More specifically, it's meant to be simply worn, even when it is not not being actively used at the time, and available for use at any time without having to fish it out of a pocket or case or what have you, or else the entire point of it being wearable in the first place is lost, and it offers no advantage over something you can carry in your pocket.
An armed response to being punched in the face would be considered a disproportionate response, and not one that a person could rationally justify later except with the excuse that they simply reacted without thinking. Which itself would be an admission that such a response to an unarmed assault *IS* an overreaction.
If you are carrying a weapon legally, then you need to be responsible for maintaining a good sense of judgement *AT ALL TIMES* of when it is actually appropriate to use such a weapon. Armed response to unarmed assault might only be a legitimate and justifiable reaction if the unarmed assault were to continue without relent, even if you did not initially respond violently at all.
... but a whole fucking shitload of it is being freely distributed.... LEGALLY.
So unless they are going to take those additional fees and distribute them internationally to absolutely every human being alive who has ever put something copyrighted online, *EVER*... they really should stay away from the issue.
This post is copyrighted by me, for instance. And people can access this post by going on the Internet and reading comments on Slashdot under this article. Will *I* receive even the tiniest sliver of the funds they collect? No? Then they shouldn't be trying to touch that Pandora's box with a pole of any length.
My point is that simple activities like talking to somebody else does not, generally speaking, require any large amounts of concentration, and isn't likely to interfere with any other activity, even driving, since such a conversation would be considered a "background task", to use the words of the author of a book mentioned in the first article that your recommended google search turned up. Conversing still requires some conscious thought, but by virtue of being able to be a "background task", does not actually distract a person from doing something that does not otherwise require their full and completely undivided and focused attention. Any additional levels of cognitive distraction which occur due to talking on a cell phone over talking to somebody else who is in the car with you are a result of the person failing to properly delegate such a conversation to its correct priority with respect to the task that they should be focused on, which is driving.
Holding a cell phone, or for that matter, holding any object, such as a food or a cup of coffee, or otherwise manipulating with your hands any gadgets or controls that are not actually on the steering wheel itself is problematic while driving because you must physically release what you are touching in order to grab the wheel in the event that an unexpected but immediate need to have more control over the vehicle arises, and that *physical* response takes some real amount of time. However, merely mentally disengaging from a conversation as required by any unexpected driving events which require undistracted attention does not generally involve any physical movement that interferes with driving (unless you are somehow controlling the car with your jaw or mouth), and so does not take any additional time, so for a person who does not find talking or listening to somebody to be any kind of cognitive distraction, talking on a hands-free cell phone should not increase a person's reaction time any more than otherwise talking with somebody who is physically in the car with the driver would.
Not really, but you yourself explicitly indicate why:
But humans can process complex driving into a simpler activity.
Indeed... which is the reason why it's entirely possible to drive and talk to somebody else at the same time, even if that person is not physically there, without any concentration degradation on the former.
Suggesting that it's somehow outside of human achievement just because some people can't seem to manage it is an inaccurate over generalization.
I explicitly chose examples of walking and chewing because neither of those tasks are autonomous, as breathing and your heartbeat are, which you mentioned... I did not.
They are, however, significant in that these are not mentally demanding activities, and neither really distracts you from doing other things at the same time.
Point being that human beings *CAN* multitask, particularly when at least one of the things that they are multitasking does not actually require a significant amount of attention to perform dutifully. Heck, the task of driving itself requires multitasking, even when you're not doing anything but driving in that it requires being aware of the speed you are traveling, being aware of any dangers on the road and of other traffic, as well as at least approximate knowledge of an intended route that one will take in the future.
However...simply talking to someone ordinarily, whether they are with you or on the phone, does not really require a significant amount of concentration, and so should not distract a competent driver who would probably mentally disengage from a conversation without notice or warning to the person on the other end, whenever the conversation was prohibitively distracting anyways and it would take no more time to do this than it would take to ordinarily increase the attention you would be paying to driving under nominal conditions to a situation now requiring further attention than if you had been completely alone and in silence unless you were already paying more attention to the road for some reason or another (but human beings cannot ordinarily maintain elevated levels of concentration for long periods, which is why driving in very congested traffic is so much more mentally exhausting than driving for much longer periods at a relatively constant speed, and with smooth traffic flow).
Such situations are generally far more anticipatable by an experienced driver than you give them credit for... In the relatively few instances where they are not, and I'm speaking from personal experience here, not happening to be using a cell phone at the time doesn't tend to make such an imminent situation more preventable.
Disengaging from a conversation to do something else that you were not otherwise planning to do should take no more time than doing what you were going to do anyways... you just stop talking or listening.
It's my understanding that the only reason that the Canadian government ever started dealing with the private banks at all for their finances instead of the Bank of Canada, as they did before 1975 or so, is because when the government switched its fiscal policies to operate on a large annual deficit that they weren't ever really going to pay back, the Bank of Canada told them that wasn't acceptable, so the government started dealing with private banks instead.
