Close.. but not quite. I worked in the banking industry many years ago (ok.. almost 30), so my memory may be a bit hazy. As I remember, the requirements were very basic:
Date -- checks older than 6 months are 'dead' and do not have to be honored. In theory, any check older than 6 months has to be either reissued or turned over to the state as abandoned property. That's how many of those names get in the paper under the 'state has money for you' category. It's amazing how many people don't cash payroll checks in a timely fashion. And states do audit companies to make sure they are either making attempts to reissue the check or turning them over to the state
The account number on which it is drawn. I don't believe the routing number is required if you take it to the originating bank
The amount in two places. By tradition, one is numbers and the other is words, but this is not required
The name of the bank. The address used to be required, but with the large national banks, I don't think it is any longer
The signature of the person issuing the check
The name of the person (or other entity such as a business) to whom the check is issued. Or 'cash'
No bank is required to honor a check not drawn upon their accounts. They do so for business reasons, checks usage would be almost impossible if banks wouldn't honor other bank's checks. They are under no obligation to cash a questionable check.
And, of course, no business is required to accept a check written on Kleenex.
On the other hand, a bank is required to honor a check drawn on their accounts *without fees*, providing the identify of the person cashing it can be verified, it's not a dead check, the funds are available, and the signature is validated. Of course, all of these checks are at the bank's discretion, they don't have to verify anything if they are willing to take that risk. (Insert sarcastic comment about risky loans here...)
In theory, you can issue a check on just about anything, providing the above information is on it. However, the only bank that has to accept it is the bank it is drawn on.
So, checks have always been a bit dicey to begin with. Sure, your payroll check is printed on nice shiny paper. It only helps to make sure the check isn't altered, which also used to be a big way to make money on checks.
But the reason most banks will only cash checks for account holders is because they have made an attempt to identify them, so if bad checks happen they can attempt to locate the person who cashed it. Check-21 was an attempt to decrease the ability to defraud, paper no longer has to float around the system so checks clear and bounce faster and kiting is becoming very difficult.
Most of the text in most word processing documents are easily available to be parsed out even without the specs. The formatting would be lost, as would any embedded objects or images.
Open formats would improve it, but I would be more concerned about encrypted documents and media loss than not being able to recover data (text/images/video/music/etc) from available files. There are a lot of clever people that can do amazing things with deciphering proprietary formats.
A better check is hash and file size, since it is more difficult for two files of the same size to have the same hash by chance. Especially using compression due to images or videos of the same dimensions reducing to different sizes.
Hash and file size checks are useful for checking if a file is intact and possibly not altered. They are great for lookups.
But, in the end, you still need the file to validate the correct item is found. Hashmaps store both the key and hash for this very reason. The hash is a quick lookup, but the key is needed to verify the right element has been found.
There are a couple of border patrol checkpoints between Phoenix and San Diego. One is usually just east of Yuma, and the other is in California somewhere in the mountains. I can't recall exactly where though, I think it's on the other side of Centro around the Acorn casino. Plus the border patrol presence along I-8 is pretty heavy since it's only about half a mile in places from the border.
I've driven between Phoenix and San Diego numerous times over the last 5 years, and never been asked anything. I roll down my window, turn on the dome light and turn off the headlights if it's night, smile and say 'Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening' to the nice man or woman, and have always been waved on my way.
If the iPod had buttons or a knob for volume control, it would have been intuitive since most items that control volume do it that way. There is NOTHING on the pad that indicates you can use it for volume control, so unless you discover it accidentally or someone shows you or you read the manual, it's not intuitive. Experimenting until you blindly stumble on how to do something is not intuitive.
If the iPhone had soft zoom in/out buttons, that would have been intuitive. There is NOTHING that suggest using your fingers to zoom in and out. The concept is easy to grasp once you are shown it, but that doesn't make in intuitive.
I did not state the iPhone wasn't a cool device. I did not state that Apple doesn't come up with some neat UIs. In fact, I said Apple devices are very user friendly. They are also innovative in the way they do some things. I never implied that they were inferior devices.
