Of course it is better to get a 100W CFL, and put it in a filter that makes the color be just like the one of a 40W incandescent. You would probably get the same light level as well.
I use 1.2kW of computers, a 120W monitor, a 60W fan to cool them all in the summer, I really don't care about the 40W lightbulb.
Same for me, though I am probably more backward. I love my 1982 car, and one of the reasons is the lack of software in it. I recently made a dual low frequency counter (to measure the actual mains frequency and rotation speed of one fan) by using discrete logic chips - the data is then read by a PC using the parallel port, but the time-critical stuff is all in hardware.
People now are building a LED blinker using arduino... I would just use two transistors or a 555 chip - much simpler and cheaper.
Depending on who the enemy is. If he is a terrorist who has personally killed people (and you are 100% certain of that, maybe he brags about it), I'd say give him to Jack Bauer. Even if he does not have any useful information.
Uh, lemme see... loudspeaker + audio source + the tachometer = programmable sound that varies with engine speed.
What are you doing? Designing a system for use with vacuum tubes? The proper way to do this in modern times is to use GPS to determine the speed of the car, synthesize the required sound by simulating an internal combustion engine and then varying the current to the electric motor, so the axle vibrates to create the required sound. Oh, but GPS updates too infrequently, we probably need an optical detector (like in optical mice) to augment it - use the detector for frequent measurements then calibrate it using GPS.
Now it will be possible to have additional 100MB of software in the car.
If you are using a device that needs autocorrect so you can type fast enough, read what you wrote. That also applies to using keyboards, but typos are usually detected by the spell checker.
I'm sure it has, but I meant that it was difficult to hit the particular car with the target in it as opposed to just throwing rocks or bricks and hitting somebody.
In my country overpasses are not enclosed in a mesh, kids probably have better things to do than throw rocks at cars.
A special "sniper rifle" would most likely be designed to be accurate over longer distances than a regular bolt action rifle. While it may be a bit easier to get a permit for a bolt action rifle, but then it would still be difficult to conceal it to get to the rooftop or wherever and to hit anything with it over a long distance, so it means that the killer would need to really want me dead to buy the rile, practice with it etc, compared to just downloading a couple of scripts to run on a Linux live CD.
It depends on whether you have to adapt the "virus" to the specific device or not. If not (or you can write a script to do that for you automatically), then someone may just walk with a transmitter programmed to send the virus in a busy street or some concert and see how many people die. After all, there are serial killers who do it for the fun of killing, not the money or something else.
If someone sticks a knife into me, I die, but he leaves evidence, maybe someone sees him. Throwing a rock into my windshield (when I'm driving) is quite difficult. Also, the murderer needs to be stronger than me, or I could fight him off or run away.
Shooting me with a pistol is loud and someone will most likely hear the gunshot, maybe see the killer running away with the gun or throwing the gun away. Also, a gun is quite difficult to get (in my country), I assume the murderer won't want a legal gun that can be traced back to him, but even to buy a gun legally you need to pass various checks. Shooting me with a sniper rifle is difficult because it is difficult to actually obtain a sniper rifle and it requires skills to shoot accurately over long distances.
On the other hand, pointing a high gain antenna and running a pre-made script is easy and does not leave any evidence. Or just walking past me with a transmitter in pocket programmed to transmit the required codes.
Yes, but poison requires access. You have to be close enough to put it in the target's food or drink, or inject the target with the poison. Shooting the target leaves evidence - the bullet etc. However, this is a wireless attack, with a good antenna it probably can be done from quite far away and would leave no evidence.
It all depends on how much money you can spend on the drives and controllers. RAID is great if you can buy a lot of new drives at once. On the other hand, I can only buy one drive at once, when I run out of space, so the file server is full of hard drives with capacities ranging from 120GB to 500GB. RAID does not work with that
The click is a read error. Drive cannot read a sector, so it moves the arm all the way to the edge of the platter to recalibrate (that's the "click"), then moves it back in and tries to read the sector again.
I don't think any group of people should be in the habit of making their lives more comfortable at the expense of the comfort of others.
