It crashes IE7 if you use some Microsoft add-ons - haven't taken time to figure out which one but they're all microsoft. I've not had any luck with Firefox doing anything but downloading docs - and sometimes that doesn't work either. The check out, edit, and upload certainly isn't functional in Firefox 3.07
People start bitching because it's a knee-jerk reaction at this point. We're trying to convince people that it takes less time for them to type 2-3 words explaining it than for thousands of people to Google it and figure out which of the many results are applicable based on context. Would you agree or disagree with this statement?
Also, just because I'm not familiar with it doesn't mean I won't find it interesting. Especially if I'm interested in it, and used them lots before someone invented a new name for it for no reason.
You're thinking that someone will just store these away and hope for the best. The point isn't to preserve stuff for later. The point is, in my opinion, that current storage doesn't last long. This storage option lasts longer. If you want to preserve things for 1k years and have a plan for it, great. Think more like 50 years - or 100, a person's lifetime. Current burnable DVD/CD tech doesn't do that. I'd like to count on my media lasting more than 3 years, so I'm all for this.
That's simply one person's opinion, and does not mean anything about the actual law. That quote can be ignored, unless you simply want to know what their opinion is. Or where they are trying to take the law. but it isn't there yet.
It is illegal to copy a DVD if you break the DRM to do it, but you don't have to do that if you're watching it on a DVD player capable of playing normal discs. But that's irrelevant to a simple backup as well.
In short, I was going to mod you down but figured I'd explain why so others wouldn't make the same mistake.
In theory that would work, but you have to consider the data source. If you're talking about images from the net, this won't cut it. Lots of times the images will be downloaded and re-saved using higher quality settings. The result is double compression and the lesser quality image has the higher settings.
You do both. Automated testing is only as good as the people who write the tests. If you make assumptions in the code, and also in the tests, you won't find bugs until users actually use it.
I know all about how you can rearrange responsibilities and someone other than the developer writes the tests blah blah whatever, it never works 100%. After I get done with all of my testing I have a human try it and about a third of the time that user will try to do something that wasn't in the requirements and did not get tested because it wasn't expected. Maybe a bug comes out of that, maybe it's just documentation that needs updated, but you have to have people using it in real life situations to be called a true test. I've seen automated testing pass things and then users, because they operate more slowly, expose timing or deadlock problems. Real people are needed.
If a security researcher owned a satellite receiver box company then probably you're right. There's a good chance he was trying to support his business illegally based on the evidence in the article. In this case, he's not just making an interoperable product. He's trying to piggyback for free on Dish Network's hard work. DN put a satellite into space, and maintain it, and gather programming, and beam up to the satellite. It would not be considered simple interoperability if this guy sold a box that could decode the signal.
I'm sure you could argue that point if you wanted - that if they didn't want people to access it they should find a medium that can't be intercepted, but that's what the encryption is for - to block interception.
I bought a PS2 around 6 months ago - now I have almost 30 games, purchased for $5-$20. that's as much as I'm willing to pay. If they used game market goes away, I go from propping up game stores with my used game purchases to download+mod chip.
Considering they sell game systems at a loss, I'm not sure they want to push me that way. Because I'm the tech guy among my friends and if I go around spreading the mod chip gospel it's not just me going to update. Sure that's illegal, but I'm willing to do the civil disobedience bit to make sure I can use a game system however I want, including putting in a mod chip so I can program it myself. The downloads haven't happened yet so no use arguing with me about that part.
No need to wipe and reinstall. Get your installation done, clean. Then image the drive using Trinity Rescue Kit or some other rescue thing. You can restore the OS to its pristine state in about 10 minutes. Being able to clean a virus is a valuable skill, but when you can do a "system restore" like this it's awesome.
Also, put your profile and all installations on a separate partition or drive (I recommend a drive so you can't screw up and overwrite the partition). That way when you reimage it doesn't wipe everything. Someone above you also said stuff about backing up each app's registry and junk, that's a little too far. I usually take the opportunity to update the apps I have, or reinstall to make sure the installation media still works.
Also, don't click on anything stupid. I've never had a virus. Router, updates, and good sense go a long way. Some people have spouses and kids and you can't do anything about that of course.
Based on that, any DRM scheme which prevents fair use (especially if it is a simple anti-circumvention trap) would not be permissible. If you have to circumvent a protection scheme to access a snippet in order to review it, which is not permitted under DMCA, there is no fair use at all.