But they are not intuitive. Innovative, user friendly I'll grant it. But not intuitive.
The iPhone is NOT any more intuitive than any other phone. It is not intuitive to use two fingers spreading in and out to zoom in and out. It is not intuitive to change the screen orientation by rotating it if it only works when holding the unit somewhat vertical. (That drove my daughter nuts until I explained how gravity works with the phone.)
The iPod is NOT any more intuitive than any other music player. It is not intuitive to have to return to the now-playing screen to change the volume. It is not intuitive to run your finger around a circle to change volume or select items. And not being able to edit play lists is just inexcusable.
The Apple was NOT any more intuitive than any other computer. Dragging the CD to the trashcan to eject it was not intuitive. People exposed to Windows did not deal well with the lack of right click and that silly Apple key until shown what they were for.
Intuitive means directly apprehended or instinctive. Something is not intuitive if basic features require demonstration or having to read the manual. Apple products have some cool features that once exposed to can make them easier to use. That isn't intuitive, it's user friendly.
The biggest difference is simple.. I don't need all that shit, but I have no choice when it comes to Apple. All the software functions mentioned that I need I already own, I don't need to buy them again. Even if OSX is glaringly better than Windows, Windows is 'good enough' to get my work done. And I don't pay a premium for fancy packaging or hardware I don't want.
That is the real Apple tax... you pay a high price for less choice because someone at Apple decided what was best for you.
I thought contests that had cash prizes required a 'you don't have to purchase anything to compete' rule. Not the same as paying to enter I think, since there are many contests where you have to pay to compete.
But, a vendor having a contest where you have to buy their product to compete?? I didn't think that was legal. Just like Publisher's Clearing House can't require you to purchase magazines to enter. McDonalds gives out free game pieces, up to a certain amount a day so people don't have to buy Big Macs to play their Monopoly based game.
Be careful agreeing to those rebates from the power company. The ones I have read come with a small string... the power company gets to use the carbon offsets associated with the solar cells/water heater for the life of the system.
Whether this is a good trade off or not I'm not sure. Makes some sense for them to receive some of the offsets, they helped pay for it. But I'm not willing to give up 100% of the offsets unless they are willing to pay 100% of the cost.
Putting in the solar cells and heater are a good thing, but I don't think I'm going to be asking the power company to help pay for it.
Dangerous implies danger... as imminent. As one walks up a ladder, it becomes less safe because it becomes more unstable as the center of gravity changes. It becomes more likely the ladder can fall the higher up on it one goes. Crossing over that little sign that says "Don't step above this sign" makes makes the ladder highly unstable and dangerous.
Just because a few chatter away without paying any attention does not mean that it is not possible to chatter away and pay attention. I ride a motorcycle every day and see hundreds of people talking on the phone just fine, no near misses, no collisions. Just going about their lives.
Someone's inability to make good judgments is irrelevant. I am not responsible for their actions, and they have to accept the consequences of their actions. We don't go taking cars off the road because 'most' people think they are better drivers than they are. Cars kill more people every year than guns, yet we restrict guns because there are enough anti-gun nuts out there to force their will upon law abiding citizens who have guns responsibly. Cell phones are no different, the anti-cell phone nuts out there who can't imagine why anyone would need to place a call in a car or in the supermarket want to make it illegal for those who do have a need to place a call in the car or supermarket because it 'bothers' them.
Who is more inconsiderate, the person on the phone who doesn't realize that they are bothering other people, or the person who forces their will upon others? A considerate person can walk up to the person on the phone and suggest they be more quiet. An inconsiderate person acts like a spoiled brat and assumes that what they are doing isn't as important and fumes and sputters and whines to all their friends and eventually petitions the store to install cell phone jammers so they don't have to be annoyed.
A considerate person in a car will understand the implications of talking on the phone and take appropriate measures. Using voice dialing, blue-tooth headsets, speed dialing, putting the phone down when approaching a busy intersection. These are all means of using a cell phone safely in a car.