This can be taken both ways - the smokers or the non-smokers get more comfortable, while making the other group less comfortable.
If we're going to claim the right to curtail someone's choice to smoke because it has an ill effect on someone else's health, I see no reason why we can't claim the right to curtail someone's choice to smoke entirely, because there are numerous ways it can negatively impact other peoples' health.
Because second-hand smoking effects are direct, while the "money" effects are indirect. Yes, a smoker will visit the doctor more often, but so may an obese non-smoker. Or someone who works in a dangerous environment. Also, a smoker will die sooner, meaning that the pension he gets paid is less, leaving money for other people. In addition to that, the smoker pays much more taxes than a non-smoker, because of the large taxes on cigarettes (current duty is about 67EUR for 1000 cigarettes, this is in addition to VAT), so a heavy smoker pays quite a lot in his life. As long as smokers are a minority (and various restrictions, bans on ads and taxes on tobacco try to make it so), it should not be a problem.
If you ban something, especially an addictive substance, you only create a black market (the USA tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s, it didn't work). So, instead, you should try to make people no longer want it, be it by banning ads (fewer new smokers) or forcing the health warnings on cigarette packs or just increasing the prices. Also, you should try to minimize the damage, for example by making the smokers smoke outside (this also works as a deterrent, because at least one person will be too lazy to get up and go outside, so he will just not smoke).
As I said, I believe that people should be allowed to harm themselves, as long as they do not harm others. So, in my opinion, you should be allowed to smoke, drink and do drugs (as long as you do not kill me while high or rob me for the "fix", drive drunk and speed (on a completely empty road, so if you cause an accident, only you and your car will be damaged; the government will make you pay for the lamp post or whatever you hit), not wear seatbelts, have an open container of mercury in your room etc. As long as the harm done is only to you.
You are also free to spend your money as you wish, be it on nicotine, drugs or something else.
My wish is to maximize health for people who want it, including me. Smokers make a conscious decision to risk health for the whatever benefits of smoking, that is their choice. People around them chose to not smoke to have better health, so why should the smokers force them to endure the stink and get worse health (and probably no benefits of the smoking that the smokers get).
For example, if you have young children, do not smoke at home. Or do you expect a 5 year old (or a newborn) to get his/her own apartment and move away from you?
You're free to choose not to smoke; you're free to avoid places where smokers congregate; you always have been; so other than legislating a group of people into a second class citizen status - "We want you to have the freedom to smoke, we just don't want you to do that filthy shit around US, you disgusting addicts!" - what has banning smoking in restaurants accomplished? What makes the health of at-will employees of a restaurant more deserving of legislative protection than the health of smokers, who have been sadly tricked into becoming addicts by deceptive and manipulative advertising, through no fault of their own?
On the other hand, all restaurants allowing smoking make the other people into second class citizens. "Want to have better health, or worse, are allergic to cigarette smoke? Then don't go to any bar, ever, or wear a gas mask. We want to smoke and going outside to do it is so bad, we'd rather you just stay outside." The smokers can smoke, just do it outside, so the smoke goes away instead of staying in the room and increasing in concentration.
Also, smoking is by choice. While there are some drugs that can make you an addict after the first try, alcohol is tasty and you feel the effects even the first time, I really doubt that anybody found their first cigarette "tasty". So, becoming a smoking addict is a long and conscious process, where you must endure the sore throat, caughs etc until you get used to it and actually can smoke more easily. Also, at least in my country, tobacco advertising is banned and all cigarette packs carry health warnings.
Besides, compare the pros and cons of both: Smoking in restaurants is allowed: + Smokers can smoke more easily - Non-smokers have to avoid all restaurants/bars, not go there as patrons and especially not work there.
Smoking is banned in restaurants: + Non-smokers can work in restaurants and can be patrons - Smokers have to go outside to smoke, which, depending on the weather, may include having to put on a coat.
In my opinion, the slight inconvenience of smokers having to go outside for a smoke is far outweighed by the ability of non-smokers to actually go to a restaurant or work there.
