I didn't use Ad Hominem either, but I'll leave that one for you.
Listen, I'm not suggesting that texting and driving isn't distracting, or can't have a negative impact on driving. Of course it can. So can many other things. Many of these have been determined to be higher risk activities.
Looking at objects (or people) outside the car has been found to pose a greater risk than talking on a phone (the offense that you specifically appeared to be indignant about). Though dialing a phone is riskier than eating, eating is more risky than using a phone. Inserting or retrieving a CD is between eating and dialing.
And maybe you are right, and that you can fiddle with your CD or MP3 player in a few seconds, but my car has a 5 disc MP3 on DVD player that doesn't support playlists or random play, but does support browsing directories. On the other hand, I can send a text using my phone's microphone and text-to-speech. It is illegal for me to use speech-to-text in extremely slow moving traffic, yet it's legal for me to search for the right file, in the right folder, on the right DVD, with an extremely badly designed user interface, while driving 75 MPH.
Also, not all phones require 2 hands. Not all of them even require looking. Some people, on some phones, are able to type completely blind while keeping their eyes on the road.
There have been studies that show no reduction in crashes after banning phones while driving, even though phone use will driving did decrease. One has to wonder whether making it illegal means that some people will try harder to hide it, taking their eyes even further away from the road as they conceal their phones out of plain sight, such as down near their lap.
Studies show that hands-free devices aren't really any safer than holding it. Analysis suggests it is believed that the mental workload of holding the conversation is what increases risk, not the act of holding a phone.
While I think it is a bad idea to talk on a phone or text on it while driving, I am just skeptical of the legitimacy of the moral outrage for it, and wonder how other risks compare, and am skeptical of the need of additional legislation (or at least, the types being created).
But go ahead. Say I don't have a clue, just because I am not rushing to join the "there ought to be a law!" crowd.
Why stop there? There are other many things that have been proven to be distractions as well.
We should outlaw children riding in the car, talking to other passengers, and attractive members of the opposite sex sitting in the passenger seat.
In fact, it's been shown that there is a rise in accidents from male drivers during spring and summer months, which is believed to be due to the increase of females wearing more shorts or other more revealing clothing. We should ban female pedestrians too, to prevent accidents.
Then we should outlaw scenic routes. You are driving to get somewhere, not for scenery. Scenery is just a distractions.
Driving in to sunrises or sunsets can cause problems too. We should outlaw the movement of the sun in the sky.
I heard an interesting question raised several months ago. If obesity is on the rise, merely due to changes in having less active lifestyles, laziness, and lack of self-control, as many seem to assume, then why is there also a dramatic rise in infant obesity? Are babies today just more lazy and inactive than babies in the past?
I don't know all the answers, but it seems to be a valid question that suggests that there could be other factors in the rise of obesity, other than simply writing it off as character defects.
I find it absurd that people think that there should be legal control over what others fantasize about, if there aren't real people getting hurt in any real tangible way. I might add, being offended by the ideas or fantasies of someone else isn't real harm.
I will be the first to support sex laws that actually protect real people from real harm and exploitation, but people wanting to create thought crime, and want to make crimes over imaginary offenses can piss off.
The main complaints I see from people about Google+ has nothing to do with the site itself. It is that there aren't enough of their contacts on it.
Facebook is long past the early adopter stage. It has managed to capture the market of the vast majority, who are not like the early adopters, aren't looking for the next best thing, and are resistant to change. They are an anchor that keep many people on Facebook who would prefer to go to Google+ and take everyone with them.
They have to either appeal to the masses, or they have to convince the early adopters that there is value in using both for long enough that the more resistant users begin to slowly trickle in.
He was one of the most VISIBLE people to influence technology in several decades (I won't even go as far as to say half century), but being among the most famous or visible doesn't mean being the most important.
Jobs deserves some respect, sure. He had charisma and business savvy, without doubt. He was even a visionary.
However, the reaction of many fans is creepy to me. People are reacting as if his death was one of a beloved family member, a prophet, or even a god. I have seen people complain about the insensitivity of people criticizing him or making light of his death, because Jobs was deeply important to them and they were stuggling to deal with the loss.
Respect is fine, but I find the worship of him unsettling.
Maybe next we can see people prosecuted for "hacking" for copying and pasting the text so they can read it. If truncating or guessing an URL can be considered hacking, surely this can be too.
