I certainly am not carefully monitoring everything that goes on outside,
Your visual channel is monitoring everything. The thing is that sight, hearing and thinking are different channels. The issue is that if sight is concentrating on reading it is not watching for danger down the road.
My brain knows enough to interrupt me when something strange happens.
It can't is that danger signal never is recognized because the channel is busy doing something else. If your eyes are reading that are not scanning for danger and will not notice it.
It is impossible to remove all distractions but it i possible to minimize them whee we can. Not allowing equipment that displays incoming text messages in the driver's field of view is one of these controls.
given a choice of distracted and looking away or distracted but looking forward, the latter is better.
While one is better both are unacceptable.
But none of that changes the fact that it is the prosecution's duty to prove whatever accusations it might make in court. It is also necessary that the crime they charge you with actually matches what you did.
This is where I see the commissioner erred. The law does not state that the monitor has to be used just that it exists without an interlock and can be used.
Which ticket should she take? The speeding ticket or the using Google Glass ticket? She can't use Glass to disprove the speeding ticket unless she admits she was using Glass. It's an interesting question.
That would be great if there was an interlock to ensure that mapping information was the only thing that was displayed. Provisions for those kind of interlocks are in the cited law. That interlock does not yet exist so the Glass can still display distracting information such as text messages. Sure the driver could turn off the distracting information but how often will the driver "forget" to do it?
Vehicle huds do not display emails, text messages, etc that Glass does. They are also exempt from the law as they are vehicle information displays. The problem with Glass is that it takes the driver's mind off driving at random times and that distraction can cause accidents. Multitasking is a myth. Some people can task switch faster than others but doing multiple things with the eyes (reading a text message and watching traffic at the same time) is nearly impossible.
A simple solution is to start with the air already in the diver's lungs,...
Already done. It is called a rebreather. Notice it needs a volume to breath in and out of.
For deep dives, start with a breath of argon instead of nitrogen.
Already done as well but they use helium instead. The problem with argon is that it can displace oxygen and cause a danger. Helium just makes one talk funny.
Did anyone notice the poor English throughout the article?
The micro compressor operates through micro battery.
try
The micro compressor operates using a micro battery.
Nothing goes through the battery.
The micro battery is a next-generation technology with a size 30 times smaller than current battery that can quickly charge 1,000 times faster.
try
The micro battery is a next-generation technology with a size 30 times smaller than current battery and can quickly charge 1,000 times faster.
The original sounds like the current batter can charge 1,000 times faster.
I may be jaded but every time I see "Korean scientist" I am skeptical.
The one killer for the device is that we need to empty and re-fill our lungs to breath. There is no re-breather bag in the device to facilitate that and no way to get a proper air mixture from the device.
For example, your picture is on your YouTube account.
As far as I can tell YouTube users are not searchable by email address. Postings are displayed the YouTube user name and not email address. How can someone see a user photo by email address? Most sites do not have a search by email address because they want to keep that information private.
Except that another Bob Smith has already registered that domain. What do you choose them? If the email address is common enough to cause collisions so is the domain name.
The law only restricts buying and selling guns within the borders of Chicago. It will not effect the illegal sale of guns in Chicago. It will not effect the legal sale of guns outside of Chicago. It will not effect guns being legally brought into Chicago. It will have no effect on the number of guns in Chicago. It is a completely ineffective law. I am not against laws but I am against ineffective laws.
You also might want to look a little further. According to this article;
But colorful and controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he's not going to use the Korean War-era, tanklike weapon to blow up drug dens. The howitzer has been painted black and disabled, its gun plugged, and it has been converted into a mobile anti-drug classroom.
That is also an intelligence test as most employers will not disclose the quality of employee work due to litigation fear. So not only did the applicant admit they left on bad terms but they admit they also don't know how HR works.
First, profanity just weakens your argument. If you want to have a civil discussion please keep the language civil.
Age has been, and always will be, a metric in giving a general idea of when people are mature enough to do certain things. It has a lot to do with brain chemistry.
We don't actually seem that far apart on our views. I actually advocate age and competency requirements for owning a gun. The reason for the age requirement is that, until brain chemistry matures, most minors are unpredictable. While a minor may be able to handle a controlled test in a controlled environment it is unpredictable what they will do when stress and emotion get involved.They also have a lower regard for risk as they feel invincible. I am not saying there are not adults who still have that skewed outlook, Charlie Sheen for example, but they are much less prevalent. I completely agree with you about the competency requirement as guns in untrained hands are a danger to everyone; criminal an inocent alike.
