I will say that I was defensive as the point you came into the discussion was where the other person claimed that the Government made the technology advance
Ah, that makes sense. I was really only commenting on the fact that very few people used seat belts, even though they were available in all cars since 1968. Nothing more. I don't know how old you are, but the/. crowd seems to be pretty young these days. So I was simply interjecting a bit of reality about a time before most/.'ers were born. I doubt there are numbers for the percentage who did wear them. But if it was only 25% in California in 1980, I'd be surprised if it was over 10% nation wide in the early 1970's.
The safety features I was alluding to were things like crumple zones, integrated roll bars, etc. There were no cars available to the public, with air bags, prior to 1973 that I'm aware of. There were several cars that were designed to be extremely fuel efficient. Again, no one cared. That was actually more of a curse than a good feature prior to the 70's oil crisis.
After the oil crisis, people sort of wanted econo boxes and the gov't instituted CAFE requirements. Everyone assumed that the public didn't want large cars any more. The reality was that they didn't want to pay large amounts of money at the pump. Once the price of gas lowered, no one really wanted small cars, but the mileage standards messed that up, so we had the rise of the SUV. Station wagons were not killed due to being unpopular, they were killed by CAFE. Since light trucks had a lower requirement, they became the obvious replacement.
Anyhow, my tangent was just pointing out how gov't regulations often times have a very surprising unintended consequences.
Other than the novelty, why would anyone waste the electricity for 4.3GB of storage space (or even multiples of 4.3GB)?
As long as they are doing what they need to be doing, how much electricity savings are you going to get and is it worth the PITA to change them. I have a system with a 15+ year old 12 GB drive in it. I have a much lower wattage appliance to replace it, and have for several months now. I just haven't had the time to swap it out.
I miss Micropolis. I had an array of their 4.3 GB 10K RPM SCSI Tomahawks close to 20 years ago. A friend of mine has them now and they are still spinning. They sounded like an Air Bus A320 and could heat a large closet, but they were fantastic. I don't think I ever had a Micropolis drive fail. Just retired them due to larger more efficient quieter drives becoming available.
I think it all has to do with luck as far as which brand works for some people though. I know people that have never had WD drives fail, but I've had dozens of them fail. Granted, their replacement policy was pretty good the last time I used it. After the replacement failed within days of receiving it, they sent me a larger better model to replace it. Seagate has been pretty good in my experience, but I read about all kinds of failures in reviews. IBM/Hitachi got the deathstar nickname, and I have to agree with this on as I've had 3 out of five drives from them fail in a spectacular manner. Anyhow, my point is, is that you can see all of the statistics you want, there still seems to be a luck factor for each person too.
Yes, my mistake about the Brady Bunch. I forgot about the movies. The show was filmed by Paramount Television, a division of Paramount and was made in California, so to me that's no different than Hollywood. The graph I references was from 1980, Regardless, California was never what I would think of as "tougher" than a blue collar place like Detroit. The nanny state started long before the Silicon Valley and the 1990's dot com boom.
I think we are in agreement as I never once stated that the gov't invented anything. We seem to disagree with how much influence it had. Whether or not you agree, seat belt usage across the nation was very low until the seat belt laws were introduced by each state.
You seem to have a very interesting debate technique. You completely ignore statements you don't like and pick apart irrelevant minutia and argue things that were never stated. I never once said anything about cars having air bags in 1963. I stated 1973 as GM had the option for several models for the 1974 production year, which would have started shipping in late 1973. Part of the original reason for air bags was because so many people did not wear seat belts at the time. Even the Wikipedia article on air bags states: "Airbags for passenger cars were introduced in the United States in the mid-1970s, when seat belt usage rates in the country were quite low." Which was my only point to begin with. The majority of people did not wear seat belts until there were state laws that forced the to.
I never once stated that the gov't was responsible for the invention of seat belts or air bags. What I was disagreeing with was that the people in the US were using them in any way that would indicate the demand you seem to think there was.
Yes there was a whole lot of dialog. concerning seat belts. Most of it from the public was that they thought it somehow robbed them of their freedom. California seat belt usage from this graph goes back to 1980. It was about 25%. So you think it was greater in 1970? 1965? California has been at the forefront of safety issues. Do you really think people in Detroit were more safety conscious? The "Big 3" had air bags in 1973. What year was the first time you ever saw a car with one? Or even heard of an air bag? There are also seats that can greatly reduce your forward momentum in a crash. They aren't cheap, and I'd guess you never heard of it. I don't see the public clamoring for them. There had been several cars prior to the 1970's that touted remarkable safety features. Guess what, no body bought them because styling was much more important than safety.
Yes the Brady Bunch and every TV show had everyone using seat belts. Guess what, they made those movies in California. Where the seat belt usage was only 25% in 1980. I sure as hell wouldn't be pointing to Hollywood as proof as to what life was like in the 1970's. Or what was normal. My father was the only person I knew who wore a seat belt back then. Not even my mother did.
You grew up in Detroit and think there are automatic brakes on cars? I thin k there are a few that have the option for brakes that do this, but I doubt there are more than 10 models, and they are probably only the flagship for Mercedes, BMW, and maybe Lexus, etc. IF you are talking about power brakes, then that is partially due to cars getting heavier and gov't mandates for stopping distances. Or are you talking about ABS? Again, that was a option until the gov't mandated it. My niece just bought a Yaris in the last year or two. She paid somewhere around $2K less for a standard transmission. Like I said, it depends on the car. Bigger heavier cars with a fair bit of horse power, are much harder to make a standard that can hold up, so they are more expensive.
As people's awareness of air-bags increased the demand was also increasing. If public demands increased all automakers would have included them, just like they did with seat belts.
People thought airbags would kill them when they were introduced. And before seat belts were mandatory in 1968, few people chose to pay for the option. How may pre-1968 cars have you been in with seat belts that were not retrofitted? How many pre-1968 cars have you been in period? Who's speculating now?
