Recently I tried to upgrade my Ubuntu system from 8.04 to 10.04 (LTS to LTS) by using the bundled distribution upgrade manager. The first upgrade, to 8.10, rendered my graphics card and video card useless. Since the 8.10 version was no longer supported, I had to jump through a bunch of hoops to get good drivers installed so the system was usable again. 8.10 to 9.04 went smoothly. When I upgraded from 9.04 to 9.10, upon system reboot, I was greeted with a message that one of my I/O modules had a memory conflict error at addresses 0x400 - 0x407 with some other module.After excessive googling and internet scouring, I found that this error had happened to a few other folks, who wiped their entire system and just used a live CD with the version they wanted to get their computer running. I also found three bug reports that had been filed as something along the lines of, "Put on the backburner because this affects an old distribution."
If updating my OS every 6 months requires a weekend long endeavor full of stress, strain, tears, and agonizingly obscure frustration, what in the hell makes you think asking me to upgrade my distro daily is a good idea? I don't have that kind of spare time. My computer is a tool, not a fucking hobby.
If Canonical moves forward with this idea, and implements in in such a way as to shave even more years off of my life through high blood pressure, then I will be forced to return to some other computing environment permanently. I don't have time to deal with that kind of crap daily.
Sincerely,
Me and probably a few thousand other Ubuntu users.
Meh, I don't really consider facebook, twitter, myspace, or any of that other crap to have anything to do with being social. Those sites just set up a safety buffer between you and hurt feelings so that if you say something stupid, or make a bad comment, you can hit the delete button or have more time to play things off like it wasn't such a big deal. Being social involves going out with friends and hanging out. Most people who use Facebook and such heavily, in my experience, aren't very social. They hide behind the safety curtain of the internet so that they don't have to face the truly scornful wrath that is human-to-human judgement and criticism.
Funny, I have a similar method with my parent's dog. She's been so well trained that you never have to yell at her or lay a finger on her if she is doing something wrong. You just point at her and lock eye-contact. She'll stop exactly what she is doing and stare at you until you dismiss her with a wave or telling her to "Go on." We never had to touch the dog to train her, we just had to tell her no with a tone that made it clear, in no uncertain terms, who the dominant creature was.
I read some of your earlier posts regarding how cats look at you with a, "I don't care," look in their eyes. I know what kind of look you are talking about as I've raised my own cats before. However, I do want to point out that some of that attitude you are reading may very well be anthropomorphizing your cat as has been pointed out earlier. I used to think cats had attitude, but then I met a few cats raised on ranches and farms which very clearly did not. I think the only reason modern house cats appear to have attitude is because they have not been given a clear role to perform in their homes. So they tend to stare at their owners in expectation. We just see the, "I don't care," theme because of their facial structure which resembles that attitude in the faces of human beings who have made their position clear in the past.
For cats that have been trained on a ranch or at a farm (to be mousers, or whatever), they never show you an "I don't care," attitude. They act very similarly to a dog in that they treat you as the owner and master and they obey your commands. I think the modern idea that cats have attitude just stems from the prevalence of spoiling of cats by modern families. That's just my two cents though.
I'm not entirely sure if this applies or not, but I wonder how a product like this would work with folks who have ALS. I know that with that particular condition something goes funny with certain proteins in the spine which restricts communication between the spine and motor neurons (or something like that). The result is that the body degrades and muscles atrophy from the inability to use them. This is the same disease that affects Stephen Hawking. Anyways, I wonder if a chip like this could allow utilization of multiple muscles despite the defunct motor neuron connections. That would be really cool if this could be used to exercise the breathing muscles so that ALS patients didn't have to resort to a ventilator anymore.
The United States is the world's largest manufacturer, with a 2007 industrial output of US$2.69 trillion. In 2008, its manufacturing output was greater than that of the manufacturing output of China, India, and Brazil combined, despite manufacturing being a very small portion of the entire US economy as compared to most other countries.
And:
Main industries include petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, and mining. A total of 3.2 million – one in six U.S. factory jobs – have disappeared since the start of 2000
Now, that said, it appears we are still currently trending towards outsourcing just about all manufacturing:
The manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy has experienced substantial job losses over the past several years. In January 2004, the number of such jobs stood at 14.3 million, down by 3.0 million jobs, or 17.5 percent, since July 2000 and about 5.2 million since the historical peak in 1979. Employment in manufacturing was its lowest since July 1950.
