Jim Hedlund, a safety consultant and former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration official, recently examined 300 cellphone studies for the Governors Highway Safety Association. He couldn't recall a single study that showed drivers talking on a headset or hands-free phone were at any less risk of an accident than drivers with one hand on the wheel and a phone in the other.
It does add:
What's missing is hard evidence that accidents are increasing because of cellphone use. One reason is that U.S. privacy laws have made it difficult for researchers to study whether cell phones were in use in accidents in the U.S. The two large studies that have been done — in Canada and Australia — found drivers were four times more likely to have a crash if talking on a cellphone. It didn't matter whether the cellphone was hands-free or hand-held.
So this is just another bit of evidence that the two are really no different, and there appears to be no suggestion to the contrary, that hands-free using cell phone drivers are as safe as ones not using a cell phone.
Speaking from personal experience, I do think hands-free cell phone use is distracting in a way that a person sitting next to you isn't. I'm wondering if the connection is out, wondering if they can hear me, fiddling with the phone, making sure the phone isn't falling on the floor, trying to understand what they're saying. Hands free texting, you're making sure if it translated you correctly. And the person on the phone or the phone itself can't say 'HOLYFUCKGOD!!! LOOK OUT!!!" alerting me to a child I'm about to mow down like a passenger in the car with me can.
Since you posted that twice, you must really want to know. I meant we as in we people who want to see HFT ended. I did not claim to be king or even an elected official tasked with regulating the market, just a voter. I'm sorry if there was confusion that I was speaking on behalf of anyone controlling the economy.
How about we emphasize that it hurts productive industries and threatens the stability of the economy, rather than just say it serves no purpose. We don't want to discourage it simply because it doesn't help anyone but a few people, we want to discourage it because it HARMS the rest of us.
If you look up the definition of 'humane', it would preclude their use in labs in the first place...nothing about this is 'humane'.
I don't intend to have an argument about definitions. The scientists have an interest in abusing research animals as little as possible if that is more satisfying to you.
As for 'animal cruelty stories in the media' - this almost NEVER happens. And if it does get out, it's usually because of activists, not someone within the lab.
So what? If someone in the lab notices a problem, they report it to the researchers or facilities management and rectify the problem without the media being involved. Public outrage and a media circus isn't necessary for animals to be treated properly. Most problems with animals in labs aren't made public: most problems in ANY organization of any type aren't made public.
What's your point? To me that simply suggests that most people don't actually value animal rights very far above using animals. We want to avoid excessive abuse of animals, but we do still need to use/eat them.
I'd argue it's actually that scientists are people, and also other people involved who do not claim to be championing "animal rights." But I am a scientist, so perhaps I'm biased in favor of scientists and against people who call themselves animal rights activists.
I think humane treatment of animals needs to be done in a context of changing society's views on animal testing itself instead of what is basically vandalism
Just to point out, treating animals humanely is already a concern at every real research institution. There are internal review boards and inspections to make sure animals are being treated well, they're healthy, and pain is minimized.
Even if you don't think researchers care about the animals, consider this: there are economic and public relations motives aligning research institutions with the public's view on animal testing. If a research institution is abusing animals, that will eventually get to the media, which will be a headache for all involved. So they take steps to avoid animals being abused in the first place. Also, animals are expensive. The "higher" the organism, the more expensive it is generally. If you can use mice instead of monkeys, you use mice: using monkeys is insanely expensive. If you can use C elegans (a worm) instead of mice, you use c elegans. Mice are hideously expensive to maintain and complicated compared to C elegans. If you can use yeast instead of C elegans, you use yeast because... well you see the pattern. Each step down, especially from mice to C elegans, the consensus is that they matter less, and they definitely cost less. So there's pressure to move away from animal models wherever possible already. If someone is doing testing in mice and is getting funded to do it, those studies probably won't work except in mice or above.
Guess what? The founder of findbostonbombers doesn't want to be identified [theatlanticwire.com]! Bizarre that he/she would create a subreddit devoted to identifying people and then themselves think that it's completely acceptable for their identities to be protected.
Only bizarre if you forget he/she didn't set it up to identify ANYONE, just the bombers. The people who murdered. Bit like saying it's bizarre that cops ticket speeders BUT OMG THEY SPEED WHEN THERE'S AN EMERGENCY!!!
Also hilarious is that they are saying the bombers have been found. Wrong. Whatever they did, they are still innocent until proven guilty! I am quite upset with everyone dropping the "alleged" word and referring to them as "the bombers" instead of "the suspects."