In case you aren't aware of this already, pronouncing the 'g' in "gigawatts", as in the movie, is a perfectly acceptable pronunciation. Most people (especially in America, and myself included) prefer the hard 'g', but it isn't universal.
Tandy? Radio Shack didn't have much presence outside the US, and "hobby computers" was a much bigger phenomenon in Europe (and later, Japan) than in the US.
They may have been bigger in Europe, but they still left an impact here. I know many people who got their on CoCos (Tandy TRS-80 Color Computer), and who had their very first experiences with programming on one. I wrote my first BASIC program on a CoCo when I was about 8 years old, and I've always had a soft spot for those machines.
Whether or not war actually occurs, there is insufficient evidence that man they are man-made. It is hubris to think that man has such great impact on the world, that he can unleash war and destruction around the world.
There are many possible explanations for war that we tend to overlook. Volcanoes, sun activity, and natural cycles. We just don't have enough historical evidence to support they are man made.
Besides, even if we accept the questionable hypothesis that war is man-made, do we know for sure that it's really such a bad thing? There have been peaceful trends in recent years, which might have detrimental effects for some industries. An increase in war might help keep things from keep things in balance.
If I flash you, your mom, daughter or wife, they aren't hurt, are they?
Actually... probably not.
Does it make me old that I can remember a time when things like flashing, mooning, public urination, and streaking, were seen as being disorderly, but not thought of as psychologically damaging? Now a mooning can make you a registered sex offender.
I thought it would be obvious, but I suppose it was not. I was trying to make a joke using sarcasm.
Perhaps I should have just stuck to being literal and said, when it was "closed", allowing people to have 100 invites each, didn't really make it feel very closed.
They were never going to build up users in the "closed" field trial when they only allowed each user to only invite a mere 100 other users... It was too tough to get in before.
Sure they are different, but Star Wars isn't about the technology anyway. It's space fantasy. It's just an entertaining story that happens to be set in a more technologically advanced setting, but could have been told without the advanced technology. It doesn't really ask particularly interesting questions about how technology and contact with other civilizations will change cultures.
But that's ok! I can still enjoy it!
In the same way, Doctor Who often gives a pretty unrealistic view of science, but yet it deal with not only characters, but human nature. But it still can be interesting and fun.
And Eureeka is closer to a caricature of sci-fi, but it still is amusing.
I also love old episodes of The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica, and more. It's ok not to pick sides and just appreciate shows for what they are, rather than deriding them for what they aren't.
One thing I've noticed is that most big Star Trek fan also enjoy Star Wars, while big Star Wars fans often strongly dislike and berate Star Trek. I guess the different philosophies attracts different types of fans.
An example can be seen in Fanboys where the Star Wars fan beat up some Star Trek fans for no reason.
I grew up as more of a Star Wars fan. Star Wars was the first movie I remember seeing as a child. Years later, Return of the Jedi was the very first movie that my parents allowed me to see by myself. However, I also watched reruns of Star Trek: ToS as a kid.
I have never understood why people had to pick between which show was better, or even which Star Trek captain was best. I enjoyed them all.
After a few minutes of practice, using Swype on a touchscreen was far more efficient than using the slide out keyboard of my own phone. I had doubts about touchscreen only, but it's not that bad.
I'm in that group as well. I hate Facebook, and have disliked every other major social networking site. I do like Google+, and even people think it's a Ghost Town, it's because of where they are looking. I see plenty of activity.
And XP wasn't useful until SP 2 also, right? (Yes, that is sarcasm)
Win95 was worth upgrading to (from Win 3.1 or 3.11) even when Win95 was in beta. In fact, the only 2 versions of Windows that I can recall there being much resistance to were ME and Vista. You *could* skip Win98 if you already had 95 (in most situations), however there was no good reason to choose 95 over 98 if you had to choose one from the start (as might have happened between Vista vs XP, or ME vs 98SE).
I think you are confusing Windows versions with Star Trek films..
Slashdot Mirror
But yet he is criticized by the right for pulling out "too early", even if it was because of reluctantly honoring Bush's promise.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I don't know about your friends... but apparently Norse god worship is also not uncommon among some groups of white supremacists.
I didn't use Ad Hominem either, but I'll leave that one for you.