If it starts to cost more money to give people the option than it does to include the feature, it becomes standard. That same evolution happened with "Standard" vs. "Automatic" transmissions and brakes, and countless other technologies.
No. Standard transmission were cheaper than automatics through at least the early 1990's. And you paid more for a car with an automatic if you had the option. And still do in many cars. It's simply that more people want an automatic than a standard these days, so they produce many more cars with them. When were brakes optional?
You just changed the argument from "Car makers didn't have safety gear" to "People didn't use the safety gear" simply because you proven wrong!
How in the hell was I proven wrong when I wasn't even part of this discussion until my previous post? You were the one who stated that "most cars already had seat belts and most people used them" I'm telling you that most people did not use them.
As stated correctly, car makers _did_ have safety gear and it was being improved every year long before Government requirements.
The government mandated (lap) seat belts be put in all cars in 1968. There were no real improvements on them from the original automotive lap belts that came out in the 1930's. There was not a law in any state requiring people to wear them (in cars that were equipped) until 1981.
Your next paragraph is backing that point. The safety existed, and improved. Your dad (by your story) used the equipment decades before any "click-it or ticket" laws existed.
Yes, and he was the exception. Since you seemed to miss that point.
As to the auto makers wanting to have people pay for air-bags, I agree with your point to an extent. However, you continue to present the argument as though air-bags didn't exist before Government regulation. That is factually incorrect!
Holy fucking comprehension fail! That is not at all what I stated. Just that the manufacturers did not want them to become mandatory.
To claim that without law the air-bags would not be included is speculation without historical merit.
What alternate universe do you come from? The automotive manufacturers historically look for every penny they can save on each car because it gets multiplied by millions in production runs.
People that had families in the 70s wore seat belts because of public ad campaigns, not because of the laws passed decades later.
Perhaps where you lived.
As people's awareness of air-bags increased the demand was also increasing. If public demands increased all automakers would have included them, just like they did with seat belts.
People thought airbags would kill them when they were introduced. And before seat belts were mandatory in 1968, few people chose to pay for the option. How may pre-1968 cars have you been in with seat belts that were not retrofitted? How many pre-1968 cars have you been
Claiming the Government made it "mandatory" does not change the fact that most cars already had seat belts and most people used them.
I can assure you most people did not use them. Seat belts were optional in cars until 1968. I'd guess it wasn't until the late 1970's that the nice retractable seat belts like we have now were common. Most cars simply had a lap belt. It was adjusted something like a seat belt on an air plane. So it was a pain in the ass trying to find both ends as they fell between the seats most of the time. My first car was a 1970 Impala. It had a separate shoulder belt too. I didn't use it either as it was not retractable and had to be held in place by two clips above the door when not in use. Sometime in the late 1970's to early 80's there was a big push by the government to get people to wear them as most people didn't. My father was a drivers ed teacher, so he was one of the few people I knew who did. A lot of people seemed to not wear them in defiance of the government. They didn't want to be "told what to do". I also heard a lot of excuses about not being able to get out of a car in a hurry, or being too injured to release the seat belt. I remember hearing a talk at school that changed my mind. The speaker made the point that if you were too injured to unbuckle a seat belt, then how would you be able to open the door. I did have one friend that was such a crazy ass driver that I never wore a seat belt in his car, because I didn't want to live through a crash that he would be in. If so many people willing wore seat belts, then there wouldn't have been so much money spent on campaigns to get people to do so. Even today, most states have signs along the road with catchy slogans like, "seat belts save lives", or "Click it or ticket". Why do you suppose that is?
When Air bags were developed there were no laws requiring air-bags. Numerous cars were already getting them installed, all without a regulation. Market pressure sped up the development and implementation long before the Government made a law to make them mandatory.
They were an option that the customer had to pay for. The auto industry did not want them mandated. On the contrary, they fought like hell to keep that from happening. They even struck a deal with the US government that if they could get enough of the states to pass seat belt laws that 80% of the population would be required to use them, the air bag requirement would be put on hold. If the market was the push for air bags, then you would think the car companies would have put them in everything themselves.
>Military has alread been drastically cut in the last year.
Yes. And it's still more bloated and larger than the next 10 or so largest military budgets in the world. It needs cut further. Let's cut the f-35,
It should at least be reevaluated by an independent group. Many countries have already dumped several tons of money into it. If it can be completed for considerably less than has already been put into it, then it needs to be finished. If there's no chance in hell of that, then it does need to be cut.
the f-22,
Are you a fucking idiot? It's already been tested and used in theater. You don't cut something that's already in service unless it's obsolete, or has sub-par performance. You can argue for drones all you like, but they aren't sufficient to replace an F-22 yet. Unless you wish to sink a ton more more money into developing more drones.
drop iraq,
I didn't realize there were any time zones on the planet that were a year behind everyone else. Good to know.
afghanistan,
Agreed!
s. korea,
Are we at war with South Korea? Or are you suggesting that we just let them be overrun by the DPRK?
and israel.
While I do get sick of some of the bullshit that Israel pulls, I'm not sure abandoning them would be a great thing to do. I'm not sure what exactly would happen to the middle east if they weren't there. Suddenly there would be no boogeyman for all of the other nations to point to. And then they'd only have each other to turn on. Since most of the other nations in that region are considerably weaker, they'd be a lot easier to attack. Not that we would give a damn if it wasn't for the oil.
While we're doing that, let's get taxes on the rich to the same rate as everyone else. Capital gains are income, tax them like it.
Then you can start bitching about nasa or ACA.