However, it does not appear that it is all gloom and doom at present. In other words, we have the opportunity, still, to maintain our position as the world's leader in manufacturing if we take the time to fix the problem now. I see where you're coming from, but your post reads like an excerpt from Captain Hindsight, declaring boldly just what is wrong now, and what has gone wrong with our country in the past. It is far more useful and important to propose solutions and work to implement those solutions than it is to proselytize about the way things are vs. the way things should be.
Right now the United States is in a position to fuel two large industries that very few other societies can compete with us in: robotics and commercial space development. If we manage to invest in future industries and technologies then we will spawn jobs at the manufacturing level as well as at the research and design levels. What's more important, we will progress forward as a society. However, if we dwell in the past, trying to maintain older industries, or industries that we no longer have use for (really, how often do we employ high speed rail around the U.S.?), then we will stagnate as a society.
So yes, I agree with you, we need to be careful about outsourcing manufacturing and production to other countries. That is very true. But we also need to keep focused on developing new industries and new technologies that can carry us into the future. Bemoaning what has already been done is not nearly as insightful preparing for what is upcoming.
Huh, I didn't even know 311 offered those kind of services. There have been a few times I've been out and about and saw something that I wanted to contact public works about but, alas, never had the number. Thanks for the advice. I always just thought 311 was a band. Thanks for the info.
You know, it's funny, when I got out of college I started looking into working for ATK because they do some interesting work with deployable solar panels amongst other things. I looked into their history and when I saw the name Morton Thiokol attached I washed my hands of it. I don't like the idea of working for a company like that. Besides, who wants to live in Utah anyways?
I don't want to keep my driving record secret. I want to keep the reporting of my driving record to companies that use it for determining my insurance rates accurate. I want it to be law that insurance companies use official DMV records for their rating purposes only. If a third party aggregates information about me, but gets it wrong, and then sells that information to another company that uses it to determine my cost to them for using their service, then that is incompetent business practices at best and downright corruption at worst. I don't mind my driving record being in the view of the public because I am not ashamed of it. I do, however, mind third party companies spreading misinformation about me. That is not okay. So either regulate the damn data aggregators or require, by law, for public records to be accessed only through officially recorded government databases, like DMV or the court.
Sorry it took so long to reply. The company that I referred to was called: ChoicePoint and is now owned by LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Those links point to a Wikipedia article on a company and the official website under new ownership respectively. Hope this helps, despite being a week overdue.
So, does this mean that I can now accuse politicians that I don't like of hosting infringing materials on their website to get them shut down? I would have killed for that ability three weeks ago.....
Are the politicians currently in power sure they want to give us plebs that ability? =)
Or is your point that a Nanny State and Terror State are the same thing?
If you are arguing that nannies are, by their very nature, terrorists, and, therefore, a Nanny State is the same thing as a Terror State, then yes, I agree with you.
*mumbles*
Fucking nanny terrorists and their Jihad against touching yourself...I'm not blind yet!
I wonder if there are any data sets or studies relating to increases in the risk of an accident when you choose to drive yourself as opposed to walking or riding a bike or some other alternative....
While the data that you point to does make a good point (using a phone while driving is stupid), it does not necessarily refute the parent's point. He's right in noting that, if an increase in the number of accidents due to phone use is going to result in banning cell phone use by drivers, than, to be logically consistent, an increase in the number of accidents due to the use of a motor vehicle, as opposed to other forms of transportation, should eventually lead to the banning of personally operated motor vehicles.
Personally, I think there are much better ways to attack the talking-while-driving problem than scrambling all cell phones in cars (there will be unintended consequences of something like that). Banning personal transportation could be one such solution (in other words, implement a nationwide automated transportation system, or leave transportation to professionally operated drivers). Another solution could be to adequately punish irresponsible drivers in much the same way that drunk driving punishments deter drivers from driving drunk.
The parent's point was made in a bit of a crass manner, but it still stands. Scrambling cell phone signals is a stupid solution to a real problem. Implementing such a solution would be ridiculous. There are better solutions that address the issues noted in the data you posted.