That's not only pedantic, as they confessed to their hostage, but you're also wrong: "innocent until proven guilty" is only the standard (in theory) for courts. Not reality. They're either guilty or not independent of whether anyone proves it to a court, and the public can and invariably will come to their own judgement. It's fine to urge people to not jump to conclusions, but don't go throwing around courtroom rules as if they're the rules everywhere.
We live in an era of digital lynch mobs.
Which I think everyone would agree is better than real lynch mobs. Digital lynch mobs may inhibit the formation of real lynch mobs, as particularly hotheaded people eager to punish may relieve themselves through nasty facebook comments rather than grabbing a gun and literally killing the person in question. And digital lynch mobs also are easier to redirect than actual pitchfork lynch mobs. I'd wager the digital lynch mob pretty much evaporated when it came out they had identified the wrong person.
AC raises a good point: people are pretty good at ignoring spam. I just ignored it. Is this a really big problem on social network sites? The article says somewhere between 9 and 20% of user accounts on facebook are for spam. Who the hell is adding random people as friends they've never heard of before, then can't tell spam from actual communication?
My guess is this is annoying for facebook and advertising firms who are paying money for sanctioned spamming, and they want to make sure they're not advertising to spam accounts. I mean, companies are, I guess, dropping serious money on their social media pages and accounts. To find out the only people who are following those accounts are other advertisers must really make them stop and wonder what the hell they're doing. Hilarious.
No, the "point" is to have fun. Actually, more precisely, the point is to make a product the developers can exchange for money to the customer who wants it.
Some "gamers" have an odd fascination with imposing arbitrary rules on videogames. "Gaming isn't about graphics! It's about (insert something besides graphics here)!" Hardcore vs casual. Popular games that come out every year and have a ton of money put into them must be bad, while games developed by some kid in a garage must be the greatest thing ever. This console is better than that one, both of which are inferior to this other one.
No one talks about "the point of books," at least not these days.
Not only does Bauman have employer-sponsored health coverage through Costco — the company “is also matching donations made by colleagues at the chain’s Nashua location,” according to a more recent Globe article from Friday. Bauman is being forced to raise funds despite this assistance due to the extraordinarily high costs associated with the amount of current and ongoing care that he requires.
Personally, I think this is a perfect example of why having health insurance run by for-profit organizations is a terrible idea and why the taxpayers paying for health insurance would be better. Anyway, the victims are being taken care of better than most citizens will be, as of friday, three had sites where people could donate to their health costs, and they were all above $400k. In at least Bauman's case, his employer is matching, so that's more like $800k.
If I ever bomb innocent people intentionally, you can torture me to death. If I ever do it unintentionally, you can still kill me and then mutilate my body however you want. Drag it through the streets until it's nothing but a miles-long red smear. I'll do the same to you or anyone else if we can all agree to it.
Why not just prevent posts from ACs, new accounts, or accounts with negative karma from going up for, I dunno, half an hour on a story?
Or maybe reorder comments so that they're by score and not first posted by default? Maybe don't jump right into it. There's this little website called reddit that does it that way, maybe slashdot should wait and see if that catches on before making the jump. Maybe people really like completely off-topic posts as the first thing they see?
I get the feeling that slashdot is trolling me these days. They're still updating stuff, but not bothering to fix that.
Richard Jewell's name WAS released though. These two had not been publicly identified. I suppose there's not much point in talking about it given the events since I posted that though...
No names have been released, since they're not known. Just low-quality images. I wouldn't recognize even the more visible one if I passed him on the street. That guy is "as good as guilty" in "the eyes of the public" for maybe two or three days if it turns out he didn't do it.
It is pedantic, since that was sort of his point. Well, more specific actually, that if people jump to accusations online, we could see innocent people lynched, which would be worse than "too many Nancy Grace viewers."
Do you have any idea of the personal time and energy needed to change things? The rich people/corporations can pay somebody else to do it for them. The guy in the street can't.
The rich people/corporations only can do so because most guys in the street think that their vote won't change anything. The representatives do still, for the time being, need to actually get votes to get into office.
Special interests win against the interest of the majority only when the majority doesn't bother opposing them, either due to apathy, ignorance, or fear. This is true in any government system. Even military dictatorships fail when most of the citizens decide they'd actually oppose the government.
Still creepy. Also, I actually made a typeo, I started to change it to be gender neutral halfway through without realizing it. On the other hand, I didn't specify who was putting on the condom. Or maybe "the guy" means your penis.
Slashdot Mirror
Jim Hedlund, a safety consultant and former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration official, recently examined 300 cellphone studies for the Governors Highway Safety Association. He couldn't recall a single study that showed drivers talking on a headset or hands-free phone were at any less risk of an accident than drivers with one hand on the wheel and a phone in the other.