Idiot
On one hand I agree with you. Some of the shit that goes on at the uber rich end of the pay scale is appalling. On the other, I'm truly amazed at how being successful has become a stigma. I feel it is, to some degree, the duty of the better off to help the less fortunate. But that doesn't mean that everyone has a right to a 75 inch state of the art television and a car with $5000 rims and a 25 Kw stereo, etc. I'd love to see the tax code greatly simplified. Hell, I'm all for a flat percentage tax on everyone for all income. As it is, the wealthy see the government as something they must do their best to avoid paying into and the poor see it as a trough they are entitled to. Now we have generations of rich being taught that they must hide their money and abuse the system in any way they can to keep as much as they can. Then there are generations of poor being raised to believe they are owed money and raised to navigate the system to get as much as they can out of it. It's a vicious cycle of greed that has to end.
In future revisions to this, they may have their entire work crews living underground with shaved heads and all white clothing, enforce drug usage, and forbid sexual activity.
"What's wrong?"
The "forbid sexual activity" part. Because if you do that, there will soon be no work crews at all. Workers don't grow on trees, you know?
It's a reference to THX1138. I haven't seen it a while. But if i recall correctly, sex was regulated.
He also talked of implementing sensors that would monitor worker's stress levels and bodily functions, and notify management when they became less effective, or mistake-prone, on the job.
What could possibly go wrong? Seriously, this sounds like the beginning of a cookie cutter dystopian sci-fi book/movie/television series.
Sony could release a phone that claimed to cure cancer, solve world poverty and establish peace in the middle east. They're still not getting a cent of my disposable income.
Well aren't you a selfish bastard. We must think of the children!
More importantly, will it run Linux? And for how long?
I also get a kick out of those who are adamantly against the LGBT community bringing up polygamy. I think it's a very valid question. Why stop there?
Because an arbitrary number limit is non-discriminatory.
You know what else is arbitrary? Limiting marriage to a single partner of the opposite sex. See, that's non-discriminatory too. Oh, wait...
Compare a "Limit 2 people on a motorcycle law" to a "Ban on same-gender motorcycle riding". An arbitrary limit applies equally to all.
How about I get a side car with two additional seats? It's a little more complicated than your analogy. Making all people marry a partner who is of the opposite sex is also arbitrary and applies equally to all. Not suggesting we do this, but it's just as stupid as your statement.
Tired of what? I believe you when you say you don't give a damn if someone is gay, etc. So, you're tired of what you see as a double standard (reading near the end of the first paragraph)? If so, I don't see the double standard. You may not be able to fully appreciate what kind of a nightmare existence some humans live in, like me for example. I realized very early that I wasn't the same as most humans around me. I kept hid as best I could, but maybe you don't know what it is like to be tortured almost daily through school, not being able to talk to anyone about it, for years. I am 40 now. I mainly travel between home and work and still stay hid otherwise. If I say something, my effeminate voice might give me away. Maybe my walk, which seems as normal as anyone else's to me but somehow is a give away. It doesn't matter if I shouldn't be that way, I AM THAT WAY -- terrified most times of the hatred people have for me here in the Bible Belt. So, I have a few extra bucks in my wallet. Should I give those dollars to someone who's trying to make my life even worse? For his goddamn art? What the fuck are you tired of? No one was even talking to you.
If you don't care to hear about stuff then stop reading it. And I don't give a shit if you see the movie or not. I'm glad I heard about the author so I didn't inadvertently give him my money.
Tired of being called stupid names that don't even come close to an accurate description of me. You don't see the double standard because you are too close to the subject at hand.
I truly feel sorry for you. And I do not mean that in any way to be patronizing. I'm a little older than you, but I remember how hard school was on most people. A lot of people got picked on. I wasn't ever one of the "popular" homecoming king types, but I got along with most people. I was also pretty scrappy in my youth, so very few people messed with me. Win or lose, anyone who picked a fight with me regretted it. So most usually didn't find it in their best interest. I also had a habit of standing up for people like you and other "outcasts". It's not that I was trying to stand up of any kind of cause. I just didn't feel it was right. It probably confused the hell out of most people. I can't say I know, I moved a lot when I was young, and haven't been back to any of the places of my youth in well over 20 years.
I'm not sure why you allow yourself to live in fear. Are your piers going to physically attack you? If not, then perhaps some of it is in you head. If it is as bad as you believe it is, why don't you leave? It doesn't sound like you are trying to make some kind of statement, or take a stand. So why bother? Life's too short to live it they way you have. There are plenty of places that I think you could move to and be much happier. Why torture yourself.
What you want to put your dick in, or put in your vagina really don't concern me.
What if a man comes up to you and want to put his dick inside your ass? Does that also not concern you? Imagine this furutre scenario:
Man: (walks up to you) Hey, I like you. Can I put my dick up your ass?
You: No way I'm letting you or anybody else put his dick up my ass!
Man: Homophobe!!
I'm guessing that since you are posting as an AC, you are trolling. But I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
I don't feel the need to go around espousing my sexuality, this post being a rare exception.
Yes, I'm so impressed with your ability to take things out of context. Brilliant!
Wait. I thought we were supposed to shut the fuck up. If you don't like gays going on about their orientation, why do you feel the need to do so too?.
I normally don't. Honestly, this is probably the first time I've mentioned on any internet site in the 25+ years I've been on the net. In this case, I felt it appropriate to point out that I'm a hetro male who's not "afraid" to associate with homosexual people.
I really don't know why anyone feels the need to [espouse their sexulality].
I don't know, but it's probably a bit hard to get laid without mentioning your orientation to someone.
Yes, that was difficult when I was single. I always walked into the bar and proudly announced that "I like pussy!". I always found it difficulet to hook up without first mentioning that.
And also, are you suggesting that they should be ashamed in some way?
Not at all, and if you actually read my post you may notice I said the exact opposite. I'm certainly not ashamed of being heterosexual. But I don't need to announce it.
Not mention it? Why not? Does it make you feel uncomfortable? Maybe it'll make you gay? Maybe you should give that a try.
