Self control is only part of intelligence if you expand the definition to include it. In my opinion we use the word "intelligence" as too much of a blanket term encompassing all the elements of success.
The truth of the matter is that someone who processes and retains information with the bottom 20% of the population but has the self control to do the extra work required for them to get the grades and/or do good work at, whatever their profession is, is very likely to be more successful than their peers.
Most of the 4.0 students(with engineering or noble science majors) I knew in college never left their rooms on weeknights. I realized a few years ago that they weren't necessarily smarter, some of them quite frankly seemed kind of dim, what they had was work ethic and a realistic assessment of how much time they had to put in to make the grades. And that is far more important than an IQ test.
The reason I know damn well that the Wachowskis aren't any good at making movies is that I saw Ninja Assassin on HBO. What a steaming pile of garbage. In the last decade they made the following films:
The Matrix Reloaded The Matrix Revolutions V for Vendetta *didn't direct* Speed Racer Ninja Assassin
The only film there which I could even stand(I'll admit, I didn't see Speed Racer") was the one they didn't direct. Maybe if they put the Matrix in the hands of a different director I would be willing to give it a chance, but I'm really not feeling it if they're the primaries on this one.
Whatever happened to waiting until the story is over to tell the tale? History used to be written by the winners, not by the ones vested in getting their opinion turned into the "correct" one.
I already posted so I cant mod this up, but this is a excellent point. Its pretty clear that the filmmakers already know which side of the issue they're going to present, regardless of what happens in the long term. Hopefully at some point a filmmaker will really get embarrassed by reality and they will take a more cautious approach in the future.
Yes you are, as there are far more economically viable data contracts utilising 3G data dongles. If you have your laptop with you anyway, why are you using a phone for data? Don't give me "It's one less thing to carry"; If you are using a device which requires tethering for data, it almost certainly has a USB port.
Because I have a phone that does tethering with unlimited data already, and over the last month I drove all around Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona, and out in those big western states there is a lot of land where the only available internet is 3G(which, surprisingly, is almost everywhere out there).
The performance is fine for what I'm doing, I already have the contract, I already have the phone, its easy, and what more reason do you need?
I think he meant "bugging" in the sense of "annoying," not "wiretapping." His point, I think was that he doesn't really care if the FBI is wiretapping him because they almost certainly will never bother him or waste his time, but advertisers almost certainly will.
Ahh, I didn't think that wording out. Thank you.
I should add though that I do indeed care, I'm just not panicking about it. If the FBI follows me for a month it will be a unnecessary invasion of my privacy and I will be upset, but I won't be outright panicking is because at the end of that month the FBI will be bored out of their minds and move on to someone worth following.
I'm not saying the phantom data isn't bad, I think every kind of phantom is bad, but who on earth gets a smart-phone and signs up for the 1GB a month plan? Do they even have those?
Ok, based on responses to this I guess I'll make a different point: Apparently I'm the only one who uses tethering while traveling.
Actually, in my experience cell phones are much cheaper in the 3rd world. For 30 bucks in most of Africa you can get a cell phone and more minutes than you could ever use. I'm not sure about smart-phones over there, but the basic cell phone service is astoundingly cheap.
We in the "1st" world are being cheated by carriers.
I'm not saying the phantom data isn't bad, I think every kind of phantom is bad, but who on earth gets a smart-phone and signs up for the 1GB a month plan? Do they even have those?
"80% Human error" are usually the same humans that won't want this system. Someone who drives while tired or drunk or willingly goes over the speed limit or takes stupid chances aren't really concerned about their safety or of anyone else on the road.
Want to make roads safer? Take away their licence, throw them in jail. It's cheaper, faster and safer that way. After a decade, you'll have a fresh crop of drivers far more careful about their driving.
Isn't that a little extreme? Plus, throwing 80% of the drivers involved in accidents in jail for life probably isn't cheaper than, say, just fining them and making them go to bad driver's school like we do now.
Usually, too much importance is given to the immediate cause of an accident. Most accidents don't happen due to a single cause, there's a number of circumstances that must exist together for an accident to happen.
In modern highways, the usual circumstance for most accidents is crowded lanes. The usual cause for crowded lanes is a few dumbasses of the i-hate-tailgaters-and-i-have-the-right-to-drive-at-any-speed-below-the-limit species.
Make it a severe offense, same penalties as drunken driving, to drive on the left lane with someone behind you and those "80% accidents" will go away.
Make it a severe offense to tailgate and you get the same solution, plus its the assholes instead of the timid that you would be punishing.
I get it when someone is going 55 in the left lane, that's insanity, but the vast majority of people whom I know that think like this are usually going 15 over the speed limit and riding the ass of the guy going 5 over. The tailgaters and aggressive drivers are the ones who cause fatalities.
I don't think so, the project worked fairly well as I understand it (remember that video from the 90s in California or Nevada where they were testing the things? It must have been on a nova or something, but I cant find it on youtube), but they knew all along that there was just no way to take it to market because of the liability.