See, I don't get this, it seems like a remarkable double standard to me. You're not allowed to smoke in public places, because it'll hurt other people, but you're allowed to smoke at home, because it only hurts yourself. Except, in hurting yourself, you're driving up the costs of healthcare for everybody - especially in a "universal health care" situation.
Because i am not thinking it in terms of money. You smoke, get health problems, die earlier, it's your own fault. I do not smoke, so i do not want to get health problems or die earlier because of your smoking. The problem is not that the health care costs more if a lot of people get health problems because of second-hand smoking, the problem is that people get health problems because someone else filled the room with toxic gases. Even if the healing did not cost anything, it would still be bad.
If you harm yourself, i have no problem with it, even if it may cost me some money to patch you up (healthcare taxes). What I do not like, is you harming me, because I most likely cannot just pay for the problem to go away - I have to visit the doctor etc and I do not like it.
if we're so eager to protect the health of people from second-hand smoke, why aren't we eager to ban "first-hand" smoke as well?
"first-hand" smoke is your choice. If you do not want health problems, just don't smoke. If you choose to smoke, blame yourself when you have health problems. OTOH, second hand smoke is not always a choice. Yes, it was possible to avoid second-hand smoke by not going to bars, nightclubs, restaurants etc, also not working in them, which is more limiting than just telling the smokers to smoke outside.
As for an outright ban, my country is increasing the taxes on cigarettes so in time it will become too expensive to smoke (and for now gets a lot of tax euros from the smokers). I would not support a ban on tobacco, as I believe that people should be allowed to harm themselves, but not others. So, you can smoke all you want, just do it in your own home (assuming you live alone or with other smokers) or outside, so I (or your kids) do not have to breathe the smoke.
I believe a private business should have the right to allow a perfectly legal activity occur within their premises. The Free Market will solve this problem - if enough people only patron at businesses that do not allow smoking, the pro-smoke places will go bankrupt.
The smoking ban, as I understand it, is more for the protection of the employees than the patrons. While second-hand smoking is unhealthy, I am not in a bar for very long, so the smoke will most likely affect me less than the guy who smokes a pack a day, every day. However, if I worked at a bar, I would have to be in the smoke all day, almost every day. If the same environment was in a factory, it would qualify for "dangerous conditions" or may even be illegal or I may be able to wear a gas mask or other protection. Before smoking was banned in bars, I have been to some bars where the smoke is so thick it's like fog.
If 2 year warranties were that important, individuals would buy competitor products that have 2 year warranties.
Because we live in a near ideal Free Market, meaning that there is somebody selling an iPod with a longer warranty. Right. Also, there is no way for manufacturers to agree to offer shorter warranties and screw the customer.
Free Market is the same as Communism, both are great in theory, but really suck in practice.
While IANAL, I also don't think that the clause will hold up. I'm sure the lawyers working for Sony weren't the first ones to put "you agree not to sue us" in the license agreement or a non-negotiable contract (like the one for cell phone service where you do not get to negotiate with the other party and change the contract; you either sign the standard one or you don't). So, if other companies are not using it, maybe it is because they figured out that it doesn't work.
However, if the developers want people to treat games as tangible items ("you wouldn't steal a car") then they have to be able to resell them (you can buy a used car). Same with all non-consumable items (it is even possible to sell bad lead-acid batteries for the lead in them). So, if each *copy* of a game is to be treated like a car or some other tangible item, it has to have the ability to be resold.
After all, when I bought a couple of used UPSs (and non-OEM batteries), tape decks and even used records or tapes, the manufacturers (or the artist in case of records) didn't get paid the second time because they were paid the first time. The price that the original owner paid for those items included the materials and labor use in their production, the costs of designing the device and the costs of transporting it to him. And, of course, some profit for the manufacturer. So, why should the manufacturer be paid a second time?
The government in my country decided to ban the sale of alcohol on September 1st (start of school year), in an effort to reduce the number of drunk schoolkids (you must be 18 to buy alcohol, but not all sellers follow this law). The result is more drunk people on September 1st.