Guess you weren't around when the government thought we were old enough to go fight and die in Viet Nam
There is a big difference between following orders and making decisions. By the way that was fixed in 1971 by the 26th Amendment.
There are plenty of minors I'd trust implicitly with a weapon
I agree that there are some individual minors that are more responsible than some individual adults but that is not how laws are made. Laws deal with overall statistics. When one becomes an adult the legal responsibility changes.In general adults are legally responsible for their action while minors are less responsible.
There needs to be an age where gun ownership is illegal or are you advocating the right for four year olds to own guns. The age a majority seems to be a reasonable place for that line.
The "rules around providing only the minimal amount of employment information after an employee is let go" are not a benefit to corporations. They are in fact a hindrance as they make it more difficult to weed out bad employment candidates.
These rules came about due to libel litigation brought forth by publicly fired employees. Most companies would rather say nothing that risk a day in court, and the expenses involved.
Wow, you missed the point completely. Without guns the US would never have been able to separate from England. That is the source of the Second Amendment. If ever a despotic government came into control of the US the founding fathers wanted to ensure the people had the means to overthrow it.
The reason for this is guns are purchased legally in surrounding areas and then sold to the black market.
Once a gun is sold on the black market it is no longer a legally owned gun. What you describe is a gun that has been legally purchased but has become an illegally owned gun through the illegal act of a black market sale. What I was referring to are guns in the possession of licensed owners that are used in crime.
The problem is not weapons but a society where individuals put a low value on their lives and the lives of others. That is why the murder rate is so high.
The other point is that the rest of the world did not fight a war of independence in the last 250 years. Take a look at the countries that have and you will see there are still lots of guns. Who would come help the US if a despotic government ever got in power with the help of the military? That is the main reason behind the Second Amendment. That is why the Second Amendment well probably never be repealed.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly am not carefully monitoring everything that goes on outside,
Your visual channel is monitoring everything. The thing is that sight, hearing and thinking are different channels. The issue is that if sight is concentrating on reading it is not watching for danger down the road.
My brain knows enough to interrupt me when something strange happens.
It can't is that danger signal never is recognized because the channel is busy doing something else. If your eyes are reading that are not scanning for danger and will not notice it.
It is impossible to remove all distractions but it i possible to minimize them whee we can. Not allowing equipment that displays incoming text messages in the driver's field of view is one of these controls.
given a choice of distracted and looking away or distracted but looking forward, the latter is better.
While one is better both are unacceptable.
But none of that changes the fact that it is the prosecution's duty to prove whatever accusations it might make in court. It is also necessary that the crime they charge you with actually matches what you did.
This is where I see the commissioner erred. The law does not state that the monitor has to be used just that it exists without an interlock and can be used.
No matter where they are looking they are still taking their mind off the road.
Which ticket should she take? The speeding ticket or the using Google Glass ticket? She can't use Glass to disprove the speeding ticket unless she admits she was using Glass. It's an interesting question.
Only the Glass ticket was dismissed; The speeding tickets was not dismissed.
That would be great if there was an interlock to ensure that mapping information was the only thing that was displayed. Provisions for those kind of interlocks are in the cited law. That interlock does not yet exist so the Glass can still display distracting information such as text messages. Sure the driver could turn off the distracting information but how often will the driver "forget" to do it?
Vehicle huds do not display emails, text messages, etc that Glass does. They are also exempt from the law as they are vehicle information displays. The problem with Glass is that it takes the driver's mind off driving at random times and that distraction can cause accidents. Multitasking is a myth. Some people can task switch faster than others but doing multiple things with the eyes (reading a text message and watching traffic at the same time) is nearly impossible.
A simple solution is to start with the air already in the diver's lungs, ...
Already done. It is called a rebreather. Notice it needs a volume to breath in and out of.
For deep dives, start with a breath of argon instead of nitrogen.
Already done as well but they use helium instead. The problem with argon is that it can displace oxygen and cause a danger. Helium just makes one talk funny.
Did anyone notice the poor English throughout the article?
The micro compressor operates through micro battery.
try
The micro compressor operates using a micro battery.
Nothing goes through the battery.
The micro battery is a next-generation technology with a size 30 times smaller than current battery that can quickly charge 1,000 times faster.
try
The micro battery is a next-generation technology with a size 30 times smaller than current battery and can quickly charge 1,000 times faster.
The original sounds like the current batter can charge 1,000 times faster.
I may be jaded but every time I see "Korean scientist" I am skeptical.
The one killer for the device is that we need to empty and re-fill our lungs to breath. There is no re-breather bag in the device to facilitate that and no way to get a proper air mixture from the device.