Of course, when copyright expires and no one has figured out how to break the DRM, that should present a separate conundrum of not being able to access content which is not protected by copyright.
"website enablers" you mean. If we code to just the standards, it most likely won't look right in all of the target browsers.
That's how this whole thing evolved in the first place. We write standards-compliant stuff, it doesn't look right, boss or client makes us change it, then we get the browser-sniffing and box model hacks... now you just copy code or styles or whatever because it works.
I have been wrestling with that myself. Some of the reason sites do that is essentially URL rewriting, where they have a name for the page but then depending on your current context they might take you to a different directory or something. Most aren't, but some of the examples I see are actually very clever time-saving devices, viewed from the programmer's perspective. Could you put the same logic in the back-end? Sure. In fact it would be far more secure and protect your IP. And wouldn't be copyable. But it does separate the logic, which is more maintainable.
Of course, some just do a redirect to the full relative URL, and that is inexcusable. I do surf with NoScript, and if I can't see your products I'll just move to a competitor's site. I used to mail websites and tell them what I was doing, but it did no good. So now there's a million websites out there I don't buy from and no one knows why.
It was a good looking game, and not having played system shock I didn't miss anything. The story line was quite cool, the maps were interesting and expansive. Yes it was short, but I appreciated that it didn't have a lot of the bugs and quirks I'm used to seeing in games. So I think your lack of ignorance is getting in the way of you forming an objective opinion about this game without comparing to others like it. Does every game have to build on and improve other games, or can it just be good on its own?
How is it arguing against his/her self? what he meant was "just good enough" as in get it working and then forget about it. for people who really love formatting Word documents, or whose who never format, it's "good enough". But if you just want to make a few quick changes to something, it's a nightmare to make it look they way it should. I still get bullets with a different color when I make a bulleted list. I can't fix the line spacing because some inbuilt styles have padding after them - so I get either run together text or gigantic expanses of blankness - and I don't have time to make a small change to the style which affects other parts of the document. I paste everything into a text editor to remove all of the formatting, then re-paste it in and start over.
In the case of OOo and *nix, they often aren't "just good enough" - they excel but they are still different enough to be foreign. "Fill Down" uses different keys, for no apparent reason, just as one example. Most Linux distros don't have the main OS interface keyboard friendly. Sure you can configure it, but users don't like that. I'd give more examples but I just don't use it because I keep finding irritating things that I have to google in order to figure out how to change some obscure setting that should be in a different dialog.
If it doesn't work out of the box, it doesn't work. Microsoft works out of the box, but just barely. Open source tends to need more work to get it going, and then it's a lot easier from there because people FIX THINGS when it's broken. Firefox won because it works out of the box, and now I'm seeing a lot of the little things being rearranged so that if I were a NEW user, I'd hate it. I still hate it, but I'm spoiled and not switching back.
This community constantly rails against how Microsoft has aped other OS vendors to try to make their products better, and then rails against Microsoft trying to innovate in their own software.
First thing - "this community" is made up of individuals with differing opinions, so it's probably not the same people. It's a sympathetic audience, so no matter what you disagree with you're likely to find support here if you just post. Not surprising.
For my part, it's because no matter what they do, they get it wrong. It doesn't flow exactly right, or something. Like putting the "Close" button directly next to the "maximize" button. Or using "Start" when you want to "shut down". It's always something that shows quite blatantly that they really kinda thought about it, but didn't think all the way through.
Microsoft refuses to change things that don't make sense, usually for "compatibility" or because people are used to it or other such nonsense explanation. Then they make huge changes, which impact the speed with which people are able to do work. That's productivity going down, and there's no way to turn it off.
The new interface is basically Mouse-only, unless you happen to remember the shortcuts from 2003. In 2003, when I hit ALT+D I have options and I can see all of the things I can do with data in case I forget. With 2007, it's "Continue typing the Office 2003 menu key sequence." While I'm glad they at least left that intact, you have to have a cheat sheet somewhere to look everything up, which is back to exactly the problem we had with early word processors and the function key templates you had to overlay on the keyboard in order to do anything. "Use the mouse" is what MS is trying to do, despite decades of "make it accessible to everyone" lectures.
I came here expecting to ask why they added this line But is it an operating system, Microsoft Research's analogue to Google's Chrome OS? Not quite. but you had already made this comment. Why would a browser prototype be like an operating system?