An inconsiderate person just bans everything that doesn't affect them, regardless of who else it inconvenience. I have no way of knowing if that call from my wife is "pick up some bread" or "I'm at the hospital" until I pick it up. And I am fully capable of then determining whether the call is important enough to continue, and if so whether or not it is safe to do it while driving or if I need to put the phone down and pull over.
No one else is capable of doing that for me at that moment of time. I am not willing to trade my convenience to do that just because some other idiot can't.
Or because someone with a misdirected feeling of superiority thinks they know what is best for everyone because it works for them.
Increasing risk does not make something dangerous. It makes it less safe. Dangerous implies that it is full of danger or risk, not just less safe.
Driving a car without anti-lock brakes may be less safe than driving a car with anti-lock brakes, but it does not make it dangerous.
Not paying as much attention is not the same as not paying any attention. A police car coming up behind me with his lights and siren on and making me look into my rear view mirror means I am not paying as much attention to what is in front of me. That doesn't make it dangerous.
Glancing down at my speedometer as I enter a school zone means I'm not paying as much attention.
A drunk driver is always drunk and has reduced reaction time. Someone using a cell phone occasionally has reduced reaction time and is sometimes not paying full attention.
We all do things in the car where we are not paying full attention to what is in front of us and increase our reaction times. It's choosing when to do those things and the circumstances under which we do them that determines whether or not it is dangerous. Using a cell phone on I-8 going 75mph with no traffic around is not dangerous. Using it while making turns on busy city streets might be. But so might carrying on a conversation with someone sitting next to you and looking over at them.
Requiring everyone to never use a cell phone in a car because a few make poor judgments is not fair to those that can. Today we can't use the cell phone, what's next?? No blaring radio because you can't hear sirens?? No passengers in the front seat because they could be distracting??
Studies ignore the thousands or millions of people that every day use their phone in the car and do it without anyone even noticing it. Next time you are stopped at a traffic light, watch how many people are using them and doing just fine.
Anti-cell phone people are just like anti-smokers and anti-abortion advocates, they feel that what is good enough for them should be good enough for everyone else.
Any other of my freedoms of choice you want to take away??
The statistics do not show it is dangerous, it shows that the driver does not pay as much attention. So do flashing billboards along the highway, tuning the radio, eating, and looking for addresses. Having kids yelling in the back seat.
Increased risk means they cannot react as quickly to changes in driving. So do cold medications, being overly tired, and getting BJs. It doesn't mean they can't react, just that it might take longer. It doesn't make it dangerous, it makes it less safe.
This is the problem with statistics, people use them to their own purpose without regard to what they really mean.
There are drivers who are not able to sufficiently manage the risks associated with these activities, and proceed to do them without regard to doing them in a way that minimizes the increased risks. There are those that are aware of the risks and take steps to minimize the impact.
I did a search for opinions about something, and Google was far superior.
I won't be back to your site, it does not have any apparent benefits over the sites I'm using now, and in fact was far less useful. I do not wish to waste time trying to find usefulness in it.
Read what I did again and figure out how to give me what I want if you want me to use your site.
Unless my personal usage of your site doesn't matter. That's fair, in it's current form, your site doesn't matter to me either.
Without a guide about what the viewpoint is, I didn't find much use in it.
Search on Cruxlux for 'Obama McCain global warming' and you get a hodgepodge of data back, with no indication what, if any, is relevant and having to dig to find anything that compares the two.
While Google returned a very concise list of items on the first two pages.
Sorry Cruxlux... not convinced I should stop using Google.
Let me rephrase my comment... If I have to read the manual or play around with buttons to figure a function out, then that function is not intuitive, i.e. 'readly learned or understood'. I don't think something should be touted as easy to use or intuitive if you need to use the manual to do basic functions, such as turn up the volume.
Read the manual to reset it after it locks up?? Maybe.