So by my understanding, we need the government to return to its old fiscal policies of actually paying back the money that it borrows. If they did that, the BoC could lend them the money to pay back the private banks at a nominal interest rate (far below what the private banks charge), and the government could then pay back the BoC over a period of time, where the money is reinvested into our economy.
The real trick, of course, is convincing the Canadian government that they should actually try operating on a budget that doesn't involve borrowing more money than they can actually pay back in a manageable period of time.
Under nominal and expected driving conditions, where speed is relatively constant, and one is not performing any kind of maneuver which may involve negotiating with unpredictable traffic flow, the task of driving, at least by an experienced driver, does not require any significant amount of concentration, and so engaging in conversation would not be so distracting as to endanger anyone.
If you can walk in a straight line and chew food at the same time, and if you are already otherwise a competent driver, then at least under ideal conditions, you can probably also drive and talk to somebody on a hands-free cell at the same time as well.
Now I'm aware that not every situation is deal... but a driver who's actually otherwise competent should be able to recognize those situations the instant that they arise, and wouldn't try to talk to somebody else during such moments anyways.
I won't deny the fact that there are some applications for which no functional equivalent exists on Linux at all, but the number of them is not really very high Which applications are you thinking that they use which don't have a functional equivalent for Linux?
Since locating the authors of any particular open source project is not always easy, one could claim very plausibly that they had attempted to track down the original copyright holder, and failed.
On the plus side, it also probably means that abandonware effectively automatically becomes public domain. Whether or not the original entity still controls it.
The magnets were marketed as a toy... but most definitely *NOT* intended for children. The product was very plainly labelled as such.
It's idiotic parents who gave such toys to small children that were the real problem, not the toy itself. Just as certainly as the parents are wholly to blame when one of them leaves a loaded gun lying around where their kids can potentially handle it.
I haven't suggested we ban guns.... I just find it ironic that something as simple as a product intended for entertainment can get banned on account of a small number of incidents when it's actually entirely safe for people to use as intended can be banned when there are other things with far greater numbers of accidents which don't get seem to really get touched.
How do you figure the parents can't pass their genetics down? What if the child were adopted? Genetics would have nothing to do with it. I won't argue that leaving a gun around where a kid can grab it is definitely bad parenting, but what does that have to do with evolution versus creationism?
Slashdot Mirror
More specifically, it's meant to be simply worn, even when it is not not being actively used at the time, and available for use at any time without having to fish it out of a pocket or case or what have you, or else the entire point of it being wearable in the first place is lost, and it offers no advantage over something you can carry in your pocket.
Keep us appraised of how the plethora of assault charges that you will face work out for you
An armed response to being punched in the face would be considered a disproportionate response, and not one that a person could rationally justify later except with the excuse that they simply reacted without thinking. Which itself would be an admission that such a response to an unarmed assault *IS* an overreaction.
If you are carrying a weapon legally, then you need to be responsible for maintaining a good sense of judgement *AT ALL TIMES* of when it is actually appropriate to use such a weapon. Armed response to unarmed assault might only be a legitimate and justifiable reaction if the unarmed assault were to continue without relent, even if you did not initially respond violently at all.
Would the assault charge be worth it?
Bearing in mind that if you happened to do this to somebody who just happened to be an off-duty cop, you'd be facing a whole world of grief.
So unless they are going to take those additional fees and distribute them internationally to absolutely every human being alive who has ever put something copyrighted online, *EVER*... they really should stay away from the issue.
This post is copyrighted by me, for instance. And people can access this post by going on the Internet and reading comments on Slashdot under this article. Will *I* receive even the tiniest sliver of the funds they collect? No? Then they shouldn't be trying to touch that Pandora's box with a pole of any length.
Actually, thanks to Bill C-32 being passed, it's not legal anymore if the media has any kind of copy protection on it whatsoever.
My point is that simple activities like talking to somebody else does not, generally speaking, require any large amounts of concentration, and isn't likely to interfere with any other activity, even driving, since such a conversation would be considered a "background task", to use the words of the author of a book mentioned in the first article that your recommended google search turned up. Conversing still requires some conscious thought, but by virtue of being able to be a "background task", does not actually distract a person from doing something that does not otherwise require their full and completely undivided and focused attention. Any additional levels of cognitive distraction which occur due to talking on a cell phone over talking to somebody else who is in the car with you are a result of the person failing to properly delegate such a conversation to its correct priority with respect to the task that they should be focused on, which is driving.
Holding a cell phone, or for that matter, holding any object, such as a food or a cup of coffee, or otherwise manipulating with your hands any gadgets or controls that are not actually on the steering wheel itself is problematic while driving because you must physically release what you are touching in order to grab the wheel in the event that an unexpected but immediate need to have more control over the vehicle arises, and that *physical* response takes some real amount of time. However, merely mentally disengaging from a conversation as required by any unexpected driving events which require undistracted attention does not generally involve any physical movement that interferes with driving (unless you are somehow controlling the car with your jaw or mouth), and so does not take any additional time, so for a person who does not find talking or listening to somebody to be any kind of cognitive distraction, talking on a hands-free cell phone should not increase a person's reaction time any more than otherwise talking with somebody who is physically in the car with the driver would.