I am totally for this idea, as long as there is some implementation of large tracks/roadways that can be operated as recreational facilities where users can drive their own vehicles at their own risk. Segment off said recreational facilities from the public, automated roadways as well. There are those of us that still enjoy driving just to drive, and we would be willing to pay money to do it.
when obviously, in truth, most driving and texting is unnecessary, harmful, and should be stopped. if you want to text/ talk, pull the fuck over. end of story
I already do this, and I manage to do it by exercising my own judgment. That is a form of judgment that, according to the state of California, is adequately mature and well-reasoned/informed enough to qualify me for a driver's license. I suspect that the vast majority of people on the road also possess judgment levels that are similar.
Regarding those whose judgment is too immature, or whose values and priorities are so shifted as to put their personal conversations above the health and safety of their fellow drivers, perhaps they should not be licensed to drive in the first place. The whole point of issuing a driver's license is to verify that the person obtaining the license is qualified, both mentally and physically, to safely operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. If a person is incapable of mentally handling this task (by placing their personal conversations above the health of their fellow drivers) then they should not be licensed in the first place. In other words, the texting/chatting-while-driving problem (which may well be overstated, like most OMG Boogyman issues in the news these days) could adequately be handled by including some form of agreement/oath signed when obtaining one's driving license. Anyone who violates such an oath loses their license. That simple.
so a good compromise would be to tie this lockout to MPH. under say, 5 MPH, texting and talking should be ok. and if you speed up, you spontaneously lose signal (or spontaneously get it back when you slow back down). so the poor humps stuck in slow moving traffic jams are adequately entertained, for example
The problem with this is that I have passengers who often want or "need" to make calls or use their cell phones when traveling with me. I might have my passenger look up a map on the internet. I might need my sister to keep her young kids entertained by streaming a cartoon for them on her smartphone. I might need my roomate to call our friend to clarify directions to their new house, etc. In other words, there are legitimate reasons for phones to be used in cars that do no involve the operator of the motor vehicle at all. By attacking the use of cell phones in cars in entirety, the fella in the article is applying a blanket solution (scramble all cell phones) to a specific problem (cell phone use by drivers). The more appropriate and practical solution is to attack the specific problem directly (forbid cell phone use by drivers only, or some variant thereof). When it comes down to it, myself and my passengers are adults and we can formulate competent judgment ourselves. My license is an acknowledgment by my state that it considers this to be true as well. I don't need my damn car trying to make such judgments for me based on some passionate crusade by a loony.
Finally, this:
LaHood is on a self-described 'rampage' against distracted driving,
...Should clue you in on what a high level of asshattery is being suggested here. Anyone claiming to be on a rampage against anything is a tool that isn't thinking pragmatically or reasonably, but, rather, is knee-jerking for some emotional reason. Another popular public entity that displays this kind of zealotry is the MADD group, and we all know how reasonable their policies and standards of persecution are....Oh wait...
Somehow I doubt a boat is going to allow a lot of Americans the time to take a nice vacation overseas. More than likely, it would give them a week on the boat to get to their destination. A day or two at said destination, and a week to get back (travel times, obviously, vary depending on final destination). That said, a day or two isn't much time to meet the locals or hear their stories.
Yeah, sad part is, you can't drive to Hawaii...or New Zealand, or Ireland, or Australia....from the U.S. In fact, you really can't drive much of anywhere except Canada and Mexico. So, really, this "fuck flying," solution serves to do little more than keep Americans land locked to their own continent. It limits our contact with other cultures. It limits our life experience. It limits the world in which we feel we can safely function. "Fuck flying," isn't a solution. It just gives us Americans one more excuse to be isolationist and self-centered. Those are both very unhealthy attitudes for a society to develop....especially one that used to be touted as the "cultural melting pot of the world."
I was in HS when terrorists rammed two planes into the WTC. I remember explicitly that most of the students were angsty, waiting to see what was going to happen next. Would we go to war? Would we kick someone's ass back to the stone age? Would we glass the motherfuckers that just attacked us? Etc. etc.
A few months after the WTC attacks we started hearing the first murmurs of new security measures being implemented at airports to prevent another 9/11 attack. I explicitly recall some of the "conservative" students arguing that such security was necessary for safety. I remember some students, that were known for being "liberal," kept reiterating that the attacks sucked, but that was no excuse to give up individual rights. I recall rolling my eyes at the whole damn debate because I figured that terrorists would have to be pretty fuckin' stupid to attack using planes again (my bet was on a train attack or ship attack next).