And.. using.NET more has always been their plan, to convince people you can write useful apps in it. I thought Vista was supposed to have large portions written in.NET - right along with the database-like filesystem of course. That aside, tt's a great choice for prototyping, since you can get something out the door quickly.
I've never seen a Java app on Windows that ran with any decent GUI ever. All of the objects seem to be widgets drawn custom instead of using native win32 functions and objects.
File / Open has its own dialog, which looks ALMOST but not quite like Windows version. It is terrible to operate with a keyboard and is missing features I expect in the dialog. You're recreating things instead of using the native libraries. It would be one thing to create new things, but these are just bad copies.
It's like Java developers and devs who use Java have never seen a GUI, and don't quite know what people expect. Certainly they aren't Windows users. As much as they imitate it, they really seem to have no idea what it's supposed to be like. I get scared when people say things are written in Java.
Where should I have heard about this? What is it? Is this a consumer technology or server-room toy or a device or platform or what? And most importantly: When will my manager start requiring 5 years experience in it despite never using it in projects?
Opposition to threading by Firefox devs came from, among others, Brendan Eich, the inventor of Javascript. You can read his well supported arguments on Bugzilla.
BE's opposition was based on solving the problem, if there is one, rather than re-architecting the solution on principal.
...If you insist on defining the problem to dictate the solution, then of course "multitasking" is the OS's job.
But responsive browser UI with windows and tabs galore is not "multitasking". I dissent. Many browsers are responsive (modulo plugins, separate issue, dealt with via processes in Konq, e.g.) without threads.
I really do object to putting the thread cart before the various horses (lack of UI responsiveness, lack of CPU utilization on multicores, other throughput and latency complaints) whose best solutions *may or may not* have anything to do with threads.
His position is against the original bug reporter:
There would be substantial improvement in the quality of the UI if the general UI and the geck UI (as in web pages) were threaded. This would also protecta against locked pages.
Essentially, his objection was that it wasn't solving the problem. This is a different argument - more like whether Google Chrome has a good idea with their protected processes. That's a problem with stability - If the browser handled ALL exceptions intelligently, and watched for runaway scripts, it wouldn't be needed at all.
IE 7's tabs are isolated, and the dev team said they had to jump through hoops to get it to work correctly - adding more complexity, which means more potential points of failure. From the same bug:
"One design decision worth calling out is that our current implementation is fully multithreaded. Each tab is on a separate thread, and the frame is also on its own thread. This has some impact on the overall footprint of IE, but we believe this will allow IE7 to feel faster and provide an overall better user experience. Internally this creates some additional complexity as we have to deal with a lot of cross-thread communication, but it also gives us a way to do things we wouldn't otherwise be able to do with a single-threaded approach."
I'm all for deciding what the problem is and finding a solution to fix it - not proposing a new design just to see if we can.
Maybe the people responsible were doing other things and they didn't want to hold up the release for a bug noticed by two people?
To get a fix in, they have to have someone with the time, desire, and know-how to find the issue and fix it. Maybe the cause is in an upstream package like the codec libraries...
Feel free to find it yourself and submit a patch. I always used to hate hearing that, but sometimes a fix simply isn't available by the next release.
If the doctor prescribed it, it must be safe right? And they intentionally recommend lower doses than would be lethal, so you have a little room, right? I mean, I'm not like the other people who die taking it, I'm only taking a little more than recommended. If it didn't work, I must have missed some. I took it with food, that slows down alcohol absorption, so I can take more because I ate and it will be slowly absorbed and it will be fine.
All of these thoughts make sense by themselves... but you take that extra bit and it suddenly goes from completely safe to dangerous.
I think the point here is people should be scared of drugs - but they are so common these days that fear is completely lost. If a few people die, the drugs get taken off the market. I'm currently taking something that killed 6 people - now the paperwork around taking it is incredible. It takes so much documentation and checking to make sure that I'm still supposed to be taking it - every month. Over 6 people, it was taken off the market and reevaluated and additional paperwork and process created.
So there are two sides to this. One, people see that drugs are carefully followed and should be safe. Two, people SHOULD see that drugs are scary and powerful and need to be respected, but all they see is the safe side, because of the logical fallacy that you won't be the one. Sure seat belts save lives, but I don't get in accidents. Sure cars get hot, but I can leave my dog or kid in it - I'll just be a FEW minutes, not like those people whose kids or pets died. Or sure other people need to pay attention when they drive, but I've got it under control.