Listen, I'm not suggesting that texting and driving isn't distracting, or can't have a negative impact on driving. Of course it can. So can many other things. Many of these have been determined to be higher risk activities.
Looking at objects (or people) outside the car has been found to pose a greater risk than talking on a phone (the offense that you specifically appeared to be indignant about). Though dialing a phone is riskier than eating, eating is more risky than using a phone. Inserting or retrieving a CD is between eating and dialing.
And maybe you are right, and that you can fiddle with your CD or MP3 player in a few seconds, but my car has a 5 disc MP3 on DVD player that doesn't support playlists or random play, but does support browsing directories. On the other hand, I can send a text using my phone's microphone and text-to-speech. It is illegal for me to use speech-to-text in extremely slow moving traffic, yet it's legal for me to search for the right file, in the right folder, on the right DVD, with an extremely badly designed user interface, while driving 75 MPH.
Also, not all phones require 2 hands. Not all of them even require looking. Some people, on some phones, are able to type completely blind while keeping their eyes on the road.
There have been studies that show no reduction in crashes after banning phones while driving, even though phone use will driving did decrease. One has to wonder whether making it illegal means that some people will try harder to hide it, taking their eyes even further away from the road as they conceal their phones out of plain sight, such as down near their lap.
Studies show that hands-free devices aren't really any safer than holding it. Analysis suggests it is believed that the mental workload of holding the conversation is what increases risk, not the act of holding a phone.
While I think it is a bad idea to talk on a phone or text on it while driving, I am just skeptical of the legitimacy of the moral outrage for it, and wonder how other risks compare, and am skeptical of the need of additional legislation (or at least, the types being created).
But go ahead. Say I don't have a clue, just because I am not rushing to join the "there ought to be a law!" crowd.
Why stop there? There are other many things that have been proven to be distractions as well.
We should outlaw children riding in the car, talking to other passengers, and attractive members of the opposite sex sitting in the passenger seat.
In fact, it's been shown that there is a rise in accidents from male drivers during spring and summer months, which is believed to be due to the increase of females wearing more shorts or other more revealing clothing. We should ban female pedestrians too, to prevent accidents.
Then we should outlaw scenic routes. You are driving to get somewhere, not for scenery. Scenery is just a distractions.
Driving in to sunrises or sunsets can cause problems too. We should outlaw the movement of the sun in the sky.
What else am I missing?
I heard an interesting question raised several months ago. If obesity is on the rise, merely due to changes in having less active lifestyles, laziness, and lack of self-control, as many seem to assume, then why is there also a dramatic rise in infant obesity? Are babies today just more lazy and inactive than babies in the past?
I don't know all the answers, but it seems to be a valid question that suggests that there could be other factors in the rise of obesity, other than simply writing it off as character defects.
As for the article, all I have to say is...
SOYLENT ENERGY IS MADE FROM PEOPLE!!!!
I find it absurd that people think that there should be legal control over what others fantasize about, if there aren't real people getting hurt in any real tangible way. I might add, being offended by the ideas or fantasies of someone else isn't real harm.
I will be the first to support sex laws that actually protect real people from real harm and exploitation, but people wanting to create thought crime, and want to make crimes over imaginary offenses can piss off.
The main complaints I see from people about Google+ has nothing to do with the site itself. It is that there aren't enough of their contacts on it.
Facebook is long past the early adopter stage. It has managed to capture the market of the vast majority, who are not like the early adopters, aren't looking for the next best thing, and are resistant to change. They are an anchor that keep many people on Facebook who would prefer to go to Google+ and take everyone with them.
They have to either appeal to the masses, or they have to convince the early adopters that there is value in using both for long enough that the more resistant users begin to slowly trickle in.
He was one of the most VISIBLE people to influence technology in several decades (I won't even go as far as to say half century), but being among the most famous or visible doesn't mean being the most important.
Jobs deserves some respect, sure. He had charisma and business savvy, without doubt. He was even a visionary.
However, the reaction of many fans is creepy to me. People are reacting as if his death was one of a beloved family member, a prophet, or even a god. I have seen people complain about the insensitivity of people criticizing him or making light of his death, because Jobs was deeply important to them and they were stuggling to deal with the loss.
Respect is fine, but I find the worship of him unsettling.
Maybe next we can see people prosecuted for "hacking" for copying and pasting the text so they can read it. If truncating or guessing an URL can be considered hacking, surely this can be too.