My kids got what I bought them and were taught to think for themselves. They never had an Elmo or Cabbage Patch or any other 'trendy' toy that parents thought their kids 'had to have' and fought over in stores.
When I discuss my Razr phone with the broken display, I tell people 'I'm not getting a new phone until the new Google phone comes out. People know what I'm talking about. Maybe android isn't a household name, but Google phone seems to be getting some traction.
Ipods?? My wife got one, and we both hate it. It is NOT intuitive, unless you read the manual. My wife wondered why it wasn't working and I had to show her where the hold button is. I got off the 'no playing' screen one day and couldn't figure out how to adjust the volume. iTunes sucks wind big time as an application, I prefer Windows media viewer (big shudder....). And I had to go online one day to figure out how to turn it 'off' when it locked up on me.
The only thing it had going for it was it was cute and small.
I'm getting an MP3 player to replace my mini-cd player that has real buttons marked 'prior/rew/pause/ff/next' and 'volume' that I can use without taking it out of my pocket. And one that can modify play lists when I'm out and about.
And after the debacle at Wal*Mart, I'm not downloading ANY music with DRM. I never liked the idea that the company that sold me music could tell me which PC of the 6 PCs in the house (4 desktops, 1 laptop, and 1 server) I can play then on.
The iPod is an overhyped, overpriced, POS MP3 player. Thanks for kickstarting MP3s, now go away.
Hmmm...that sounds like a familiar trend with Apple. Build something trendy, then let someone else come along and build something that does the same thing that is more affordable and has more options.
A college degree is a piece of paper. But I'll concede that the education should be the paramount concern. I agree with a concept I read in Money magazine a few years ago when they analyzed how much a difference in salary people got depending on what school they went to and how much they spent. The gist of what they recommended was to get the basics from a community college that can transfer credits, then enroll in the more expensive places. Math is math, science is science, IT is IT up to a point. That way you don't spend two years figuring out that you suck at IT and spending a crap load of money doing it.
Not everyone puts a lot of value in a school's reputation. I'd rather work for a place that hires people based on their abilities instead of on a sheepskin. I worked with a VP of development that had a PhD in neuro-networks from MIT. Smart guy... lousy to work with. Ego the size of Massachusetts, and the personality of a penny.
I don't even pay attention to whether someone has a degree or not when hiring admins or development staff. In fact, 'professional students' will probably fall down lower on my list than someone who has been attending local colleges taking specific courses. All I care about is how smart and curious they are, and lots of smart, curious people don't go to school. Anybody can learn to code, but the smart and curious people are really good at it. Some of the best IT people I have worked with in the last 25 years had very little college education.
You want to be a doctor or a lawyer or a consultant and have your own business?? Pay for the degree, many people put stock in it.
Aren't that smart?? Pay for the degree, it fools some people.
Otherwise, save your money. Learn what you need, go to a tech school or get a 4 year at a state school if it's that important to you.
If you are smart, curious, and have a strong work ethic, you will do fine.
But my guess is that nothing will happen to Palin and this guy will get punished. Sorry, I'm just your typical American who has lost a great deal of faith in our government, economy, and legal system.
As it should be. Many people here would think a lot differently if this moron broke into their personal email records and published all the nasty stuff that was in there.
If he was smart, he would have gotten the username and password to someone in the media that at least could have claimed some type of freedom of the press right.
It was 'disapproved' by the majority because the majority had no fucking idea what is going on or what it was doing. All they heard as 'bailout' and 'CEO salaries' and made up their minds without any clue.
The current economic situation is now starting to cost jobs. People can't get loans to buy cars or houses or anything now. My wife's company can no longer refinance a building they have even with half of the building's worth in the bank because their bank will no longer do commercial loans because of the risk.
People who should never have been allowed to get loans, got loans because some dumbasses BEFORE BUSH EVEN GOT INTO OFFICE decided it would be a good idea to stimulate the economy by providing loans to people who previously couldn't get them. That dumped a shitload of people into buying houses, which drove prices up, which attracted even more investors, and even more people who shouldn't be buying houses, which drove up the prices even more.