Yes, every time I meet someone I feel the need to announce that I'm a mostly Caucasian right-handed male bipedal married heterosexual Homo Sapiens No one gives a damn. It would be fucking annoying. I have gay friends, been to gay clubs. It's just not my thing. Sorry to break your heart.
Your post is typical of the pretend-tolerance 'but don't push it in my face' nonsense that shows just how far the acceptance of LGBT has to go.
Look. I don't see any "heterosexual pride parades". Or "I like to fuck pussy day" on the calendar. Haven't seen "I like cock in my vagina month" either. And I don't want to. Like I said, do what makes you happy. I know I do. But I also don't feel the need to announce it to the world. Yes, please go ahead and tell me all about how that's what I'm doing now. Because this one discussion is on the same level as "gay pride day" or what ever. There's no "pretend-tolerance". I don't care, I just don't want to be called names because I don't beat the same drum/dead horse you do. Your post shows just how far society has its head up its ass.
I also get a kick out of those who are adamantly against the LGBT community bringing up polygamy. I think it's a very valid question. Why stop there? Why is polygamy the bridge too far? What about incest?
I think most issues with incest, aside from the whole genetic defects thing, come from issues of consent. That is, it might not be possible to give informed consent at a certain age, which is how incest normally seems to manifest itself.
I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem?
I can't say I've known many couples like this. Actually I knew exactly one couple who were first cousins. They were in their late twenties when they "got together" for the first time. They also didn't make big deal of it, in fact they were scared to death to let anyone know. It struck me as a little weird, but they seemed happy enough, so it's not my place to judge them.
It makes sense that a brother and sister can't be married due to genetic defects in their offspring. But why can't a gay couple be brothers? There's no chance of lesbian sisters knocking each other up. I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem?
Gays and lesbians make up a small fraction of the planet's population, having siblings who want to marry make up a much much smaller fraction, and the intersection of those two circles seems to me like it'd be infinitesimally small. IE, I don't worry about it either way.
Oh? So they don't matter to you because there are not enough of them? Just what is the threshold to become significant? Why is the number of gay and lesbian people enough to worry about? You yourself stated that they "make up a small fraction of the planet's population" Perhaps Mr. Card feels that there are not a significant enough number of gay and lesbian people to justify their rights. Just as you seem to feel that there are not enough incestuous gay and lesbian couples. Should I jump up and down and proclaim you homophobic? Incestophobic?
Or are you polygaphobic?
I'd be against polygamy just because the legal issues are too complex to wrangle out. Two-partner marriage issues are complex enough, I'm not sure that we -can- put together a fair legal framework for polygamic marriage.
So it's legally too inconvenient for you to want to address these peoples rights to love who they want? I'm pretty sure I've heard this argument before. All you need to do now is proclaim it will be the undoing of our society/country/way of life and you sound no better than the people who are trying to suppress the LGBT people of the world.
You can be against homosexuality (generally due to religious beliefs) and not have a phobia about it.
What new word would you like to be used for people who are only effectively but not technically homophobes due to the source of their desire for oppression? I'd consider using it, even though it would be a useless distinction.
I'm so tired of this shit. I really don't give a damn if someone is gay, lesbian, androgynous, a trans-testicle (yes, that's a joke, get over it) or whatever. I simply don't care. That doesn't mean I have to "embrace" it, or even care about it. And that doesn't make me "homophobic". What you want to put your dick in, or put in your vagina really don't concern me. Go about your business and shut the fuck up. I'm a heterosexual male, always have been, most likely always will be. When I was younger, I wondered what the hell would make guy attracted to another, but just never understood it and really don't care. I've had and have gay/lesbian friends, and most of them are not ashamed of it (not that they should be), but they don't feel the need to make everyone around them celebrate what they do with their genitals. If Mr. Card feels the way he does, good for him. It's a free country (less so recently). I wish he'd not run his mouth on the subject either. But if we're supposed to respect each other feelings, then it's a two way street. He can have his beliefs and should be able to state them, without persecution, just the same as those who disagree with him.
I also get a kick out of those who are adamantly against the LGBT community bringing up polygamy. I think it's a very valid question. Why stop there? Why is polygamy the bridge too far? What about incest? It makes sense that a brother and sister can't be married due to genetic defects in their offspring. But why can't a gay couple be brothers? There's no chance of lesbian sisters knocking each other up. I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem? Or are you polygaphobic? Or incestaphobic? Why is LGBT where the limit should be and no further? Again, it's not my thing, but I honestly don't care if people want to be in a polygamous marriage. If that makes them happy, great. But I don't want to hear about how I have to support it or something's wrong with me.
I don't feel the need to go around espousing my sexuality, this post being a rare exception. I really don't know why anyone feels the need to do so. Do what makes you happy and don't tell me I have to agree with you. I don't, but I also don't feel I should be called names for it either.
I read Ender's Game (actually I think I read the short first) and Speaker for the Dead not long after they were released, then again when when the sequal was released (I don't remember what the name was) and recall enjoying them. So I will see this movie. If I have time, it will be in at a theater. If not, then I will buy it, probably, on Bluray. If this makes me homophobic, then you need to seek help.
If the government spends your taxes in a way you disagree with, and the election system makes you unable to change that, you can decide between shutting up, protesting and revolting.
In the United States, as well as many other countries, you also have the option to leave. I suppose that could qualify as a form of protest too.
Slashdot Mirror
I will say that I was defensive as the point you came into the discussion was where the other person claimed that the Government made the technology advance
Ah, that makes sense. I was really only commenting on the fact that very few people used seat belts, even though they were available in all cars since 1968. Nothing more. I don't know how old you are, but the /. crowd seems to be pretty young these days. So I was simply interjecting a bit of reality about a time before most /.'ers were born. I doubt there are numbers for the percentage who did wear them. But if it was only 25% in California in 1980, I'd be surprised if it was over 10% nation wide in the early 1970's.