Anyways, the moral of that anecdote was that even at the young age of 17, there were folks saying precisely what you just said, "Yeah, it's tragic, but we can deal with it without giving up liberty."
I have no doubt that there were plenty of other folk in all areas of all ages saying the same thing. The problem is, there were a lot more people saying otherwise, and that's why we are in this situation now. This is America. We get what we ask for after all...
Let's be honest here, who would want to rape a guy with a camera implanted in the back of his head? If he's willing to do that, then who knows what else he's put in his body over the years....
One of the other very important achievements of the Hayabusa mission was its successful demonstration of ion propulsion technology in spacecraft. Hayabusa was one of the first full-scale implementations that relied entirely on a redundant configuration of ion drives. While three of the drives ended up failing by the end of the mission (the missions lifetime was extended far beyond the planned operational life of the spacecraft), the configuration demonstrated that a redundant system could be used to account for thruster failures. Furthermore, the demonstration of this particular technology will decrease the risk factors associated with ion propulsion technology, thus encouraging its adoption in future space missions. This new technology should help to reduce fuel load on future spacecraft, thus increasing the size of any particular mission payload. In other words, we will be able to get more science bang for our space buck because of the technology demonstrated in this mission.
Furthermore, this mission helped JAXA further configure their deep space communications network which will be shared with other space-faring nations in the future. The more players we have in the space race the better it will be for everyone involved. Increasing the number of tuned and configured deep space communication antennae increases the total throughput of data that can be processed by partnered space agencies. Again, this correlates to a potential increase in scientific data returned from future missions.
Finally, Hayabusa actually touched down on the asteroid. The data collected by JAXA during this maneuver will prove to be invaluable for future missions that involve low-gravity objects (comets, asteroids, small moons, etc.). All in all, the data and experience gained by the Hayabusa team will pay off in the space industry for decades to come with or without the asteroid dust. That's not to belittle the sample return. That, too, is a great achievement. However, it is important to note just what a tremendous step this mission was for the space industry in general.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Mark,
Recently I tried to upgrade my Ubuntu system from 8.04 to 10.04 (LTS to LTS) by using the bundled distribution upgrade manager. The first upgrade, to 8.10, rendered my graphics card and video card useless. Since the 8.10 version was no longer supported, I had to jump through a bunch of hoops to get good drivers installed so the system was usable again. 8.10 to 9.04 went smoothly. When I upgraded from 9.04 to 9.10, upon system reboot, I was greeted with a message that one of my I/O modules had a memory conflict error at addresses 0x400 - 0x407 with some other module.After excessive googling and internet scouring, I found that this error had happened to a few other folks, who wiped their entire system and just used a live CD with the version they wanted to get their computer running. I also found three bug reports that had been filed as something along the lines of, "Put on the backburner because this affects an old distribution."
If updating my OS every 6 months requires a weekend long endeavor full of stress, strain, tears, and agonizingly obscure frustration, what in the hell makes you think asking me to upgrade my distro daily is a good idea? I don't have that kind of spare time. My computer is a tool, not a fucking hobby.
If Canonical moves forward with this idea, and implements in in such a way as to shave even more years off of my life through high blood pressure, then I will be forced to return to some other computing environment permanently. I don't have time to deal with that kind of crap daily.
Sincerely,
Me and probably a few thousand other Ubuntu users.
Meh, I reward my girlfriends with chocolate when they don't act like irrational, crazy human beings....oh wait, I see your point.
(And just to help, mods, this one is deserving of flamebait, even if it was just a joke). =P
Meh, I don't really consider facebook, twitter, myspace, or any of that other crap to have anything to do with being social. Those sites just set up a safety buffer between you and hurt feelings so that if you say something stupid, or make a bad comment, you can hit the delete button or have more time to play things off like it wasn't such a big deal. Being social involves going out with friends and hanging out. Most people who use Facebook and such heavily, in my experience, aren't very social. They hide behind the safety curtain of the internet so that they don't have to face the truly scornful wrath that is human-to-human judgement and criticism.
Funny, I have a similar method with my parent's dog. She's been so well trained that you never have to yell at her or lay a finger on her if she is doing something wrong. You just point at her and lock eye-contact. She'll stop exactly what she is doing and stare at you until you dismiss her with a wave or telling her to "Go on." We never had to touch the dog to train her, we just had to tell her no with a tone that made it clear, in no uncertain terms, who the dominant creature was.