How this works - when you could buy alcohol any time, no real planning was needed, if you lived near a store that works 24h you can just go and buy some if you run out. Of course some people were lazy and since they didn't buy a lot of alcohol at first, they just drank less. Now, on August 31st, everyone, who plans to party on September 1st, stocks up, buying more than they think they need, so that they don't run out. Of course, now that the alcohol is on the table, they drink it all, the end result being more alcohol consumed. The stores don't complain about this law because they see increased demand for alcohol for the whole week prior to the "dry day".
Also, the sale of alcohol is banned from 22:00 till morning (I do not know the exact hour in the morning), so everyone plans and stocks up already.
That can be debated. First, if you're looking for the sign, there's a good chance you'll actually slow down--I know, it's a crazy thought--so you won't miss it.
I slow down even when using GPS, so I don't miss the turn (if the intersection does not have traffic lights (or other cars) or the green light is on).
You look at the screen for a "fraction of a second." Give me an estimate of that fraction.
Probably about 3/4 of a second. If I didn't get it the first time, I look at the road then back at the screen. If I am moving, I do not look at the screen for too long without looking at the road (even if I am alone on the street, there is still a whole lot of potholes).
Some of the more clever ones might give you a distance ("turn right in 500 feet")
Mine says it three times - right after my current turn ("in 2 km turn right") then a few hundred meters and just before the turn. Still, it can be confusing when there are two options of "right" and the street names are not always shown on the signs.
While I'm not a big fan of laws like this, one consequence of a law like this is you would see some work being done to make these systems more speech-friendly because you wouldn't have the map to fall back on.
I don't think that it is possible. I have driven with a passenger who told me where to turn and I have been tat passenger to another driver (who does not know how to use a GPS). For most intersections it's OK, but some are confusing - "now turn right here" "Which right, the kinda straight right, or the right right?" "the right right" or "turn right here" "Which one, the first or the second street?" "The one that you missed" or "the first, no, I meant that other first, this isn't really a street".
I can read the map if the GPS fails, just that it is more difficult than using a GPS with forward = up map orientation. When I am driving I usually only thing about the next turn, so I do not need to see the whole route. When I am going to a familiar place, I still only think two turns ahead ("I'll need to turn left at the next intersection then change to the right lane because the next turn will be right").
I use forward up because then I don't need to translate between the map and the real world "So, the little arrow on the map is pointing to the left and after the next turn I'll have to go up, so now I have to turn the map 90 degrees to the right, oh, OK, I'll need to turn right".
My mental map is composed of the images of the intersections (how they look in real life) and where I need to turn. When I have been to the destination a couple of times I can usually remember it and no longer need GPS to go there (for some time at least, if I don't do there for a year I will probably forget the route).
I can go somewhere I haven't been before without using a GPS (just reading a map before going) but it is really difficult if I do not know how the intersections look like when I am reading the map (which is why I mostly use the satellite view on google maps). When somebody just tells me the directions (over the phone or whatever) it's almost impossible for me to remember them.
It can be. For one, I do not need to now the speed precisely, after all, the police will only fine me if I'm going at least 10km/h over the speed limit. So, looking down and seeing "75" can be more distracting as I now have to compare that with the sign and find out whether I should speed up (current speed is less than (speed limit - 10km/h) and there are no cars in front of me or slow down (current speed is more or equal than the speed limit + 10km/h).
On the other hand, if the pointer is below that mark (and no cars in front of me), I speed up, if it's above that other mark I slow down and I should really keep the pointer just below that mark in the middle. Also, I don't really have to look at the numbers on the speedometer, I can determine the speed just from the angle of the pointer. In case the speed limit is not divisible by 10 (not that I remember seeing one) I would just keep the pointer between two marks (the speedometer in my car only has marks for every 10 km/h).
While you were looking out the window, you might notice that kid chasing a ball into the street or something.
Not really, the signs that say the street name near the intersection are small (which means I can't read it until I get close, unlike, say, a speed limit sign) and are at the same height as the rest of the signs, so it means that if I am looking for a sign like that, I won't see anything on the road. Also, I will have to look for the sign for a few seconds at least. On the other hand, when the GPS says "turn right" I glance at the screen for a fraction of a second and can return to looking where I'm going.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it is better to get a 100W CFL, and put it in a filter that makes the color be just like the one of a 40W incandescent. You would probably get the same light level as well.