People don't get it, and you can't make them get it. so you either have to accept that people will die, or make it impossible for them to die. In my old age, I'm inclined to agree with this. Take it with another pain killer and die, take it with alcohol and die, so people can't be trusted. Personally I'm all for Darwinian self de-selection for the gene pool, but as an enlightened society we have no choice but to make it difficult for people to kill themselves accidentally.
Slashdot Mirror
It crashes IE7 if you use some Microsoft add-ons - haven't taken time to figure out which one but they're all microsoft. I've not had any luck with Firefox doing anything but downloading docs - and sometimes that doesn't work either. The check out, edit, and upload certainly isn't functional in Firefox 3.07
People start bitching because it's a knee-jerk reaction at this point. We're trying to convince people that it takes less time for them to type 2-3 words explaining it than for thousands of people to Google it and figure out which of the many results are applicable based on context. Would you agree or disagree with this statement?
Also, just because I'm not familiar with it doesn't mean I won't find it interesting. Especially if I'm interested in it, and used them lots before someone invented a new name for it for no reason.
You're thinking that someone will just store these away and hope for the best. The point isn't to preserve stuff for later. The point is, in my opinion, that current storage doesn't last long. This storage option lasts longer. If you want to preserve things for 1k years and have a plan for it, great. Think more like 50 years - or 100, a person's lifetime. Current burnable DVD/CD tech doesn't do that. I'd like to count on my media lasting more than 3 years, so I'm all for this.
That's simply one person's opinion, and does not mean anything about the actual law. That quote can be ignored, unless you simply want to know what their opinion is. Or where they are trying to take the law. but it isn't there yet.
It is illegal to copy a DVD if you break the DRM to do it, but you don't have to do that if you're watching it on a DVD player capable of playing normal discs. But that's irrelevant to a simple backup as well.
In short, I was going to mod you down but figured I'd explain why so others wouldn't make the same mistake.
In theory that would work, but you have to consider the data source. If you're talking about images from the net, this won't cut it. Lots of times the images will be downloaded and re-saved using higher quality settings. The result is double compression and the lesser quality image has the higher settings.
If it's not a human testing, it's already wrong.
You do both. Automated testing is only as good as the people who write the tests. If you make assumptions in the code, and also in the tests, you won't find bugs until users actually use it.
I know all about how you can rearrange responsibilities and someone other than the developer writes the tests blah blah whatever, it never works 100%. After I get done with all of my testing I have a human try it and about a third of the time that user will try to do something that wasn't in the requirements and did not get tested because it wasn't expected. Maybe a bug comes out of that, maybe it's just documentation that needs updated, but you have to have people using it in real life situations to be called a true test. I've seen automated testing pass things and then users, because they operate more slowly, expose timing or deadlock problems. Real people are needed.
If a security researcher owned a satellite receiver box company then probably you're right. There's a good chance he was trying to support his business illegally based on the evidence in the article. In this case, he's not just making an interoperable product. He's trying to piggyback for free on Dish Network's hard work. DN put a satellite into space, and maintain it, and gather programming, and beam up to the satellite. It would not be considered simple interoperability if this guy sold a box that could decode the signal.
I'm sure you could argue that point if you wanted - that if they didn't want people to access it they should find a medium that can't be intercepted, but that's what the encryption is for - to block interception.
I bought a PS2 around 6 months ago - now I have almost 30 games, purchased for $5-$20. that's as much as I'm willing to pay. If they used game market goes away, I go from propping up game stores with my used game purchases to download+mod chip.
Considering they sell game systems at a loss, I'm not sure they want to push me that way. Because I'm the tech guy among my friends and if I go around spreading the mod chip gospel it's not just me going to update. Sure that's illegal, but I'm willing to do the civil disobedience bit to make sure I can use a game system however I want, including putting in a mod chip so I can program it myself. The downloads haven't happened yet so no use arguing with me about that part.
Funny, it reminds me of any Seymour Butts movie.
Is that one of the Palin kids?
No need to wipe and reinstall. Get your installation done, clean. Then image the drive using Trinity Rescue Kit or some other rescue thing. You can restore the OS to its pristine state in about 10 minutes. Being able to clean a virus is a valuable skill, but when you can do a "system restore" like this it's awesome.