Then.. one day... those morons who got loans their banks told them they could afford, couldn't afford them. Either because their ARM kicked in or reality struck. Or maybe because they really were poor credit risks and didn't know how to manage the finances. First one, then a couple, then like an avalanche thousands of homes hit the market. Prices started to drop, and then even people like me with good credit can't refinance because the moron across the street sold his home for below-market value and now my home is worth 25K less than it was three years ago. (I got a loan I could afford, even when the ARM kicked in, I'm not worried... yet.)
So everyone take all of their conspiracy theory bullshit and face reality... our esteemed politicians tried to fix something 10 years ago, and now we are faced with the results. No conspiracy, just people who tried to do the right thing, but didn't get it right.
I drink bourbon and tequila mostly, so I'm not familiar with scotch, although some of my scotch-drinking friends do ask for a 'splash'. I assumed it was just for the lower end stuff. I've only had a few scotch labels that I liked, and they were in your $100 range. I have found enough variety in the bourbons in the $50 range that I don't spend more. Maybe some further experimentation is in order. Time for a trip to Bev-Mo!!!
I do prefer some Irish whiskeys on the rocks, your comment may explain why. Tequila with ice was just nasty the few times I've tried it.
Slashdot Mirror
Close .. but not quite. I worked in the banking industry many years ago (ok .. almost 30), so my memory may be a bit hazy. As I remember, the requirements were very basic:
No bank is required to honor a check not drawn upon their accounts. They do so for business reasons, checks usage would be almost impossible if banks wouldn't honor other bank's checks. They are under no obligation to cash a questionable check.
And, of course, no business is required to accept a check written on Kleenex.
On the other hand, a bank is required to honor a check drawn on their accounts *without fees*, providing the identify of the person cashing it can be verified, it's not a dead check, the funds are available, and the signature is validated. Of course, all of these checks are at the bank's discretion, they don't have to verify anything if they are willing to take that risk. (Insert sarcastic comment about risky loans here...)
In theory, you can issue a check on just about anything, providing the above information is on it. However, the only bank that has to accept it is the bank it is drawn on.
So, checks have always been a bit dicey to begin with. Sure, your payroll check is printed on nice shiny paper. It only helps to make sure the check isn't altered, which also used to be a big way to make money on checks.
But the reason most banks will only cash checks for account holders is because they have made an attempt to identify them, so if bad checks happen they can attempt to locate the person who cashed it. Check-21 was an attempt to decrease the ability to defraud, paper no longer has to float around the system so checks clear and bounce faster and kiting is becoming very difficult.
Most of the text in most word processing documents are easily available to be parsed out even without the specs. The formatting would be lost, as would any embedded objects or images.
Open formats would improve it, but I would be more concerned about encrypted documents and media loss than not being able to recover data (text/images/video/music/etc) from available files. There are a lot of clever people that can do amazing things with deciphering proprietary formats.
'She figured it out herself' means it's discoverable. If she could look at it and immediately known how to use it, it would have been intuitive.
Stumbling through the dark to find a light switch doesn't make its design intuitive.
Odds yes.
But no guarantee.
A better check is hash and file size, since it is more difficult for two files of the same size to have the same hash by chance. Especially using compression due to images or videos of the same dimensions reducing to different sizes.
Hash and file size checks are useful for checking if a file is intact and possibly not altered. They are great for lookups.
But, in the end, you still need the file to validate the correct item is found. Hashmaps store both the key and hash for this very reason. The hash is a quick lookup, but the key is needed to verify the right element has been found.
Unless the hash is the same size as the key.....
There are a couple of border patrol checkpoints between Phoenix and San Diego. One is usually just east of Yuma, and the other is in California somewhere in the mountains. I can't recall exactly where though, I think it's on the other side of Centro around the Acorn casino. Plus the border patrol presence along I-8 is pretty heavy since it's only about half a mile in places from the border.