It does add:
What's missing is hard evidence that accidents are increasing because of cellphone use. One reason is that U.S. privacy laws have made it difficult for researchers to study whether cell phones were in use in accidents in the U.S. The two large studies that have been done — in Canada and Australia — found drivers were four times more likely to have a crash if talking on a cellphone. It didn't matter whether the cellphone was hands-free or hand-held.
So this is just another bit of evidence that the two are really no different, and there appears to be no suggestion to the contrary, that hands-free using cell phone drivers are as safe as ones not using a cell phone.
Speaking from personal experience, I do think hands-free cell phone use is distracting in a way that a person sitting next to you isn't. I'm wondering if the connection is out, wondering if they can hear me, fiddling with the phone, making sure the phone isn't falling on the floor, trying to understand what they're saying. Hands free texting, you're making sure if it translated you correctly. And the person on the phone or the phone itself can't say 'HOLYFUCKGOD!!! LOOK OUT!!!" alerting me to a child I'm about to mow down like a passenger in the car with me can.
Since you posted that twice, you must really want to know. I meant we as in we people who want to see HFT ended. I did not claim to be king or even an elected official tasked with regulating the market, just a voter. I'm sorry if there was confusion that I was speaking on behalf of anyone controlling the economy.
How about we emphasize that it hurts productive industries and threatens the stability of the economy, rather than just say it serves no purpose. We don't want to discourage it simply because it doesn't help anyone but a few people, we want to discourage it because it HARMS the rest of us.
Either and/or both.
If you look up the definition of 'humane', it would preclude their use in labs in the first place...nothing about this is 'humane'.
I don't intend to have an argument about definitions. The scientists have an interest in abusing research animals as little as possible if that is more satisfying to you.
As for 'animal cruelty stories in the media' - this almost NEVER happens. And if it does get out, it's usually because of activists, not someone within the lab.
So what? If someone in the lab notices a problem, they report it to the researchers or facilities management and rectify the problem without the media being involved. Public outrage and a media circus isn't necessary for animals to be treated properly. Most problems with animals in labs aren't made public: most problems in ANY organization of any type aren't made public.
What's your point? To me that simply suggests that most people don't actually value animal rights very far above using animals. We want to avoid excessive abuse of animals, but we do still need to use/eat them.
I'd argue it's actually that scientists are people, and also other people involved who do not claim to be championing "animal rights." But I am a scientist, so perhaps I'm biased in favor of scientists and against people who call themselves animal rights activists.
I think humane treatment of animals needs to be done in a context of changing society's views on animal testing itself instead of what is basically vandalism
Just to point out, treating animals humanely is already a concern at every real research institution. There are internal review boards and inspections to make sure animals are being treated well, they're healthy, and pain is minimized.
Even if you don't think researchers care about the animals, consider this: there are economic and public relations motives aligning research institutions with the public's view on animal testing. If a research institution is abusing animals, that will eventually get to the media, which will be a headache for all involved. So they take steps to avoid animals being abused in the first place. Also, animals are expensive. The "higher" the organism, the more expensive it is generally. If you can use mice instead of monkeys, you use mice: using monkeys is insanely expensive. If you can use C elegans (a worm) instead of mice, you use c elegans. Mice are hideously expensive to maintain and complicated compared to C elegans. If you can use yeast instead of C elegans, you use yeast because... well you see the pattern. Each step down, especially from mice to C elegans, the consensus is that they matter less, and they definitely cost less. So there's pressure to move away from animal models wherever possible already. If someone is doing testing in mice and is getting funded to do it, those studies probably won't work except in mice or above.
What does Schwartz have to do with anything? A prosecutor intent on locking him up is not what we're talking about here.
You sure about that? I'm pretty sure they're the exact same demographic. At least the redditors and 4chan people in question.
Guess what? The founder of findbostonbombers doesn't want to be identified [theatlanticwire.com]! Bizarre that he/she would create a subreddit devoted to identifying people and then themselves think that it's completely acceptable for their identities to be protected.
Only bizarre if you forget he/she didn't set it up to identify ANYONE, just the bombers. The people who murdered. Bit like saying it's bizarre that cops ticket speeders BUT OMG THEY SPEED WHEN THERE'S AN EMERGENCY!!!
Also hilarious is that they are saying the bombers have been found. Wrong. Whatever they did, they are still innocent until proven guilty! I am quite upset with everyone dropping the "alleged" word and referring to them as "the bombers" instead of "the suspects."
That's not only pedantic, as they confessed to their hostage, but you're also wrong: "innocent until proven guilty" is only the standard (in theory) for courts. Not reality. They're either guilty or not independent of whether anyone proves it to a court, and the public can and invariably will come to their own judgement. It's fine to urge people to not jump to conclusions, but don't go throwing around courtroom rules as if they're the rules everywhere.