Also, put your profile and all installations on a separate partition or drive (I recommend a drive so you can't screw up and overwrite the partition). That way when you reimage it doesn't wipe everything. Someone above you also said stuff about backing up each app's registry and junk, that's a little too far. I usually take the opportunity to update the apps I have, or reinstall to make sure the installation media still works.
Also, don't click on anything stupid. I've never had a virus. Router, updates, and good sense go a long way. Some people have spouses and kids and you can't do anything about that of course.
Based on that, any DRM scheme which prevents fair use (especially if it is a simple anti-circumvention trap) would not be permissible. If you have to circumvent a protection scheme to access a snippet in order to review it, which is not permitted under DMCA, there is no fair use at all.
Of course, when copyright expires and no one has figured out how to break the DRM, that should present a separate conundrum of not being able to access content which is not protected by copyright.
"website enablers" you mean. If we code to just the standards, it most likely won't look right in all of the target browsers.
That's how this whole thing evolved in the first place. We write standards-compliant stuff, it doesn't look right, boss or client makes us change it, then we get the browser-sniffing and box model hacks... now you just copy code or styles or whatever because it works.
The site has to work, otherwise there's no point.
I have been wrestling with that myself. Some of the reason sites do that is essentially URL rewriting, where they have a name for the page but then depending on your current context they might take you to a different directory or something. Most aren't, but some of the examples I see are actually very clever time-saving devices, viewed from the programmer's perspective. Could you put the same logic in the back-end? Sure. In fact it would be far more secure and protect your IP. And wouldn't be copyable. But it does separate the logic, which is more maintainable.
Of course, some just do a redirect to the full relative URL, and that is inexcusable. I do surf with NoScript, and if I can't see your products I'll just move to a competitor's site. I used to mail websites and tell them what I was doing, but it did no good. So now there's a million websites out there I don't buy from and no one knows why.
It was a good looking game, and not having played system shock I didn't miss anything. The story line was quite cool, the maps were interesting and expansive. Yes it was short, but I appreciated that it didn't have a lot of the bugs and quirks I'm used to seeing in games. So I think your lack of ignorance is getting in the way of you forming an objective opinion about this game without comparing to others like it. Does every game have to build on and improve other games, or can it just be good on its own?
How is it arguing against his/her self? what he meant was "just good enough" as in get it working and then forget about it. for people who really love formatting Word documents, or whose who never format, it's "good enough". But if you just want to make a few quick changes to something, it's a nightmare to make it look they way it should. I still get bullets with a different color when I make a bulleted list. I can't fix the line spacing because some inbuilt styles have padding after them - so I get either run together text or gigantic expanses of blankness - and I don't have time to make a small change to the style which affects other parts of the document. I paste everything into a text editor to remove all of the formatting, then re-paste it in and start over.
In the case of OOo and *nix, they often aren't "just good enough" - they excel but they are still different enough to be foreign. "Fill Down" uses different keys, for no apparent reason, just as one example. Most Linux distros don't have the main OS interface keyboard friendly. Sure you can configure it, but users don't like that. I'd give more examples but I just don't use it because I keep finding irritating things that I have to google in order to figure out how to change some obscure setting that should be in a different dialog.
If it doesn't work out of the box, it doesn't work. Microsoft works out of the box, but just barely. Open source tends to need more work to get it going, and then it's a lot easier from there because people FIX THINGS when it's broken. Firefox won because it works out of the box, and now I'm seeing a lot of the little things being rearranged so that if I were a NEW user, I'd hate it. I still hate it, but I'm spoiled and not switching back.
First thing - "this community" is made up of individuals with differing opinions, so it's probably not the same people. It's a sympathetic audience, so no matter what you disagree with you're likely to find support here if you just post. Not surprising.
For my part, it's because no matter what they do, they get it wrong. It doesn't flow exactly right, or something. Like putting the "Close" button directly next to the "maximize" button. Or using "Start" when you want to "shut down". It's always something that shows quite blatantly that they really kinda thought about it, but didn't think all the way through.
Microsoft refuses to change things that don't make sense, usually for "compatibility" or because people are used to it or other such nonsense explanation. Then they make huge changes, which impact the speed with which people are able to do work. That's productivity going down, and there's no way to turn it off.