I use 1.2kW of computers, a 120W monitor, a 60W fan to cool them all in the summer, I really don't care about the 40W lightbulb.
Same for me, though I am probably more backward. I love my 1982 car, and one of the reasons is the lack of software in it. I recently made a dual low frequency counter (to measure the actual mains frequency and rotation speed of one fan) by using discrete logic chips - the data is then read by a PC using the parallel port, but the time-critical stuff is all in hardware.
People now are building a LED blinker using arduino... I would just use two transistors or a 555 chip - much simpler and cheaper.
Depending on who the enemy is. If he is a terrorist who has personally killed people (and you are 100% certain of that, maybe he brags about it), I'd say give him to Jack Bauer. Even if he does not have any useful information.
Uh, lemme see... loudspeaker + audio source + the tachometer = programmable sound that varies with engine speed.
What are you doing? Designing a system for use with vacuum tubes? The proper way to do this in modern times is to use GPS to determine the speed of the car, synthesize the required sound by simulating an internal combustion engine and then varying the current to the electric motor, so the axle vibrates to create the required sound. Oh, but GPS updates too infrequently, we probably need an optical detector (like in optical mice) to augment it - use the detector for frequent measurements then calibrate it using GPS.
Now it will be possible to have additional 100MB of software in the car.
If you are using a device that needs autocorrect so you can type fast enough, read what you wrote. That also applies to using keyboards, but typos are usually detected by the spell checker.
I'm sure it has, but I meant that it was difficult to hit the particular car with the target in it as opposed to just throwing rocks or bricks and hitting somebody.
In my country overpasses are not enclosed in a mesh, kids probably have better things to do than throw rocks at cars.
A special "sniper rifle" would most likely be designed to be accurate over longer distances than a regular bolt action rifle. While it may be a bit easier to get a permit for a bolt action rifle, but then it would still be difficult to conceal it to get to the rooftop or wherever and to hit anything with it over a long distance, so it means that the killer would need to really want me dead to buy the rile, practice with it etc, compared to just downloading a couple of scripts to run on a Linux live CD.
It depends on whether you have to adapt the "virus" to the specific device or not. If not (or you can write a script to do that for you automatically), then someone may just walk with a transmitter programmed to send the virus in a busy street or some concert and see how many people die. After all, there are serial killers who do it for the fun of killing, not the money or something else.
If someone sticks a knife into me, I die, but he leaves evidence, maybe someone sees him. Throwing a rock into my windshield (when I'm driving) is quite difficult. Also, the murderer needs to be stronger than me, or I could fight him off or run away.
Shooting me with a pistol is loud and someone will most likely hear the gunshot, maybe see the killer running away with the gun or throwing the gun away. Also, a gun is quite difficult to get (in my country), I assume the murderer won't want a legal gun that can be traced back to him, but even to buy a gun legally you need to pass various checks.
Shooting me with a sniper rifle is difficult because it is difficult to actually obtain a sniper rifle and it requires skills to shoot accurately over long distances.
On the other hand, pointing a high gain antenna and running a pre-made script is easy and does not leave any evidence. Or just walking past me with a transmitter in pocket programmed to transmit the required codes.
Yes, but poison requires access. You have to be close enough to put it in the target's food or drink, or inject the target with the poison. Shooting the target leaves evidence - the bullet etc. However, this is a wireless attack, with a good antenna it probably can be done from quite far away and would leave no evidence.
It all depends on how much money you can spend on the drives and controllers. RAID is great if you can buy a lot of new drives at once. On the other hand, I can only buy one drive at once, when I run out of space, so the file server is full of hard drives with capacities ranging from 120GB to 500GB. RAID does not work with that
The click is a read error. Drive cannot read a sector, so it moves the arm all the way to the edge of the platter to recalibrate (that's the "click"), then moves it back in and tries to read the sector again.
I don't think any group of people should be in the habit of making their lives more comfortable at the expense of the comfort of others.