I've driven between Phoenix and San Diego numerous times over the last 5 years, and never been asked anything. I roll down my window, turn on the dome light and turn off the headlights if it's night, smile and say 'Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening' to the nice man or woman, and have always been waved on my way.
If the iPod had buttons or a knob for volume control, it would have been intuitive since most items that control volume do it that way. There is NOTHING on the pad that indicates you can use it for volume control, so unless you discover it accidentally or someone shows you or you read the manual, it's not intuitive. Experimenting until you blindly stumble on how to do something is not intuitive.
If the iPhone had soft zoom in/out buttons, that would have been intuitive. There is NOTHING that suggest using your fingers to zoom in and out. The concept is easy to grasp once you are shown it, but that doesn't make in intuitive.
I did not state the iPhone wasn't a cool device. I did not state that Apple doesn't come up with some neat UIs. In fact, I said Apple devices are very user friendly. They are also innovative in the way they do some things. I never implied that they were inferior devices.
But they are not intuitive. Innovative, user friendly I'll grant it. But not intuitive.
The iPhone is NOT any more intuitive than any other phone. It is not intuitive to use two fingers spreading in and out to zoom in and out. It is not intuitive to change the screen orientation by rotating it if it only works when holding the unit somewhat vertical. (That drove my daughter nuts until I explained how gravity works with the phone.)
The iPod is NOT any more intuitive than any other music player. It is not intuitive to have to return to the now-playing screen to change the volume. It is not intuitive to run your finger around a circle to change volume or select items. And not being able to edit play lists is just inexcusable.
The Apple was NOT any more intuitive than any other computer. Dragging the CD to the trashcan to eject it was not intuitive. People exposed to Windows did not deal well with the lack of right click and that silly Apple key until shown what they were for.
Intuitive means directly apprehended or instinctive. Something is not intuitive if basic features require demonstration or having to read the manual. Apple products have some cool features that once exposed to can make them easier to use. That isn't intuitive, it's user friendly.
The biggest difference is simple .. I don't need all that shit, but I have no choice when it comes to Apple. All the software functions mentioned that I need I already own, I don't need to buy them again. Even if OSX is glaringly better than Windows, Windows is 'good enough' to get my work done. And I don't pay a premium for fancy packaging or hardware I don't want.
That is the real Apple tax ... you pay a high price for less choice because someone at Apple decided what was best for you.
I thought contests that had cash prizes required a 'you don't have to purchase anything to compete' rule. Not the same as paying to enter I think, since there are many contests where you have to pay to compete.
But, a vendor having a contest where you have to buy their product to compete?? I didn't think that was legal. Just like Publisher's Clearing House can't require you to purchase magazines to enter. McDonalds gives out free game pieces, up to a certain amount a day so people don't have to buy Big Macs to play their Monopoly based game.
It's an unidentified object. Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean it's an alien spacecraft.
Just because it can't be explained, doesn't mean it's an alien spacecraft.
When someone produces some real evidence instead of 'I don't know what this is, so it must be an alien spacecraft', I'll pay more attention.
Be careful agreeing to those rebates from the power company. The ones I have read come with a small string ... the power company gets to use the carbon offsets associated with the solar cells/water heater for the life of the system.
Whether this is a good trade off or not I'm not sure. Makes some sense for them to receive some of the offsets, they helped pay for it. But I'm not willing to give up 100% of the offsets unless they are willing to pay 100% of the cost.
Putting in the solar cells and heater are a good thing, but I don't think I'm going to be asking the power company to help pay for it.
Dangerous implies danger ... as imminent. As one walks up a ladder, it becomes less safe because it becomes more unstable as the center of gravity changes. It becomes more likely the ladder can fall the higher up on it one goes. Crossing over that little sign that says "Don't step above this sign" makes makes the ladder highly unstable and dangerous.
Just because a few chatter away without paying any attention does not mean that it is not possible to chatter away and pay attention. I ride a motorcycle every day and see hundreds of people talking on the phone just fine, no near misses, no collisions. Just going about their lives.