The new interface is basically Mouse-only, unless you happen to remember the shortcuts from 2003. In 2003, when I hit ALT+D I have options and I can see all of the things I can do with data in case I forget. With 2007, it's "Continue typing the Office 2003 menu key sequence." While I'm glad they at least left that intact, you have to have a cheat sheet somewhere to look everything up, which is back to exactly the problem we had with early word processors and the function key templates you had to overlay on the keyboard in order to do anything. "Use the mouse" is what MS is trying to do, despite decades of "make it accessible to everyone" lectures.
Is there a reason to go there? Considering there's no URL nor reason to go there, your post could use some additional detail.
How would you think it was related to Chrome OS?
I came here expecting to ask why they added this line But is it an operating system, Microsoft Research's analogue to Google's Chrome OS? Not quite. but you had already made this comment. Why would a browser prototype be like an operating system?
And.. using .NET more has always been their plan, to convince people you can write useful apps in it. I thought Vista was supposed to have large portions written in .NET - right along with the database-like filesystem of course. That aside, tt's a great choice for prototyping, since you can get something out the door quickly.
I've never seen a Java app on Windows that ran with any decent GUI ever. All of the objects seem to be widgets drawn custom instead of using native win32 functions and objects.
File / Open has its own dialog, which looks ALMOST but not quite like Windows version. It is terrible to operate with a keyboard and is missing features I expect in the dialog. You're recreating things instead of using the native libraries. It would be one thing to create new things, but these are just bad copies.
It's like Java developers and devs who use Java have never seen a GUI, and don't quite know what people expect. Certainly they aren't Windows users. As much as they imitate it, they really seem to have no idea what it's supposed to be like. I get scared when people say things are written in Java.
Where should I have heard about this?
What is it? Is this a consumer technology or server-room toy or a device or platform or what?
And most importantly: When will my manager start requiring 5 years experience in it despite never using it in projects?
BE's opposition was based on solving the problem, if there is one, rather than re-architecting the solution on principal.
His position is against the original bug reporter:
Essentially, his objection was that it wasn't solving the problem. This is a different argument - more like whether Google Chrome has a good idea with their protected processes. That's a problem with stability - If the browser handled ALL exceptions intelligently, and watched for runaway scripts, it wouldn't be needed at all.
IE 7's tabs are isolated, and the dev team said they had to jump through hoops to get it to work correctly - adding more complexity, which means more potential points of failure. From the same bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40848#c11
I'm all for deciding what the problem is and finding a solution to fix it - not proposing a new design just to see if we can.
Maybe the people responsible were doing other things and they didn't want to hold up the release for a bug noticed by two people?
To get a fix in, they have to have someone with the time, desire, and know-how to find the issue and fix it. Maybe the cause is in an upstream package like the codec libraries...
Feel free to find it yourself and submit a patch. I always used to hate hearing that, but sometimes a fix simply isn't available by the next release.
Plural of virus is pwned. Everyone knows this.
People don't understand that drugs are dangerous.
If the doctor prescribed it, it must be safe right? And they intentionally recommend lower doses than would be lethal, so you have a little room, right? I mean, I'm not like the other people who die taking it, I'm only taking a little more than recommended. If it didn't work, I must have missed some. I took it with food, that slows down alcohol absorption, so I can take more because I ate and it will be slowly absorbed and it will be fine.
All of these thoughts make sense by themselves... but you take that extra bit and it suddenly goes from completely safe to dangerous.
I think the point here is people should be scared of drugs - but they are so common these days that fear is completely lost. If a few people die, the drugs get taken off the market. I'm currently taking something that killed 6 people - now the paperwork around taking it is incredible. It takes so much documentation and checking to make sure that I'm still supposed to be taking it - every month. Over 6 people, it was taken off the market and reevaluated and additional paperwork and process created.
So there are two sides to this. One, people see that drugs are carefully followed and should be safe. Two, people SHOULD see that drugs are scary and powerful and need to be respected, but all they see is the safe side, because of the logical fallacy that you won't be the one. Sure seat belts save lives, but I don't get in accidents. Sure cars get hot, but I can leave my dog or kid in it - I'll just be a FEW minutes, not like those people whose kids or pets died. Or sure other people need to pay attention when they drive, but I've got it under control.
People don't get it, and you can't make them get it. so you either have to accept that people will die, or make it impossible for them to die. In my old age, I'm inclined to agree with this. Take it with another pain killer and die, take it with alcohol and die, so people can't be trusted. Personally I'm all for Darwinian self de-selection for the gene pool, but as an enlightened society we have no choice but to make it difficult for people to kill themselves accidentally.