I read some of your earlier posts regarding how cats look at you with a, "I don't care," look in their eyes. I know what kind of look you are talking about as I've raised my own cats before. However, I do want to point out that some of that attitude you are reading may very well be anthropomorphizing your cat as has been pointed out earlier. I used to think cats had attitude, but then I met a few cats raised on ranches and farms which very clearly did not. I think the only reason modern house cats appear to have attitude is because they have not been given a clear role to perform in their homes. So they tend to stare at their owners in expectation. We just see the, "I don't care," theme because of their facial structure which resembles that attitude in the faces of human beings who have made their position clear in the past.
For cats that have been trained on a ranch or at a farm (to be mousers, or whatever), they never show you an "I don't care," attitude. They act very similarly to a dog in that they treat you as the owner and master and they obey your commands. I think the modern idea that cats have attitude just stems from the prevalence of spoiling of cats by modern families. That's just my two cents though.
I'm not entirely sure if this applies or not, but I wonder how a product like this would work with folks who have ALS. I know that with that particular condition something goes funny with certain proteins in the spine which restricts communication between the spine and motor neurons (or something like that). The result is that the body degrades and muscles atrophy from the inability to use them. This is the same disease that affects Stephen Hawking. Anyways, I wonder if a chip like this could allow utilization of multiple muscles despite the defunct motor neuron connections. That would be really cool if this could be used to exercise the breathing muscles so that ALS patients didn't have to resort to a ventilator anymore.
Some important tidbits:
The United States is the world's largest manufacturer, with a 2007 industrial output of US$2.69 trillion. In 2008, its manufacturing output was greater than that of the manufacturing output of China, India, and Brazil combined, despite manufacturing being a very small portion of the entire US economy as compared to most other countries.
And:
Main industries include petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, and mining. A total of 3.2 million – one in six U.S. factory jobs – have disappeared since the start of 2000
Now, that said, it appears we are still currently trending towards outsourcing just about all manufacturing:
The manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy has experienced substantial job losses over the past several years. In January 2004, the number of such jobs stood at 14.3 million, down by 3.0 million jobs, or 17.5 percent, since July 2000 and about 5.2 million since the historical peak in 1979. Employment in manufacturing was its lowest since July 1950.
However, it does not appear that it is all gloom and doom at present. In other words, we have the opportunity, still, to maintain our position as the world's leader in manufacturing if we take the time to fix the problem now. I see where you're coming from, but your post reads like an excerpt from Captain Hindsight, declaring boldly just what is wrong now, and what has gone wrong with our country in the past. It is far more useful and important to propose solutions and work to implement those solutions than it is to proselytize about the way things are vs. the way things should be.
Right now the United States is in a position to fuel two large industries that very few other societies can compete with us in: robotics and commercial space development. If we manage to invest in future industries and technologies then we will spawn jobs at the manufacturing level as well as at the research and design levels. What's more important, we will progress forward as a society. However, if we dwell in the past, trying to maintain older industries, or industries that we no longer have use for (really, how often do we employ high speed rail around the U.S.?), then we will stagnate as a society.
So yes, I agree with you, we need to be careful about outsourcing manufacturing and production to other countries. That is very true. But we also need to keep focused on developing new industries and new technologies that can carry us into the future. Bemoaning what has already been done is not nearly as insightful preparing for what is upcoming.
Huh, I didn't even know 311 offered those kind of services. There have been a few times I've been out and about and saw something that I wanted to contact public works about but, alas, never had the number. Thanks for the advice. I always just thought 311 was a band. Thanks for the info.
Funny story, Morton-Thiokol was bought by another rocker manufacturing company....one that builds solid rockets to this day.
Can you guess the name of that company? Well, can you?
Here's a hint.
You know, it's funny, when I got out of college I started looking into working for ATK because they do some interesting work with deployable solar panels amongst other things. I looked into their history and when I saw the name Morton Thiokol attached I washed my hands of it. I don't like the idea of working for a company like that. Besides, who wants to live in Utah anyways?