This can be taken both ways - the smokers or the non-smokers get more comfortable, while making the other group less comfortable.
If we're going to claim the right to curtail someone's choice to smoke because it has an ill effect on someone else's health, I see no reason why we can't claim the right to curtail someone's choice to smoke entirely, because there are numerous ways it can negatively impact other peoples' health.
Because second-hand smoking effects are direct, while the "money" effects are indirect. Yes, a smoker will visit the doctor more often, but so may an obese non-smoker. Or someone who works in a dangerous environment. Also, a smoker will die sooner, meaning that the pension he gets paid is less, leaving money for other people. In addition to that, the smoker pays much more taxes than a non-smoker, because of the large taxes on cigarettes (current duty is about 67EUR for 1000 cigarettes, this is in addition to VAT), so a heavy smoker pays quite a lot in his life. As long as smokers are a minority (and various restrictions, bans on ads and taxes on tobacco try to make it so), it should not be a problem.
If you ban something, especially an addictive substance, you only create a black market (the USA tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s, it didn't work). So, instead, you should try to make people no longer want it, be it by banning ads (fewer new smokers) or forcing the health warnings on cigarette packs or just increasing the prices. Also, you should try to minimize the damage, for example by making the smokers smoke outside (this also works as a deterrent, because at least one person will be too lazy to get up and go outside, so he will just not smoke).
As I said, I believe that people should be allowed to harm themselves, as long as they do not harm others. So, in my opinion, you should be allowed to smoke, drink and do drugs (as long as you do not kill me while high or rob me for the "fix", drive drunk and speed (on a completely empty road, so if you cause an accident, only you and your car will be damaged; the government will make you pay for the lamp post or whatever you hit), not wear seatbelts, have an open container of mercury in your room etc. As long as the harm done is only to you.
You are also free to spend your money as you wish, be it on nicotine, drugs or something else.
My wish is to maximize health for people who want it, including me. Smokers make a conscious decision to risk health for the whatever benefits of smoking, that is their choice. People around them chose to not smoke to have better health, so why should the smokers force them to endure the stink and get worse health (and probably no benefits of the smoking that the smokers get).
For example, if you have young children, do not smoke at home. Or do you expect a 5 year old (or a newborn) to get his/her own apartment and move away from you?
You're free to choose not to smoke; you're free to avoid places where smokers congregate; you always have been; so other than legislating a group of people into a second class citizen status - "We want you to have the freedom to smoke, we just don't want you to do that filthy shit around US, you disgusting addicts!" - what has banning smoking in restaurants accomplished? What makes the health of at-will employees of a restaurant more deserving of legislative protection than the health of smokers, who have been sadly tricked into becoming addicts by deceptive and manipulative advertising, through no fault of their own?
On the other hand, all restaurants allowing smoking make the other people into second class citizens. "Want to have better health, or worse, are allergic to cigarette smoke? Then don't go to any bar, ever, or wear a gas mask. We want to smoke and going outside to do it is so bad, we'd rather you just stay outside."
The smokers can smoke, just do it outside, so the smoke goes away instead of staying in the room and increasing in concentration.
Also, smoking is by choice. While there are some drugs that can make you an addict after the first try, alcohol is tasty and you feel the effects even the first time, I really doubt that anybody found their first cigarette "tasty". So, becoming a smoking addict is a long and conscious process, where you must endure the sore throat, caughs etc until you get used to it and actually can smoke more easily. Also, at least in my country, tobacco advertising is banned and all cigarette packs carry health warnings.
Besides, compare the pros and cons of both:
Smoking in restaurants is allowed:
+ Smokers can smoke more easily
- Non-smokers have to avoid all restaurants/bars, not go there as patrons and especially not work there.
Smoking is banned in restaurants:
+ Non-smokers can work in restaurants and can be patrons
- Smokers have to go outside to smoke, which, depending on the weather, may include having to put on a coat.
In my opinion, the slight inconvenience of smokers having to go outside for a smoke is far outweighed by the ability of non-smokers to actually go to a restaurant or work there.