It is a hoax.
For example, your picture is on your YouTube account.
As far as I can tell YouTube users are not searchable by email address. Postings are displayed the YouTube user name and not email address. How can someone see a user photo by email address? Most sites do not have a search by email address because they want to keep that information private.
you've already done the damage (the stalker now knows your email address, plus the fact that it's still an actively used account).
So stalkers know the email addresses. What can they do with that information? If they harass the victim they get blocked.
This sounds a little like the "what about the children" arguments.
Except that another Bob Smith has already registered that domain. What do you choose them? If the email address is common enough to cause collisions so is the domain name.
I'm not sure that wouldn't be so terrible.
If broadcast TV collapses then Aereo will have nothing to re-broadcast
not with automatic commercial removal
These are closed systems with one owner. They are not a mix of systems created by multiple manufacturers with some automated and some not.
The law only restricts buying and selling guns within the borders of Chicago. It will not effect the illegal sale of guns in Chicago. It will not effect the legal sale of guns outside of Chicago. It will not effect guns being legally brought into Chicago. It will have no effect on the number of guns in Chicago. It is a completely ineffective law. I am not against laws but I am against ineffective laws.
Actually the caption on that vehicle is incorrect. This is an M1 Abrams. What they actually have is a M109 self propelled howitzer.
You also might want to look a little further. According to this article;
But colorful and controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he's not going to use the Korean War-era, tanklike weapon to blow up drug dens. The howitzer has been painted black and disabled, its gun plugged, and it has been converted into a mobile anti-drug classroom.
That is also an intelligence test as most employers will not disclose the quality of employee work due to litigation fear. So not only did the applicant admit they left on bad terms but they admit they also don't know how HR works.
First, profanity just weakens your argument. If you want to have a civil discussion please keep the language civil.
Age has been, and always will be, a metric in giving a general idea of when people are mature enough to do certain things. It has a lot to do with brain chemistry.
We don't actually seem that far apart on our views. I actually advocate age and competency requirements for owning a gun. The reason for the age requirement is that, until brain chemistry matures, most minors are unpredictable. While a minor may be able to handle a controlled test in a controlled environment it is unpredictable what they will do when stress and emotion get involved.They also have a lower regard for risk as they feel invincible. I am not saying there are not adults who still have that skewed outlook, Charlie Sheen for example, but they are much less prevalent. I completely agree with you about the competency requirement as guns in untrained hands are a danger to everyone; criminal an inocent alike.
Guess you weren't around when the government thought we were old enough to go fight and die in Viet Nam
There is a big difference between following orders and making decisions. By the way that was fixed in 1971 by the 26th Amendment.
There are plenty of minors I'd trust implicitly with a weapon
I agree that there are some individual minors that are more responsible than some individual adults but that is not how laws are made. Laws deal with overall statistics. When one becomes an adult the legal responsibility changes.In general adults are legally responsible for their action while minors are less responsible.
There needs to be an age where gun ownership is illegal or are you advocating the right for four year olds to own guns. The age a majority seems to be a reasonable place for that line.
And the criminals will be better armed than the police.
Calling what SWAT units have as tanks is misleading. The heaviest vehicles I have seen are like this. These are armored personnel carriers (APCs) and not tanks. Notice no main gun or even heavy armament.
(I wonder if I fed the troll; It is hard to tell now a days)
The "rules around providing only the minimal amount of employment information after an employee is let go" are not a benefit to corporations. They are in fact a hindrance as they make it more difficult to weed out bad employment candidates.
These rules came about due to libel litigation brought forth by publicly fired employees. Most companies would rather say nothing that risk a day in court, and the expenses involved.
Wow, you missed the point completely. Without guns the US would never have been able to separate from England. That is the source of the Second Amendment. If ever a despotic government came into control of the US the founding fathers wanted to ensure the people had the means to overthrow it.
The reason for this is guns are purchased legally in surrounding areas and then sold to the black market.
Once a gun is sold on the black market it is no longer a legally owned gun. What you describe is a gun that has been legally purchased but has become an illegally owned gun through the illegal act of a black market sale. What I was referring to are guns in the possession of licensed owners that are used in crime.
The problem is not weapons but a society where individuals put a low value on their lives and the lives of others. That is why the murder rate is so high.
The other point is that the rest of the world did not fight a war of independence in the last 250 years. Take a look at the countries that have and you will see there are still lots of guns. Who would come help the US if a despotic government ever got in power with the help of the military? That is the main reason behind the Second Amendment. That is why the Second Amendment well probably never be repealed.