If the thing hadn't worked then maybe, but the fear of lawsuits(and I should reiterate, it was the early 90s so the chances of a system failure killing someone wasn't insignificant) preempted any attempt to put the system into use.
I cant say for sure, but for me its 100%. (or it would be, if I'd had the accident.). For fatal accidents I imagine about 80% are either falling asleep at the wheel, alcohol related, or typical young male dumb shit, the remaining 20% could easily be caused by high speed blowouts and things of that nature.
For overall accidents I'm inclined to agree with you, the vast majority of what I see is caused by young women talking on cell phones, but those are usually very minor. Talking about lives lost I think the 80-20 figure is pretty realistic.
Tire blowouts, serpentine belt breaks, break cylinders exploding. Sometimes its a maintenance issue, but a lot of the time things just fail. I had the rear cylinder explode on a vehicle I was driving at highway speeds like 10 years ago, I just barely managed to stop myself with the hand-break on the shoulder without running into the stopped traffic ahead of me, but if I had hit then 100% of my accidents ever would have been caused by mechanical failure with no forewarning.
One of my engineering professors worked on something like this in the 90s, when I asked him why we never saw anything like this come into use he said that they knew that the first time anyone was killed in an accident involving one of the automated vehicles the entire project would be dead. Regardless of if it was from something like a blowout causing a computer driven car to swerve into the other lane, or some drunk ramming headlong into a "platoon" of cars.
Even if it is much safer, the lawyers will be salivating while they wait for the first death.
I think a big part of the problem is that actual systemic change isn't the sort of thing that happens without casualties. Every time in history that a society has attempted to redesign itself all at once, on the level that most internet-dwelling political savants want, it has led to either a civil war or mass starvation.
Slashdot Mirror
Self control is only part of intelligence if you expand the definition to include it. In my opinion we use the word "intelligence" as too much of a blanket term encompassing all the elements of success.
The truth of the matter is that someone who processes and retains information with the bottom 20% of the population but has the self control to do the extra work required for them to get the grades and/or do good work at, whatever their profession is, is very likely to be more successful than their peers.
Most of the 4.0 students(with engineering or noble science majors) I knew in college never left their rooms on weeknights. I realized a few years ago that they weren't necessarily smarter, some of them quite frankly seemed kind of dim, what they had was work ethic and a realistic assessment of how much time they had to put in to make the grades. And that is far more important than an IQ test.
The speech was fine I guess. Nothing that made me want to vote for him in 2012.
The reason I know damn well that the Wachowskis aren't any good at making movies is that I saw Ninja Assassin on HBO. What a steaming pile of garbage. In the last decade they made the following films:
The Matrix Reloaded
The Matrix Revolutions
V for Vendetta *didn't direct*
Speed Racer
Ninja Assassin
The only film there which I could even stand(I'll admit, I didn't see Speed Racer") was the one they didn't direct. Maybe if they put the Matrix in the hands of a different director I would be willing to give it a chance, but I'm really not feeling it if they're the primaries on this one.
Anecdotal evidence is not proof of a rule. If you kick a dog it might run or it might turn and bite you.
That depends on if its a black dog or a grizzly dog.
Whatever happened to waiting until the story is over to tell the tale? History used to be written by the winners, not by the ones vested in getting their opinion turned into the "correct" one.
I already posted so I cant mod this up, but this is a excellent point. Its pretty clear that the filmmakers already know which side of the issue they're going to present, regardless of what happens in the long term. Hopefully at some point a filmmaker will really get embarrassed by reality and they will take a more cautious approach in the future.
I really hope this film is fact-based and honest, but I have a feeling its just going to be Hollywood climbing onto his dick for 2 hours.
I'm not saying the phantom data isn't bad, I think every kind of phantom is bad
The Ghost who Walks would be extremely unhappy to hear you say this.
I can't believe this is the first post to get my main point.
And the Ghost who walks should go back to where he came from and stop taking our jobs and our women! Damn clear-skins.
Yes you are, as there are far more economically viable data contracts utilising 3G data dongles. If you have your laptop with you anyway, why are you using a phone for data? Don't give me "It's one less thing to carry"; If you are using a device which requires tethering for data, it almost certainly has a USB port.
Because I have a phone that does tethering with unlimited data already, and over the last month I drove all around Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona, and out in those big western states there is a lot of land where the only available internet is 3G(which, surprisingly, is almost everywhere out there).
The performance is fine for what I'm doing, I already have the contract, I already have the phone, its easy, and what more reason do you need?
I think he meant "bugging" in the sense of "annoying," not "wiretapping." His point, I think was that he doesn't really care if the FBI is wiretapping him because they almost certainly will never bother him or waste his time, but advertisers almost certainly will.
Ahh, I didn't think that wording out. Thank you.
I should add though that I do indeed care, I'm just not panicking about it. If the FBI follows me for a month it will be a unnecessary invasion of my privacy and I will be upset, but I won't be outright panicking is because at the end of that month the FBI will be bored out of their minds and move on to someone worth following.