See, I don't get this, it seems like a remarkable double standard to me. You're not allowed to smoke in public places, because it'll hurt other people, but you're allowed to smoke at home, because it only hurts yourself. Except, in hurting yourself, you're driving up the costs of healthcare for everybody - especially in a "universal health care" situation.
Because i am not thinking it in terms of money. You smoke, get health problems, die earlier, it's your own fault. I do not smoke, so i do not want to get health problems or die earlier because of your smoking. The problem is not that the health care costs more if a lot of people get health problems because of second-hand smoking, the problem is that people get health problems because someone else filled the room with toxic gases. Even if the healing did not cost anything, it would still be bad.
If you harm yourself, i have no problem with it, even if it may cost me some money to patch you up (healthcare taxes). What I do not like, is you harming me, because I most likely cannot just pay for the problem to go away - I have to visit the doctor etc and I do not like it.
if we're so eager to protect the health of people from second-hand smoke, why aren't we eager to ban "first-hand" smoke as well?
"first-hand" smoke is your choice. If you do not want health problems, just don't smoke. If you choose to smoke, blame yourself when you have health problems. OTOH, second hand smoke is not always a choice. Yes, it was possible to avoid second-hand smoke by not going to bars, nightclubs, restaurants etc, also not working in them, which is more limiting than just telling the smokers to smoke outside.
As for an outright ban, my country is increasing the taxes on cigarettes so in time it will become too expensive to smoke (and for now gets a lot of tax euros from the smokers). I would not support a ban on tobacco, as I believe that people should be allowed to harm themselves, but not others. So, you can smoke all you want, just do it in your own home (assuming you live alone or with other smokers) or outside, so I (or your kids) do not have to breathe the smoke.
I believe a private business should have the right to allow a perfectly legal activity occur within their premises. The Free Market will solve this problem - if enough people only patron at businesses that do not allow smoking, the pro-smoke places will go bankrupt.
The smoking ban, as I understand it, is more for the protection of the employees than the patrons. While second-hand smoking is unhealthy, I am not in a bar for very long, so the smoke will most likely affect me less than the guy who smokes a pack a day, every day. However, if I worked at a bar, I would have to be in the smoke all day, almost every day. If the same environment was in a factory, it would qualify for "dangerous conditions" or may even be illegal or I may be able to wear a gas mask or other protection. Before smoking was banned in bars, I have been to some bars where the smoke is so thick it's like fog.
If 2 year warranties were that important, individuals would buy competitor products that have 2 year warranties.
Because we live in a near ideal Free Market, meaning that there is somebody selling an iPod with a longer warranty. Right. Also, there is no way for manufacturers to agree to offer shorter warranties and screw the customer.
Free Market is the same as Communism, both are great in theory, but really suck in practice.
While IANAL, I also don't think that the clause will hold up. I'm sure the lawyers working for Sony weren't the first ones to put "you agree not to sue us" in the license agreement or a non-negotiable contract (like the one for cell phone service where you do not get to negotiate with the other party and change the contract; you either sign the standard one or you don't). So, if other companies are not using it, maybe it is because they figured out that it doesn't work.
However, if the developers want people to treat games as tangible items ("you wouldn't steal a car") then they have to be able to resell them (you can buy a used car). Same with all non-consumable items (it is even possible to sell bad lead-acid batteries for the lead in them). So, if each *copy* of a game is to be treated like a car or some other tangible item, it has to have the ability to be resold.
After all, when I bought a couple of used UPSs (and non-OEM batteries), tape decks and even used records or tapes, the manufacturers (or the artist in case of records) didn't get paid the second time because they were paid the first time. The price that the original owner paid for those items included the materials and labor use in their production, the costs of designing the device and the costs of transporting it to him. And, of course, some profit for the manufacturer. So, why should the manufacturer be paid a second time?
The government in my country decided to ban the sale of alcohol on September 1st (start of school year), in an effort to reduce the number of drunk schoolkids (you must be 18 to buy alcohol, but not all sellers follow this law). The result is more drunk people on September 1st.