The safety features I was alluding to were things like crumple zones, integrated roll bars, etc. There were no cars available to the public, with air bags, prior to 1973 that I'm aware of. There were several cars that were designed to be extremely fuel efficient. Again, no one cared. That was actually more of a curse than a good feature prior to the 70's oil crisis.
After the oil crisis, people sort of wanted econo boxes and the gov't instituted CAFE requirements. Everyone assumed that the public didn't want large cars any more. The reality was that they didn't want to pay large amounts of money at the pump. Once the price of gas lowered, no one really wanted small cars, but the mileage standards messed that up, so we had the rise of the SUV. Station wagons were not killed due to being unpopular, they were killed by CAFE. Since light trucks had a lower requirement, they became the obvious replacement.
Anyhow, my tangent was just pointing out how gov't regulations often times have a very surprising unintended consequences.
they are still spinning
Other than the novelty, why would anyone waste the electricity for 4.3GB of storage space (or even multiples of 4.3GB)?
As long as they are doing what they need to be doing, how much electricity savings are you going to get and is it worth the PITA to change them. I have a system with a 15+ year old 12 GB drive in it. I have a much lower wattage appliance to replace it, and have for several months now. I just haven't had the time to swap it out.
Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
Alcohol. Helping ugly people get laid since...
I miss Micropolis. I had an array of their 4.3 GB 10K RPM SCSI Tomahawks close to 20 years ago. A friend of mine has them now and they are still spinning. They sounded like an Air Bus A320 and could heat a large closet, but they were fantastic. I don't think I ever had a Micropolis drive fail. Just retired them due to larger more efficient quieter drives becoming available.
I think it all has to do with luck as far as which brand works for some people though. I know people that have never had WD drives fail, but I've had dozens of them fail. Granted, their replacement policy was pretty good the last time I used it. After the replacement failed within days of receiving it, they sent me a larger better model to replace it. Seagate has been pretty good in my experience, but I read about all kinds of failures in reviews. IBM/Hitachi got the deathstar nickname, and I have to agree with this on as I've had 3 out of five drives from them fail in a spectacular manner. Anyhow, my point is, is that you can see all of the statistics you want, there still seems to be a luck factor for each person too.
Yes, my mistake about the Brady Bunch. I forgot about the movies. The show was filmed by Paramount Television, a division of Paramount and was made in California, so to me that's no different than Hollywood. The graph I references was from 1980, Regardless, California was never what I would think of as "tougher" than a blue collar place like Detroit. The nanny state started long before the Silicon Valley and the 1990's dot com boom.
I think we are in agreement as I never once stated that the gov't invented anything. We seem to disagree with how much influence it had. Whether or not you agree, seat belt usage across the nation was very low until the seat belt laws were introduced by each state.
You seem to have a very interesting debate technique. You completely ignore statements you don't like and pick apart irrelevant minutia and argue things that were never stated. I never once said anything about cars having air bags in 1963. I stated 1973 as GM had the option for several models for the 1974 production year, which would have started shipping in late 1973. Part of the original reason for air bags was because so many people did not wear seat belts at the time. Even the Wikipedia article on air bags states: "Airbags for passenger cars were introduced in the United States in the mid-1970s, when seat belt usage rates in the country were quite low." Which was my only point to begin with. The majority of people did not wear seat belts until there were state laws that forced the to.
I never once stated that the gov't was responsible for the invention of seat belts or air bags. What I was disagreeing with was that the people in the US were using them in any way that would indicate the demand you seem to think there was.
Yes there was a whole lot of dialog. concerning seat belts. Most of it from the public was that they thought it somehow robbed them of their freedom. California seat belt usage from this graph goes back to 1980. It was about 25%. So you think it was greater in 1970? 1965? California has been at the forefront of safety issues. Do you really think people in Detroit were more safety conscious? The "Big 3" had air bags in 1973. What year was the first time you ever saw a car with one? Or even heard of an air bag? There are also seats that can greatly reduce your forward momentum in a crash. They aren't cheap, and I'd guess you never heard of it. I don't see the public clamoring for them. There had been several cars prior to the 1970's that touted remarkable safety features. Guess what, no body bought them because styling was much more important than safety.
Yes the Brady Bunch and every TV show had everyone using seat belts. Guess what, they made those movies in California. Where the seat belt usage was only 25% in 1980. I sure as hell wouldn't be pointing to Hollywood as proof as to what life was like in the 1970's. Or what was normal. My father was the only person I knew who wore a seat belt back then. Not even my mother did.
You grew up in Detroit and think there are automatic brakes on cars? I thin k there are a few that have the option for brakes that do this, but I doubt there are more than 10 models, and they are probably only the flagship for Mercedes, BMW, and maybe Lexus, etc. IF you are talking about power brakes, then that is partially due to cars getting heavier and gov't mandates for stopping distances. Or are you talking about ABS? Again, that was a option until the gov't mandated it. My niece just bought a Yaris in the last year or two. She paid somewhere around $2K less for a standard transmission. Like I said, it depends on the car. Bigger heavier cars with a fair bit of horse power, are much harder to make a standard that can hold up, so they are more expensive.
As people's awareness of air-bags increased the demand was also increasing. If public demands increased all automakers would have included them, just like they did with seat belts.
People thought airbags would kill them when they were introduced. And before seat belts were mandatory in 1968, few people chose to pay for the option. How may pre-1968 cars have you been in with seat belts that were not retrofitted? How many pre-1968 cars have you been in period? Who's speculating now?
If it starts to cost more money to give people the option than it does to include the feature, it becomes standard. That same evolution happened with "Standard" vs. "Automatic" transmissions and brakes, and countless other technologies.