I may just be too uncool, but I honestly don't do or say anything that would be worth the time of law enforcement.
I'm not saying its ok to just track everything everyone says, that would be a horrible practice, I'm just saying I'm close to the bottom of the list.
I'm not saying the phantom data isn't bad, I think every kind of phantom is bad, but who on earth gets a smart-phone and signs up for the 1GB a month plan? Do they even have those?
Ok, based on responses to this I guess I'll make a different point: Apparently I'm the only one who uses tethering while traveling.
Actually, in my experience cell phones are much cheaper in the 3rd world. For 30 bucks in most of Africa you can get a cell phone and more minutes than you could ever use. I'm not sure about smart-phones over there, but the basic cell phone service is astoundingly cheap.
We in the "1st" world are being cheated by carriers.
Damn... I would ask you to take a picture and send it to me for proof, but I don't want you to go over your limit.
If it was the FBI or CIA or NSA I would still mind, but it wouldn't be THAT huge a deal, mainly because:
A. They will track me anyway if they have any reason to.
B. They aint got shit on me.
C. The chances of them actually bugging me are about .001%
I'm more worried about it being someone who is going to try to sell me shit. Because the likelihood of them actually bugging me is almost 100%.
I'm not saying the phantom data isn't bad, I think every kind of phantom is bad, but who on earth gets a smart-phone and signs up for the 1GB a month plan? Do they even have those?
Wow, I wasn't making a fucking argument based on it, I was just relating a story that happened to me. Go fuck yourself by the way.
...It takes two to tailgate, a tailgater and a tailgatee
...That's like saying it takes two to punch someone, the puncher and the punchee. It's retarded....
Damn, you beat me to it.
"80% Human error" are usually the same humans that won't want this system. Someone who drives while tired or drunk or willingly goes over the speed limit or takes stupid chances aren't really concerned about their safety or of anyone else on the road.
Want to make roads safer? Take away their licence, throw them in jail. It's cheaper, faster and safer that way. After a decade, you'll have a fresh crop of drivers far more careful about their driving.
Isn't that a little extreme? Plus, throwing 80% of the drivers involved in accidents in jail for life probably isn't cheaper than, say, just fining them and making them go to bad driver's school like we do now.
Usually, too much importance is given to the immediate cause of an accident. Most accidents don't happen due to a single cause, there's a number of circumstances that must exist together for an accident to happen.
In modern highways, the usual circumstance for most accidents is crowded lanes. The usual cause for crowded lanes is a few dumbasses of the i-hate-tailgaters-and-i-have-the-right-to-drive-at-any-speed-below-the-limit species.
Make it a severe offense, same penalties as drunken driving, to drive on the left lane with someone behind you and those "80% accidents" will go away.
Make it a severe offense to tailgate and you get the same solution, plus its the assholes instead of the timid that you would be punishing.
I get it when someone is going 55 in the left lane, that's insanity, but the vast majority of people whom I know that think like this are usually going 15 over the speed limit and riding the ass of the guy going 5 over. The tailgaters and aggressive drivers are the ones who cause fatalities.
I don't think so, the project worked fairly well as I understand it (remember that video from the 90s in California or Nevada where they were testing the things? It must have been on a nova or something, but I cant find it on youtube), but they knew all along that there was just no way to take it to market because of the liability.
If the thing hadn't worked then maybe, but the fear of lawsuits(and I should reiterate, it was the early 90s so the chances of a system failure killing someone wasn't insignificant) preempted any attempt to put the system into use.
But I want to talk about it now!
I cant say for sure, but for me its 100%. (or it would be, if I'd had the accident.). For fatal accidents I imagine about 80% are either falling asleep at the wheel, alcohol related, or typical young male dumb shit, the remaining 20% could easily be caused by high speed blowouts and things of that nature.
For overall accidents I'm inclined to agree with you, the vast majority of what I see is caused by young women talking on cell phones, but those are usually very minor. Talking about lives lost I think the 80-20 figure is pretty realistic.
Tire blowouts, serpentine belt breaks, break cylinders exploding. Sometimes its a maintenance issue, but a lot of the time things just fail. I had the rear cylinder explode on a vehicle I was driving at highway speeds like 10 years ago, I just barely managed to stop myself with the hand-break on the shoulder without running into the stopped traffic ahead of me, but if I had hit then 100% of my accidents ever would have been caused by mechanical failure with no forewarning.
One of my engineering professors worked on something like this in the 90s, when I asked him why we never saw anything like this come into use he said that they knew that the first time anyone was killed in an accident involving one of the automated vehicles the entire project would be dead. Regardless of if it was from something like a blowout causing a computer driven car to swerve into the other lane, or some drunk ramming headlong into a "platoon" of cars.
Even if it is much safer, the lawyers will be salivating while they wait for the first death.
I think a big part of the problem is that actual systemic change isn't the sort of thing that happens without casualties. Every time in history that a society has attempted to redesign itself all at once, on the level that most internet-dwelling political savants want, it has led to either a civil war or mass starvation.
Change isn't free.