $50 a month with a site that basically runs itself.
Not bad. A site that pays for its own development in 2 years is not something to sneeze at, it took Facebook a lot longer than that.
There is a reasonable expectation to privacy for an email account.
Stop living in the past. We live in a "post-privacy society" now. /sarcasm
Not that I care, it's a post-privacy society, get over it.
I love how people generalise about "society" as if what certain companies do in one part of the Internet defines "society".
Most people aren't happy with being watched while in the bathtub, so no, it's not a "post-privacy society", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
So far, the evidence doesn't lead to a creator (i.e., a god).
Atheist here. Just saying, when we're talking about how the universe was created, ie. what "caused" the Big Bang (if indeed things are "causal" in a sense outside our universe), there is nothing to measure. Mathematicians may have hypotheses, assuming mathematical concepts exist outside our universe. Even so, we cannot observe anything outside the universe.
So, in the end, a "creator", of some kind or another is not so illogical. It's not inconceivable that some outside intelligence created - even accidentally - another universe, in which we happened to evolve. Whether they realise they did so, or can even observe what goes on within it, is debatable. But the idea of a "creator" isn't completely silly. It just probably wasn't one person with a beard who takes special interest in causing havoc on a single planet.
You kissed your privacy goodbye when you signed up for a social network.
Then you're doing it wrong. I signed up using a pseudonym - my real first name and a play on the last one. My friends (the real ones) know it's me of course. FB knows nothing about me except who my 17 friends are and, by association with a handful of likes, which city I live it.
FB doesn't know my address. It doesn't know my phone number. Nor the school I went to, the job I have, who my relatives are, my birthday or anything else. Anyone who gave up all that info about themselves just to sign up for a stupid web site are perhaps unfortunate, but I certainly don't get a lesser experience out of FB than they do with all their needlessly accurate personal data on it. Oh, except that the ads (if I allowed them to show) would be a bit less relevant for me.
FB doesn't even know what sites I visit, since I use Chrome for FB and Firefox to browse. Never the twain shall meet.
So no, it's quite easy to retain your privacy and still get what you want out of FB.
> You can encypher your data before uploading on *any* site.
Indeed. It has always astounded me that people upload files with the full name of the movie/software, and often as .avi, not even zipped, let alone encrypted. Then they complain about the service changing its policies or shutting down, after it came under scrutiny, when it's more or less their own fault. Very weird.
Speaking of routing around things, it's quite disappointing that every +5 comment here is pointless discussion on the merits of religion, rather than how to solve the problem.
In a democracy *the people* are the arbiters of what is 'nonsense' and what is not.
Which people? The ~50% who vote Republican, or the ~50% that vote Democrat?
Or the corporate "people" that support whichever politicians represent their commercial interests?
When you rupture the field, and spill back into being causally connected with the universe
Wait, go back a bit. *How* did you leave the causal universe in the first place? Something caused you to leave it, but then you just left behind a cause which didn't have an effect - which clearly isn't possible in a causal universe.
And then you end up back in the causal universe, in which case you've just become an effect without a cause which, again, isn't possible in a causal universe.
Mentally health people don't go mow down other human beings - only those with severe mental deficiencies do.
Interesting perspective. The only difference between a soldier mowing down other human beings in combat, and a mass-murderer, is the soldier is given permission to do it. Is the soldier "insane"? Not by current social standards, no. He/she is just following orders.
Of course, this raises the obvious question: Is the person who told the solider to mow down other human beings mentally deficient? Well, we assume that, somewhere up the chain of command, mass murder has been determined to be necessary for some reason.
Fair enough. However.. soldiers often do not KNOW the real reasons they are out there killing other people. Many service-people overseas seriously have no idea if what they're doing makes sense. Iraq, for example.
This raises the most important question: Given we are putting people in situations where they are mowing down other human being on orders - and not being adequately convinced it is for a good reason - are we therefore teaching people that mass murder is a trivial undertaking? Something to be done at a whim, simply when it benefits us politically or economically?
The mental deficiency seems to go right to the top. That being the case, is it surprising that some people are imitating the lack of respect for human life that seems to be exhibited by their society's leaders?