No. Standard transmission were cheaper than automatics through at least the early 1990's. And you paid more for a car with an automatic if you had the option. And still do in many cars. It's simply that more people want an automatic than a standard these days, so they produce many more cars with them. When were brakes optional?
The idiots are a minority of the population.
citation needed
You just changed the argument from "Car makers didn't have safety gear" to "People didn't use the safety gear" simply because you proven wrong!
How in the hell was I proven wrong when I wasn't even part of this discussion until my previous post? You were the one who stated that "most cars already had seat belts and most people used them" I'm telling you that most people did not use them.
As stated correctly, car makers _did_ have safety gear and it was being improved every year long before Government requirements.
The government mandated (lap) seat belts be put in all cars in 1968. There were no real improvements on them from the original automotive lap belts that came out in the 1930's. There was not a law in any state requiring people to wear them (in cars that were equipped) until 1981.
Your next paragraph is backing that point. The safety existed, and improved. Your dad (by your story) used the equipment decades before any "click-it or ticket" laws existed.
Yes, and he was the exception. Since you seemed to miss that point.
As to the auto makers wanting to have people pay for air-bags, I agree with your point to an extent. However, you continue to present the argument as though air-bags didn't exist before Government regulation. That is factually incorrect!
Holy fucking comprehension fail! That is not at all what I stated. Just that the manufacturers did not want them to become mandatory.
To claim that without law the air-bags would not be included is speculation without historical merit.
What alternate universe do you come from? The automotive manufacturers historically look for every penny they can save on each car because it gets multiplied by millions in production runs.
People that had families in the 70s wore seat belts because of public ad campaigns, not because of the laws passed decades later.
Perhaps where you lived.
As people's awareness of air-bags increased the demand was also increasing. If public demands increased all automakers would have included them, just like they did with seat belts.
People thought airbags would kill them when they were introduced. And before seat belts were mandatory in 1968, few people chose to pay for the option. How may pre-1968 cars have you been in with seat belts that were not retrofitted? How many pre-1968 cars have you been
The true viking god of metal would be Yngwie Malmsteen, not Van Halen.
A true viking god is Techno Viking
Claiming the Government made it "mandatory" does not change the fact that most cars already had seat belts and most people used them.
I can assure you most people did not use them. Seat belts were optional in cars until 1968. I'd guess it wasn't until the late 1970's that the nice retractable seat belts like we have now were common. Most cars simply had a lap belt. It was adjusted something like a seat belt on an air plane. So it was a pain in the ass trying to find both ends as they fell between the seats most of the time. My first car was a 1970 Impala. It had a separate shoulder belt too. I didn't use it either as it was not retractable and had to be held in place by two clips above the door when not in use. Sometime in the late 1970's to early 80's there was a big push by the government to get people to wear them as most people didn't. My father was a drivers ed teacher, so he was one of the few people I knew who did. A lot of people seemed to not wear them in defiance of the government. They didn't want to be "told what to do". I also heard a lot of excuses about not being able to get out of a car in a hurry, or being too injured to release the seat belt. I remember hearing a talk at school that changed my mind. The speaker made the point that if you were too injured to unbuckle a seat belt, then how would you be able to open the door. I did have one friend that was such a crazy ass driver that I never wore a seat belt in his car, because I didn't want to live through a crash that he would be in. If so many people willing wore seat belts, then there wouldn't have been so much money spent on campaigns to get people to do so. Even today, most states have signs along the road with catchy slogans like, "seat belts save lives", or "Click it or ticket". Why do you suppose that is?
When Air bags were developed there were no laws requiring air-bags. Numerous cars were already getting them installed, all without a regulation. Market pressure sped up the development and implementation long before the Government made a law to make them mandatory.
They were an option that the customer had to pay for. The auto industry did not want them mandated. On the contrary, they fought like hell to keep that from happening. They even struck a deal with the US government that if they could get enough of the states to pass seat belt laws that 80% of the population would be required to use them, the air bag requirement would be put on hold. If the market was the push for air bags, then you would think the car companies would have put them in everything themselves.
>Military has alread been drastically cut in the last year. Yes. And it's still more bloated and larger than the next 10 or so largest military budgets in the world. It needs cut further. Let's cut the f-35,
It should at least be reevaluated by an independent group. Many countries have already dumped several tons of money into it. If it can be completed for considerably less than has already been put into it, then it needs to be finished. If there's no chance in hell of that, then it does need to be cut.
the f-22,
Are you a fucking idiot? It's already been tested and used in theater. You don't cut something that's already in service unless it's obsolete, or has sub-par performance. You can argue for drones all you like, but they aren't sufficient to replace an F-22 yet. Unless you wish to sink a ton more more money into developing more drones.
drop iraq,
I didn't realize there were any time zones on the planet that were a year behind everyone else. Good to know.
afghanistan,
Agreed!
s. korea,
Are we at war with South Korea? Or are you suggesting that we just let them be overrun by the DPRK?
and israel.
While I do get sick of some of the bullshit that Israel pulls, I'm not sure abandoning them would be a great thing to do. I'm not sure what exactly would happen to the middle east if they weren't there. Suddenly there would be no boogeyman for all of the other nations to point to. And then they'd only have each other to turn on. Since most of the other nations in that region are considerably weaker, they'd be a lot easier to attack. Not that we would give a damn if it wasn't for the oil.
While we're doing that, let's get taxes on the rich to the same rate as everyone else. Capital gains are income, tax them like it.
Then you can start bitching about nasa or ACA.