Someone's inability to make good judgments is irrelevant. I am not responsible for their actions, and they have to accept the consequences of their actions. We don't go taking cars off the road because 'most' people think they are better drivers than they are. Cars kill more people every year than guns, yet we restrict guns because there are enough anti-gun nuts out there to force their will upon law abiding citizens who have guns responsibly. Cell phones are no different, the anti-cell phone nuts out there who can't imagine why anyone would need to place a call in a car or in the supermarket want to make it illegal for those who do have a need to place a call in the car or supermarket because it 'bothers' them.
Who is more inconsiderate, the person on the phone who doesn't realize that they are bothering other people, or the person who forces their will upon others? A considerate person can walk up to the person on the phone and suggest they be more quiet. An inconsiderate person acts like a spoiled brat and assumes that what they are doing isn't as important and fumes and sputters and whines to all their friends and eventually petitions the store to install cell phone jammers so they don't have to be annoyed.
A considerate person in a car will understand the implications of talking on the phone and take appropriate measures. Using voice dialing, blue-tooth headsets, speed dialing, putting the phone down when approaching a busy intersection. These are all means of using a cell phone safely in a car.
An inconsiderate person just bans everything that doesn't affect them, regardless of who else it inconvenience. I have no way of knowing if that call from my wife is "pick up some bread" or "I'm at the hospital" until I pick it up. And I am fully capable of then determining whether the call is important enough to continue, and if so whether or not it is safe to do it while driving or if I need to put the phone down and pull over.
No one else is capable of doing that for me at that moment of time. I am not willing to trade my convenience to do that just because some other idiot can't.
Or because someone with a misdirected feeling of superiority thinks they know what is best for everyone because it works for them.
Increasing risk does not make something dangerous. It makes it less safe. Dangerous implies that it is full of danger or risk, not just less safe.
Driving a car without anti-lock brakes may be less safe than driving a car with anti-lock brakes, but it does not make it dangerous.
Not paying as much attention is not the same as not paying any attention. A police car coming up behind me with his lights and siren on and making me look into my rear view mirror means I am not paying as much attention to what is in front of me. That doesn't make it dangerous.
Glancing down at my speedometer as I enter a school zone means I'm not paying as much attention.
A drunk driver is always drunk and has reduced reaction time. Someone using a cell phone occasionally has reduced reaction time and is sometimes not paying full attention.
We all do things in the car where we are not paying full attention to what is in front of us and increase our reaction times. It's choosing when to do those things and the circumstances under which we do them that determines whether or not it is dangerous. Using a cell phone on I-8 going 75mph with no traffic around is not dangerous. Using it while making turns on busy city streets might be. But so might carrying on a conversation with someone sitting next to you and looking over at them.
Requiring everyone to never use a cell phone in a car because a few make poor judgments is not fair to those that can. Today we can't use the cell phone, what's next?? No blaring radio because you can't hear sirens?? No passengers in the front seat because they could be distracting??
Studies ignore the thousands or millions of people that every day use their phone in the car and do it without anyone even noticing it. Next time you are stopped at a traffic light, watch how many people are using them and doing just fine.
Anti-cell phone people are just like anti-smokers and anti-abortion advocates, they feel that what is good enough for them should be good enough for everyone else.
Any other of my freedoms of choice you want to take away??
The statistics do not show it is dangerous, it shows that the driver does not pay as much attention. So do flashing billboards along the highway, tuning the radio, eating, and looking for addresses. Having kids yelling in the back seat.
Increased risk means they cannot react as quickly to changes in driving. So do cold medications, being overly tired, and getting BJs. It doesn't mean they can't react, just that it might take longer. It doesn't make it dangerous, it makes it less safe.
This is the problem with statistics, people use them to their own purpose without regard to what they really mean.
There are drivers who are not able to sufficiently manage the risks associated with these activities, and proceed to do them without regard to doing them in a way that minimizes the increased risks. There are those that are aware of the risks and take steps to minimize the impact.