I don't want to keep my driving record secret. I want to keep the reporting of my driving record to companies that use it for determining my insurance rates accurate. I want it to be law that insurance companies use official DMV records for their rating purposes only. If a third party aggregates information about me, but gets it wrong, and then sells that information to another company that uses it to determine my cost to them for using their service, then that is incompetent business practices at best and downright corruption at worst. I don't mind my driving record being in the view of the public because I am not ashamed of it. I do, however, mind third party companies spreading misinformation about me. That is not okay. So either regulate the damn data aggregators or require, by law, for public records to be accessed only through officially recorded government databases, like DMV or the court.
I'd rather they get the data from my official DMV record correctly, considering that it held the correct and up-to-date information.
The collision happened. The circumstances and fault assignment that were stored and reported for the collision were incorrect, however.
Sorry it took so long to reply. The company that I referred to was called: ChoicePoint and is now owned by LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Those links point to a Wikipedia article on a company and the official website under new ownership respectively. Hope this helps, despite being a week overdue.
So, does this mean that I can now accuse politicians that I don't like of hosting infringing materials on their website to get them shut down? I would have killed for that ability three weeks ago.....
Are the politicians currently in power sure they want to give us plebs that ability? =)
I call that a Terror State.
Or is your point that a Nanny State and Terror State are the same thing?
If you are arguing that nannies are, by their very nature, terrorists, and, therefore, a Nanny State is the same thing as a Terror State, then yes, I agree with you.
*mumbles*
Fucking nanny terrorists and their Jihad against touching yourself...I'm not blind yet!
I wonder if there are any data sets or studies relating to increases in the risk of an accident when you choose to drive yourself as opposed to walking or riding a bike or some other alternative....
While the data that you point to does make a good point (using a phone while driving is stupid), it does not necessarily refute the parent's point. He's right in noting that, if an increase in the number of accidents due to phone use is going to result in banning cell phone use by drivers, than, to be logically consistent, an increase in the number of accidents due to the use of a motor vehicle, as opposed to other forms of transportation, should eventually lead to the banning of personally operated motor vehicles.
Personally, I think there are much better ways to attack the talking-while-driving problem than scrambling all cell phones in cars (there will be unintended consequences of something like that). Banning personal transportation could be one such solution (in other words, implement a nationwide automated transportation system, or leave transportation to professionally operated drivers). Another solution could be to adequately punish irresponsible drivers in much the same way that drunk driving punishments deter drivers from driving drunk.
The parent's point was made in a bit of a crass manner, but it still stands. Scrambling cell phone signals is a stupid solution to a real problem. Implementing such a solution would be ridiculous. There are better solutions that address the issues noted in the data you posted.
I am totally for this idea, as long as there is some implementation of large tracks/roadways that can be operated as recreational facilities where users can drive their own vehicles at their own risk. Segment off said recreational facilities from the public, automated roadways as well. There are those of us that still enjoy driving just to drive, and we would be willing to pay money to do it.
when obviously, in truth, most driving and texting is unnecessary, harmful, and should be stopped. if you want to text/ talk, pull the fuck over. end of story
I already do this, and I manage to do it by exercising my own judgment. That is a form of judgment that, according to the state of California, is adequately mature and well-reasoned/informed enough to qualify me for a driver's license. I suspect that the vast majority of people on the road also possess judgment levels that are similar.
Regarding those whose judgment is too immature, or whose values and priorities are so shifted as to put their personal conversations above the health and safety of their fellow drivers, perhaps they should not be licensed to drive in the first place. The whole point of issuing a driver's license is to verify that the person obtaining the license is qualified, both mentally and physically, to safely operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. If a person is incapable of mentally handling this task (by placing their personal conversations above the health of their fellow drivers) then they should not be licensed in the first place. In other words, the texting/chatting-while-driving problem (which may well be overstated, like most OMG Boogyman issues in the news these days) could adequately be handled by including some form of agreement/oath signed when obtaining one's driving license. Anyone who violates such an oath loses their license. That simple.
so a good compromise would be to tie this lockout to MPH. under say, 5 MPH, texting and talking should be ok. and if you speed up, you spontaneously lose signal (or spontaneously get it back when you slow back down). so the poor humps stuck in slow moving traffic jams are adequately entertained, for example
The problem with this is that I have passengers who often want or "need" to make calls or use their cell phones when traveling with me. I might have my passenger look up a map on the internet. I might need my sister to keep her young kids entertained by streaming a cartoon for them on her smartphone. I might need my roomate to call our friend to clarify directions to their new house, etc. In other words, there are legitimate reasons for phones to be used in cars that do no involve the operator of the motor vehicle at all. By attacking the use of cell phones in cars in entirety, the fella in the article is applying a blanket solution (scramble all cell phones) to a specific problem (cell phone use by drivers). The more appropriate and practical solution is to attack the specific problem directly (forbid cell phone use by drivers only, or some variant thereof). When it comes down to it, myself and my passengers are adults and we can formulate competent judgment ourselves. My license is an acknowledgment by my state that it considers this to be true as well. I don't need my damn car trying to make such judgments for me based on some passionate crusade by a loony.