Idiot
On one hand I agree with you. Some of the shit that goes on at the uber rich end of the pay scale is appalling. On the other, I'm truly amazed at how being successful has become a stigma. I feel it is, to some degree, the duty of the better off to help the less fortunate. But that doesn't mean that everyone has a right to a 75 inch state of the art television and a car with $5000 rims and a 25 Kw stereo, etc. I'd love to see the tax code greatly simplified. Hell, I'm all for a flat percentage tax on everyone for all income. As it is, the wealthy see the government as something they must do their best to avoid paying into and the poor see it as a trough they are entitled to. Now we have generations of rich being taught that they must hide their money and abuse the system in any way they can to keep as much as they can. Then there are generations of poor being raised to believe they are owed money and raised to navigate the system to get as much as they can out of it. It's a vicious cycle of greed that has to end.
In future revisions to this, they may have their entire work crews living underground with shaved heads and all white clothing, enforce drug usage, and forbid sexual activity.
"What's wrong?"
The "forbid sexual activity" part. Because if you do that, there will soon be no work crews at all. Workers don't grow on trees, you know?
It's a reference to THX1138. I haven't seen it a while. But if i recall correctly, sex was regulated.
As long as these drones pay their union dues.
In Soylent Green?
Peter F. Hamilton's OCTattos from his Commonwealth Saga become reality.
At one time I would have preferred neural nanonics. But I'm not so sure any more. The way things are going we'd end up with thought police.
He also talked of implementing sensors that would monitor worker's stress levels and bodily functions, and notify management when they became less effective, or mistake-prone, on the job.
What could possibly go wrong? Seriously, this sounds like the beginning of a cookie cutter dystopian sci-fi book/movie/television series.
Sony could release a phone that claimed to cure cancer, solve world poverty and establish peace in the middle east. They're still not getting a cent of my disposable income.
Well aren't you a selfish bastard. We must think of the children!
More importantly, will it run Linux? And for how long?
How would he describe the function of that useless apostrophe you added for no reason to the possessive pronoun "its"?
Pedantic troll bait?
I also get a kick out of those who are adamantly against the LGBT community bringing up polygamy. I think it's a very valid question. Why stop there?
Because an arbitrary number limit is non-discriminatory.
You know what else is arbitrary? Limiting marriage to a single partner of the opposite sex. See, that's non-discriminatory too. Oh, wait...
Compare a "Limit 2 people on a motorcycle law" to a "Ban on same-gender motorcycle riding". An arbitrary limit applies equally to all.
How about I get a side car with two additional seats? It's a little more complicated than your analogy. Making all people marry a partner who is of the opposite sex is also arbitrary and applies equally to all. Not suggesting we do this, but it's just as stupid as your statement.
I'm so tired of this shit.
Tired of what? I believe you when you say you don't give a damn if someone is gay, etc. So, you're tired of what you see as a double standard (reading near the end of the first paragraph)? If so, I don't see the double standard. You may not be able to fully appreciate what kind of a nightmare existence some humans live in, like me for example. I realized very early that I wasn't the same as most humans around me. I kept hid as best I could, but maybe you don't know what it is like to be tortured almost daily through school, not being able to talk to anyone about it, for years. I am 40 now. I mainly travel between home and work and still stay hid otherwise. If I say something, my effeminate voice might give me away. Maybe my walk, which seems as normal as anyone else's to me but somehow is a give away. It doesn't matter if I shouldn't be that way, I AM THAT WAY -- terrified most times of the hatred people have for me here in the Bible Belt. So, I have a few extra bucks in my wallet. Should I give those dollars to someone who's trying to make my life even worse? For his goddamn art? What the fuck are you tired of? No one was even talking to you.
If you don't care to hear about stuff then stop reading it. And I don't give a shit if you see the movie or not. I'm glad I heard about the author so I didn't inadvertently give him my money.
Tired of being called stupid names that don't even come close to an accurate description of me. You don't see the double standard because you are too close to the subject at hand.
I truly feel sorry for you. And I do not mean that in any way to be patronizing. I'm a little older than you, but I remember how hard school was on most people. A lot of people got picked on. I wasn't ever one of the "popular" homecoming king types, but I got along with most people. I was also pretty scrappy in my youth, so very few people messed with me. Win or lose, anyone who picked a fight with me regretted it. So most usually didn't find it in their best interest. I also had a habit of standing up for people like you and other "outcasts". It's not that I was trying to stand up of any kind of cause. I just didn't feel it was right. It probably confused the hell out of most people. I can't say I know, I moved a lot when I was young, and haven't been back to any of the places of my youth in well over 20 years.
I'm not sure why you allow yourself to live in fear. Are your piers going to physically attack you? If not, then perhaps some of it is in you head. If it is as bad as you believe it is, why don't you leave? It doesn't sound like you are trying to make some kind of statement, or take a stand. So why bother? Life's too short to live it they way you have. There are plenty of places that I think you could move to and be much happier. Why torture yourself.
Anyhow, I wish you well.
What you want to put your dick in, or put in your vagina really don't concern me.
What if a man comes up to you and want to put his dick inside your ass? Does that also not concern you? Imagine this furutre scenario: Man: (walks up to you) Hey, I like you. Can I put my dick up your ass? You: No way I'm letting you or anybody else put his dick up my ass! Man: Homophobe!!
I'm guessing that since you are posting as an AC, you are trolling. But I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
Go about your business and shut the fuck up.
Ok.
I'm a heterosexual male.
I don't feel the need to go around espousing my sexuality, this post being a rare exception.
Yes, I'm so impressed with your ability to take things out of context. Brilliant!
Wait. I thought we were supposed to shut the fuck up. If you don't like gays going on about their orientation, why do you feel the need to do so too?.
I normally don't. Honestly, this is probably the first time I've mentioned on any internet site in the 25+ years I've been on the net. In this case, I felt it appropriate to point out that I'm a hetro male who's not "afraid" to associate with homosexual people.
I really don't know why anyone feels the need to [espouse their sexulality].
I don't know, but it's probably a bit hard to get laid without mentioning your orientation to someone.