How this works - when you could buy alcohol any time, no real planning was needed, if you lived near a store that works 24h you can just go and buy some if you run out. Of course some people were lazy and since they didn't buy a lot of alcohol at first, they just drank less. Now, on August 31st, everyone, who plans to party on September 1st, stocks up, buying more than they think they need, so that they don't run out. Of course, now that the alcohol is on the table, they drink it all, the end result being more alcohol consumed. The stores don't complain about this law because they see increased demand for alcohol for the whole week prior to the "dry day".
Also, the sale of alcohol is banned from 22:00 till morning (I do not know the exact hour in the morning), so everyone plans and stocks up already.
That can be debated. First, if you're looking for the sign, there's a good chance you'll actually slow down--I know, it's a crazy thought--so you won't miss it.
I slow down even when using GPS, so I don't miss the turn (if the intersection does not have traffic lights (or other cars) or the green light is on).
You look at the screen for a "fraction of a second." Give me an estimate of that fraction.
Probably about 3/4 of a second. If I didn't get it the first time, I look at the road then back at the screen. If I am moving, I do not look at the screen for too long without looking at the road (even if I am alone on the street, there is still a whole lot of potholes).
Some of the more clever ones might give you a distance ("turn right in 500 feet")
Mine says it three times - right after my current turn ("in 2 km turn right") then a few hundred meters and just before the turn. Still, it can be confusing when there are two options of "right" and the street names are not always shown on the signs.
While I'm not a big fan of laws like this, one consequence of a law like this is you would see some work being done to make these systems more speech-friendly because you wouldn't have the map to fall back on.
I don't think that it is possible. I have driven with a passenger who told me where to turn and I have been tat passenger to another driver (who does not know how to use a GPS). For most intersections it's OK, but some are confusing - "now turn right here" "Which right, the kinda straight right, or the right right?" "the right right" or "turn right here" "Which one, the first or the second street?" "The one that you missed" or "the first, no, I meant that other first, this isn't really a street".
I can read the map if the GPS fails, just that it is more difficult than using a GPS with forward = up map orientation. When I am driving I usually only thing about the next turn, so I do not need to see the whole route. When I am going to a familiar place, I still only think two turns ahead ("I'll need to turn left at the next intersection then change to the right lane because the next turn will be right").
I use forward up because then I don't need to translate between the map and the real world "So, the little arrow on the map is pointing to the left and after the next turn I'll have to go up, so now I have to turn the map 90 degrees to the right, oh, OK, I'll need to turn right".
My mental map is composed of the images of the intersections (how they look in real life) and where I need to turn. When I have been to the destination a couple of times I can usually remember it and no longer need GPS to go there (for some time at least, if I don't do there for a year I will probably forget the route).
I can go somewhere I haven't been before without using a GPS (just reading a map before going) but it is really difficult if I do not know how the intersections look like when I am reading the map (which is why I mostly use the satellite view on google maps). When somebody just tells me the directions (over the phone or whatever) it's almost impossible for me to remember them.
It can be. For one, I do not need to now the speed precisely, after all, the police will only fine me if I'm going at least 10km/h over the speed limit. So, looking down and seeing "75" can be more distracting as I now have to compare that with the sign and find out whether I should speed up (current speed is less than (speed limit - 10km/h) and there are no cars in front of me or slow down (current speed is more or equal than the speed limit + 10km/h).
On the other hand, if the pointer is below that mark (and no cars in front of me), I speed up, if it's above that other mark I slow down and I should really keep the pointer just below that mark in the middle. Also, I don't really have to look at the numbers on the speedometer, I can determine the speed just from the angle of the pointer. In case the speed limit is not divisible by 10 (not that I remember seeing one) I would just keep the pointer between two marks (the speedometer in my car only has marks for every 10 km/h).
While you were looking out the window, you might notice that kid chasing a ball into the street or something.
Not really, the signs that say the street name near the intersection are small (which means I can't read it until I get close, unlike, say, a speed limit sign) and are at the same height as the rest of the signs, so it means that if I am looking for a sign like that, I won't see anything on the road. Also, I will have to look for the sign for a few seconds at least. On the other hand, when the GPS says "turn right" I glance at the screen for a fraction of a second and can return to looking where I'm going.