In case you aren't aware of this already, pronouncing the 'g' in "gigawatts", as in the movie, is a perfectly acceptable pronunciation. Most people (especially in America, and myself included) prefer the hard 'g', but it isn't universal.
Tandy? Radio Shack didn't have much presence outside the US, and "hobby computers" was a much bigger phenomenon in Europe (and later, Japan) than in the US.
They may have been bigger in Europe, but they still left an impact here. I know many people who got their on CoCos (Tandy TRS-80 Color Computer), and who had their very first experiences with programming on one. I wrote my first BASIC program on a CoCo when I was about 8 years old, and I've always had a soft spot for those machines.
Whether or not war actually occurs, there is insufficient evidence that man they are man-made. It is hubris to think that man has such great impact on the world, that he can unleash war and destruction around the world.
There are many possible explanations for war that we tend to overlook. Volcanoes, sun activity, and natural cycles. We just don't have enough historical evidence to support they are man made.
Besides, even if we accept the questionable hypothesis that war is man-made, do we know for sure that it's really such a bad thing? There have been peaceful trends in recent years, which might have detrimental effects for some industries. An increase in war might help keep things from keep things in balance.
If I flash you, your mom, daughter or wife, they aren't hurt, are they?
Actually... probably not.
Does it make me old that I can remember a time when things like flashing, mooning, public urination, and streaking, were seen as being disorderly, but not thought of as psychologically damaging? Now a mooning can make you a registered sex offender.
Forget magnets....
Fucking cancer, how does it work?
What does MultiTouch as a trademark even mean?
The ability to prevent competitors from advertising it as a feature?
I thought it would be obvious, but I suppose it was not. I was trying to make a joke using sarcasm.
Perhaps I should have just stuck to being literal and said, when it was "closed", allowing people to have 100 invites each, didn't really make it feel very closed.
They were never going to build up users in the "closed" field trial when they only allowed each user to only invite a mere 100 other users... It was too tough to get in before.
Sure they are different, but Star Wars isn't about the technology anyway. It's space fantasy. It's just an entertaining story that happens to be set in a more technologically advanced setting, but could have been told without the advanced technology. It doesn't really ask particularly interesting questions about how technology and contact with other civilizations will change cultures.
But that's ok! I can still enjoy it!
In the same way, Doctor Who often gives a pretty unrealistic view of science, but yet it deal with not only characters, but human nature. But it still can be interesting and fun.
And Eureeka is closer to a caricature of sci-fi, but it still is amusing.
I also love old episodes of The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica, and more. It's ok not to pick sides and just appreciate shows for what they are, rather than deriding them for what they aren't.
One thing I've noticed is that most big Star Trek fan also enjoy Star Wars, while big Star Wars fans often strongly dislike and berate Star Trek. I guess the different philosophies attracts different types of fans.
An example can be seen in Fanboys where the Star Wars fan beat up some Star Trek fans for no reason.
I grew up as more of a Star Wars fan. Star Wars was the first movie I remember seeing as a child. Years later, Return of the Jedi was the very first movie that my parents allowed me to see by myself. However, I also watched reruns of Star Trek: ToS as a kid.
I have never understood why people had to pick between which show was better, or even which Star Trek captain was best. I enjoyed them all.
I guess I'm Bi-Starrial.
After a few minutes of practice, using Swype on a touchscreen was far more efficient than using the slide out keyboard of my own phone. I had doubts about touchscreen only, but it's not that bad.
I'm in that group as well. I hate Facebook, and have disliked every other major social networking site. I do like Google+, and even people think it's a Ghost Town, it's because of where they are looking. I see plenty of activity.
And XP wasn't useful until SP 2 also, right? (Yes, that is sarcasm)
Win95 was worth upgrading to (from Win 3.1 or 3.11) even when Win95 was in beta. In fact, the only 2 versions of Windows that I can recall there being much resistance to were ME and Vista. You *could* skip Win98 if you already had 95 (in most situations), however there was no good reason to choose 95 over 98 if you had to choose one from the start (as might have happened between Vista vs XP, or ME vs 98SE).
I think you are confusing Windows versions with Star Trek films..
What, you aren't looking forward to hitting your monthly cap in less than a minute?
Is there anything it can't do?
It's the Fonz Star.