Not really, but you yourself explicitly indicate why:
Indeed... which is the reason why it's entirely possible to drive and talk to somebody else at the same time, even if that person is not physically there, without any concentration degradation on the former.
Suggesting that it's somehow outside of human achievement just because some people can't seem to manage it is an inaccurate over generalization.
I explicitly chose examples of walking and chewing because neither of those tasks are autonomous, as breathing and your heartbeat are, which you mentioned... I did not.
They are, however, significant in that these are not mentally demanding activities, and neither really distracts you from doing other things at the same time.
Point being that human beings *CAN* multitask, particularly when at least one of the things that they are multitasking does not actually require a significant amount of attention to perform dutifully. Heck, the task of driving itself requires multitasking, even when you're not doing anything but driving in that it requires being aware of the speed you are traveling, being aware of any dangers on the road and of other traffic, as well as at least approximate knowledge of an intended route that one will take in the future.
However...simply talking to someone ordinarily, whether they are with you or on the phone, does not really require a significant amount of concentration, and so should not distract a competent driver who would probably mentally disengage from a conversation without notice or warning to the person on the other end, whenever the conversation was prohibitively distracting anyways and it would take no more time to do this than it would take to ordinarily increase the attention you would be paying to driving under nominal conditions to a situation now requiring further attention than if you had been completely alone and in silence unless you were already paying more attention to the road for some reason or another (but human beings cannot ordinarily maintain elevated levels of concentration for long periods, which is why driving in very congested traffic is so much more mentally exhausting than driving for much longer periods at a relatively constant speed, and with smooth traffic flow).
Disengaging from a conversation to do something else that you were not otherwise planning to do should take no more time than doing what you were going to do anyways... you just stop talking or listening.
No... but then that's because I'm physically extremely clumsy.
I was regularly walking right head on into walls until I was about 7.
It's my understanding that the only reason that the Canadian government ever started dealing with the private banks at all for their finances instead of the Bank of Canada, as they did before 1975 or so, is because when the government switched its fiscal policies to operate on a large annual deficit that they weren't ever really going to pay back, the Bank of Canada told them that wasn't acceptable, so the government started dealing with private banks instead.
So by my understanding, we need the government to return to its old fiscal policies of actually paying back the money that it borrows. If they did that, the BoC could lend them the money to pay back the private banks at a nominal interest rate (far below what the private banks charge), and the government could then pay back the BoC over a period of time, where the money is reinvested into our economy.
The real trick, of course, is convincing the Canadian government that they should actually try operating on a budget that doesn't involve borrowing more money than they can actually pay back in a manageable period of time.
Under nominal and expected driving conditions, where speed is relatively constant, and one is not performing any kind of maneuver which may involve negotiating with unpredictable traffic flow, the task of driving, at least by an experienced driver, does not require any significant amount of concentration, and so engaging in conversation would not be so distracting as to endanger anyone.
If you can walk in a straight line and chew food at the same time, and if you are already otherwise a competent driver, then at least under ideal conditions, you can probably also drive and talk to somebody on a hands-free cell at the same time as well.
Now I'm aware that not every situation is deal... but a driver who's actually otherwise competent should be able to recognize those situations the instant that they arise, and wouldn't try to talk to somebody else during such moments anyways.
Wholly untrue. Or do you think most humans are incapable of even walking and chewing at the same time?
I won't deny the fact that there are some applications for which no functional equivalent exists on Linux at all, but the number of them is not really very high Which applications are you thinking that they use which don't have a functional equivalent for Linux?
5 have been in the wild, hmm?
I'm curious... which ones?
Reread it. You are mistaken.
Since locating the authors of any particular open source project is not always easy, one could claim very plausibly that they had attempted to track down the original copyright holder, and failed.
On the plus side, it also probably means that abandonware effectively automatically becomes public domain. Whether or not the original entity still controls it.
I never said I found it amusing. I said I found it ironic. Stupidly ironic, in fact
I'm suggesting that somehow tying genetics into a discussion about parents who do stupid shit is silly.
The magnets were marketed as a toy... but most definitely *NOT* intended for children. The product was very plainly labelled as such.
It's idiotic parents who gave such toys to small children that were the real problem, not the toy itself. Just as certainly as the parents are wholly to blame when one of them leaves a loaded gun lying around where their kids can potentially handle it.
I haven't suggested we ban guns.... I just find it ironic that something as simple as a product intended for entertainment can get banned on account of a small number of incidents when it's actually entirely safe for people to use as intended can be banned when there are other things with far greater numbers of accidents which don't get seem to really get touched.
Are you under the impression that I am suggesting that guns should be banned?
How do you figure the parents can't pass their genetics down? What if the child were adopted? Genetics would have nothing to do with it. I won't argue that leaving a gun around where a kid can grab it is definitely bad parenting, but what does that have to do with evolution versus creationism?
Gun accidents kill hundreds of people EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.
There were fewer than 30 ingestion incidents, *EVER*, with buckyball neodymium magnets that led to their being declared a health hazard and banned.
While I know the latter aren't protected constitutionally, doesn't that still strike people as being incredibly inconsistent?