Finally, this:
LaHood is on a self-described 'rampage' against distracted driving,
They annihilate each other in an explosion of "hipsterons," the particles responsible for carrying the force of hipsterism.
Somehow I doubt a boat is going to allow a lot of Americans the time to take a nice vacation overseas. More than likely, it would give them a week on the boat to get to their destination. A day or two at said destination, and a week to get back (travel times, obviously, vary depending on final destination). That said, a day or two isn't much time to meet the locals or hear their stories.
Yeah, sad part is, you can't drive to Hawaii...or New Zealand, or Ireland, or Australia....from the U.S. In fact, you really can't drive much of anywhere except Canada and Mexico. So, really, this "fuck flying," solution serves to do little more than keep Americans land locked to their own continent. It limits our contact with other cultures. It limits our life experience. It limits the world in which we feel we can safely function. "Fuck flying," isn't a solution. It just gives us Americans one more excuse to be isolationist and self-centered. Those are both very unhealthy attitudes for a society to develop....especially one that used to be touted as the "cultural melting pot of the world."
I was in HS when terrorists rammed two planes into the WTC. I remember explicitly that most of the students were angsty, waiting to see what was going to happen next. Would we go to war? Would we kick someone's ass back to the stone age? Would we glass the motherfuckers that just attacked us? Etc. etc.
A few months after the WTC attacks we started hearing the first murmurs of new security measures being implemented at airports to prevent another 9/11 attack. I explicitly recall some of the "conservative" students arguing that such security was necessary for safety. I remember some students, that were known for being "liberal," kept reiterating that the attacks sucked, but that was no excuse to give up individual rights. I recall rolling my eyes at the whole damn debate because I figured that terrorists would have to be pretty fuckin' stupid to attack using planes again (my bet was on a train attack or ship attack next).
Anyways, the moral of that anecdote was that even at the young age of 17, there were folks saying precisely what you just said, "Yeah, it's tragic, but we can deal with it without giving up liberty."
I have no doubt that there were plenty of other folk in all areas of all ages saying the same thing. The problem is, there were a lot more people saying otherwise, and that's why we are in this situation now. This is America. We get what we ask for after all...
Let's be honest here, who would want to rape a guy with a camera implanted in the back of his head? If he's willing to do that, then who knows what else he's put in his body over the years....
One of the other very important achievements of the Hayabusa mission was its successful demonstration of ion propulsion technology in spacecraft. Hayabusa was one of the first full-scale implementations that relied entirely on a redundant configuration of ion drives. While three of the drives ended up failing by the end of the mission (the missions lifetime was extended far beyond the planned operational life of the spacecraft), the configuration demonstrated that a redundant system could be used to account for thruster failures. Furthermore, the demonstration of this particular technology will decrease the risk factors associated with ion propulsion technology, thus encouraging its adoption in future space missions. This new technology should help to reduce fuel load on future spacecraft, thus increasing the size of any particular mission payload. In other words, we will be able to get more science bang for our space buck because of the technology demonstrated in this mission.
Furthermore, this mission helped JAXA further configure their deep space communications network which will be shared with other space-faring nations in the future. The more players we have in the space race the better it will be for everyone involved. Increasing the number of tuned and configured deep space communication antennae increases the total throughput of data that can be processed by partnered space agencies. Again, this correlates to a potential increase in scientific data returned from future missions.
Finally, Hayabusa actually touched down on the asteroid. The data collected by JAXA during this maneuver will prove to be invaluable for future missions that involve low-gravity objects (comets, asteroids, small moons, etc.). All in all, the data and experience gained by the Hayabusa team will pay off in the space industry for decades to come with or without the asteroid dust. That's not to belittle the sample return. That, too, is a great achievement. However, it is important to note just what a tremendous step this mission was for the space industry in general.
Well at least your nickname is fitting....
They are.