Yes, that was difficult when I was single. I always walked into the bar and proudly announced that "I like pussy!". I always found it difficulet to hook up without first mentioning that.
And also, are you suggesting that they should be ashamed in some way?
Not at all, and if you actually read my post you may notice I said the exact opposite. I'm certainly not ashamed of being heterosexual. But I don't need to announce it.
Not mention it? Why not? Does it make you feel uncomfortable? Maybe it'll make you gay? Maybe you should give that a try.
Yes, every time I meet someone I feel the need to announce that I'm a mostly Caucasian right-handed male bipedal married heterosexual Homo Sapiens No one gives a damn. It would be fucking annoying. I have gay friends, been to gay clubs. It's just not my thing. Sorry to break your heart.
Your post is typical of the pretend-tolerance 'but don't push it in my face' nonsense that shows just how far the acceptance of LGBT has to go.
Look. I don't see any "heterosexual pride parades". Or "I like to fuck pussy day" on the calendar. Haven't seen "I like cock in my vagina month" either. And I don't want to. Like I said, do what makes you happy. I know I do. But I also don't feel the need to announce it to the world. Yes, please go ahead and tell me all about how that's what I'm doing now. Because this one discussion is on the same level as "gay pride day" or what ever. There's no "pretend-tolerance". I don't care, I just don't want to be called names because I don't beat the same drum/dead horse you do. Your post shows just how far society has its head up its ass.
I also get a kick out of those who are adamantly against the LGBT community bringing up polygamy. I think it's a very valid question. Why stop there? Why is polygamy the bridge too far? What about incest?
I think most issues with incest, aside from the whole genetic defects thing, come from issues of consent. That is, it might not be possible to give informed consent at a certain age, which is how incest normally seems to manifest itself.
I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem?
I can't say I've known many couples like this. Actually I knew exactly one couple who were first cousins. They were in their late twenties when they "got together" for the first time. They also didn't make big deal of it, in fact they were scared to death to let anyone know. It struck me as a little weird, but they seemed happy enough, so it's not my place to judge them.
It makes sense that a brother and sister can't be married due to genetic defects in their offspring. But why can't a gay couple be brothers? There's no chance of lesbian sisters knocking each other up. I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem?
Gays and lesbians make up a small fraction of the planet's population, having siblings who want to marry make up a much much smaller fraction, and the intersection of those two circles seems to me like it'd be infinitesimally small. IE, I don't worry about it either way.
Oh? So they don't matter to you because there are not enough of them? Just what is the threshold to become significant? Why is the number of gay and lesbian people enough to worry about? You yourself stated that they "make up a small fraction of the planet's population" Perhaps Mr. Card feels that there are not a significant enough number of gay and lesbian people to justify their rights. Just as you seem to feel that there are not enough incestuous gay and lesbian couples. Should I jump up and down and proclaim you homophobic? Incestophobic?
Or are you polygaphobic?
I'd be against polygamy just because the legal issues are too complex to wrangle out. Two-partner marriage issues are complex enough, I'm not sure that we -can- put together a fair legal framework for polygamic marriage.
So it's legally too inconvenient for you to want to address these peoples rights to love who they want? I'm pretty sure I've heard this argument before. All you need to do now is proclaim it will be the undoing of our society/country/way of life and you sound no better than the people who are trying to suppress the LGBT people of the world.
See how silly this becomes?
You can be against homosexuality (generally due to religious beliefs) and not have a phobia about it.
What new word would you like to be used for people who are only effectively but not technically homophobes due to the source of their desire for oppression? I'd consider using it, even though it would be a useless distinction.
I'm so tired of this shit. I really don't give a damn if someone is gay, lesbian, androgynous, a trans-testicle (yes, that's a joke, get over it) or whatever. I simply don't care. That doesn't mean I have to "embrace" it, or even care about it. And that doesn't make me "homophobic". What you want to put your dick in, or put in your vagina really don't concern me. Go about your business and shut the fuck up. I'm a heterosexual male, always have been, most likely always will be. When I was younger, I wondered what the hell would make guy attracted to another, but just never understood it and really don't care. I've had and have gay/lesbian friends, and most of them are not ashamed of it (not that they should be), but they don't feel the need to make everyone around them celebrate what they do with their genitals. If Mr. Card feels the way he does, good for him. It's a free country (less so recently). I wish he'd not run his mouth on the subject either. But if we're supposed to respect each other feelings, then it's a two way street. He can have his beliefs and should be able to state them, without persecution, just the same as those who disagree with him.
I also get a kick out of those who are adamantly against the LGBT community bringing up polygamy. I think it's a very valid question. Why stop there? Why is polygamy the bridge too far? What about incest? It makes sense that a brother and sister can't be married due to genetic defects in their offspring. But why can't a gay couple be brothers? There's no chance of lesbian sisters knocking each other up. I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem? Or are you polygaphobic? Or incestaphobic? Why is LGBT where the limit should be and no further? Again, it's not my thing, but I honestly don't care if people want to be in a polygamous marriage. If that makes them happy, great. But I don't want to hear about how I have to support it or something's wrong with me.
I don't feel the need to go around espousing my sexuality, this post being a rare exception. I really don't know why anyone feels the need to do so. Do what makes you happy and don't tell me I have to agree with you. I don't, but I also don't feel I should be called names for it either.
I read Ender's Game (actually I think I read the short first) and Speaker for the Dead not long after they were released, then again when when the sequal was released (I don't remember what the name was) and recall enjoying them. So I will see this movie. If I have time, it will be in at a theater. If not, then I will buy it, probably, on Bluray. If this makes me homophobic, then you need to seek help.
If the government spends your taxes in a way you disagree with, and the election system makes you unable to change that, you can decide between shutting up, protesting and revolting.
In the United States, as well as many other countries, you also have the option to leave. I suppose that could qualify as a form of protest too.
High compression does. High boost can be a little trickier.