We live in an era of digital lynch mobs.
Which I think everyone would agree is better than real lynch mobs. Digital lynch mobs may inhibit the formation of real lynch mobs, as particularly hotheaded people eager to punish may relieve themselves through nasty facebook comments rather than grabbing a gun and literally killing the person in question. And digital lynch mobs also are easier to redirect than actual pitchfork lynch mobs. I'd wager the digital lynch mob pretty much evaporated when it came out they had identified the wrong person.
But wait, china is a bunch of socialists, wouldn't we clue our comrades in on the scam?
Actually that sounds like what would happen if we liberals ever tried to enact a vast conspiracy: we'd end up screwing only ourselves.
Dick might have written up as a short story; but it's one evidently grounded in reality.
AC raises a good point: people are pretty good at ignoring spam. I just ignored it. Is this a really big problem on social network sites? The article says somewhere between 9 and 20% of user accounts on facebook are for spam. Who the hell is adding random people as friends they've never heard of before, then can't tell spam from actual communication?
My guess is this is annoying for facebook and advertising firms who are paying money for sanctioned spamming, and they want to make sure they're not advertising to spam accounts. I mean, companies are, I guess, dropping serious money on their social media pages and accounts. To find out the only people who are following those accounts are other advertisers must really make them stop and wonder what the hell they're doing. Hilarious.
No, the "point" is to have fun. Actually, more precisely, the point is to make a product the developers can exchange for money to the customer who wants it.
Some "gamers" have an odd fascination with imposing arbitrary rules on videogames. "Gaming isn't about graphics! It's about (insert something besides graphics here)!" Hardcore vs casual. Popular games that come out every year and have a ton of money put into them must be bad, while games developed by some kid in a garage must be the greatest thing ever. This console is better than that one, both of which are inferior to this other one.
No one talks about "the point of books," at least not these days.
Not only does Bauman have employer-sponsored health coverage through Costco — the company “is also matching donations made by colleagues at the chain’s Nashua location,” according to a more recent Globe article from Friday. Bauman is being forced to raise funds despite this assistance due to the extraordinarily high costs associated with the amount of current and ongoing care that he requires.
Personally, I think this is a perfect example of why having health insurance run by for-profit organizations is a terrible idea and why the taxpayers paying for health insurance would be better. Anyway, the victims are being taken care of better than most citizens will be, as of friday, three had sites where people could donate to their health costs, and they were all above $400k. In at least Bauman's case, his employer is matching, so that's more like $800k.
If I ever bomb innocent people intentionally, you can torture me to death. If I ever do it unintentionally, you can still kill me and then mutilate my body however you want. Drag it through the streets until it's nothing but a miles-long red smear. I'll do the same to you or anyone else if we can all agree to it.
Why not just prevent posts from ACs, new accounts, or accounts with negative karma from going up for, I dunno, half an hour on a story?
Or maybe reorder comments so that they're by score and not first posted by default? Maybe don't jump right into it. There's this little website called reddit that does it that way, maybe slashdot should wait and see if that catches on before making the jump. Maybe people really like completely off-topic posts as the first thing they see?
I get the feeling that slashdot is trolling me these days. They're still updating stuff, but not bothering to fix that.
Richard Jewell's name WAS released though. These two had not been publicly identified. I suppose there's not much point in talking about it given the events since I posted that though...
Hey, don't act like Pike was just one bad apple.
If this is the case, then thoughts are with the campus security officer that gave his life
Why aren't your thoughts with him anyway?
Lets not read too much into an empty phrase. It's not like positive thoughts will send him to heaven while negative thoughts will send him to hell.
No names have been released, since they're not known. Just low-quality images. I wouldn't recognize even the more visible one if I passed him on the street. That guy is "as good as guilty" in "the eyes of the public" for maybe two or three days if it turns out he didn't do it.
It is pedantic, since that was sort of his point. Well, more specific actually, that if people jump to accusations online, we could see innocent people lynched, which would be worse than "too many Nancy Grace viewers."
Do you have any idea of the personal time and energy needed to change things? The rich people/corporations can pay somebody else to do it for them. The guy in the street can't.
The rich people/corporations only can do so because most guys in the street think that their vote won't change anything. The representatives do still, for the time being, need to actually get votes to get into office.
Special interests win against the interest of the majority only when the majority doesn't bother opposing them, either due to apathy, ignorance, or fear. This is true in any government system. Even military dictatorships fail when most of the citizens decide they'd actually oppose the government.
Still creepy. Also, I actually made a typeo, I started to change it to be gender neutral halfway through without realizing it. On the other hand, I didn't specify who was putting on the condom. Or maybe "the guy" means your penis.