Now we need a the study that correlates healthy sperm with masturbation rates.
I'll bet the correlation is really masturbation rates, and geeks probably masturbate more than any other group.
I'm sorry .. I didn't phrase my post well.
I did a search for opinions about something, and Google was far superior.
I won't be back to your site, it does not have any apparent benefits over the sites I'm using now, and in fact was far less useful. I do not wish to waste time trying to find usefulness in it.
Read what I did again and figure out how to give me what I want if you want me to use your site.
Unless my personal usage of your site doesn't matter. That's fair, in it's current form, your site doesn't matter to me either.
I can live with that.
Without a guide about what the viewpoint is, I didn't find much use in it.
Search on Cruxlux for 'Obama McCain global warming' and you get a hodgepodge of data back, with no indication what, if any, is relevant and having to dig to find anything that compares the two.
While Google returned a very concise list of items on the first two pages.
Sorry Cruxlux ... not convinced I should stop using Google.
Let me rephrase my comment ... If I have to read the manual or play around with buttons to figure a function out, then that function is not intuitive, i.e. 'readly learned or understood'. I don't think something should be touted as easy to use or intuitive if you need to use the manual to do basic functions, such as turn up the volume.
Read the manual to reset it after it locks up?? Maybe.
My kids got what I bought them and were taught to think for themselves. They never had an Elmo or Cabbage Patch or any other 'trendy' toy that parents thought their kids 'had to have' and fought over in stores.
They bought what they wanted when they got a job.
Seem to have both grown up just fine.
And independent.
What more could a father ask for.
When I discuss my Razr phone with the broken display, I tell people 'I'm not getting a new phone until the new Google phone comes out. People know what I'm talking about. Maybe android isn't a household name, but Google phone seems to be getting some traction.
Ipods?? My wife got one, and we both hate it. It is NOT intuitive, unless you read the manual. My wife wondered why it wasn't working and I had to show her where the hold button is. I got off the 'no playing' screen one day and couldn't figure out how to adjust the volume. iTunes sucks wind big time as an application, I prefer Windows media viewer (big shudder ....). And I had to go online one day to figure out how to turn it 'off' when it locked up on me.
The only thing it had going for it was it was cute and small.
I'm getting an MP3 player to replace my mini-cd player that has real buttons marked 'prior/rew/pause/ff/next' and 'volume' that I can use without taking it out of my pocket. And one that can modify play lists when I'm out and about.
And after the debacle at Wal*Mart, I'm not downloading ANY music with DRM. I never liked the idea that the company that sold me music could tell me which PC of the 6 PCs in the house (4 desktops, 1 laptop, and 1 server) I can play then on.
The iPod is an overhyped, overpriced, POS MP3 player. Thanks for kickstarting MP3s, now go away.
Hmmm...that sounds like a familiar trend with Apple. Build something trendy, then let someone else come along and build something that does the same thing that is more affordable and has more options.
Bzzzzt!!! Not always right.
A college degree is a piece of paper. But I'll concede that the education should be the paramount concern. I agree with a concept I read in Money magazine a few years ago when they analyzed how much a difference in salary people got depending on what school they went to and how much they spent. The gist of what they recommended was to get the basics from a community college that can transfer credits, then enroll in the more expensive places. Math is math, science is science, IT is IT up to a point. That way you don't spend two years figuring out that you suck at IT and spending a crap load of money doing it.
Not everyone puts a lot of value in a school's reputation. I'd rather work for a place that hires people based on their abilities instead of on a sheepskin. I worked with a VP of development that had a PhD in neuro-networks from MIT. Smart guy ... lousy to work with. Ego the size of Massachusetts, and the personality of a penny.
I don't even pay attention to whether someone has a degree or not when hiring admins or development staff. In fact, 'professional students' will probably fall down lower on my list than someone who has been attending local colleges taking specific courses. All I care about is how smart and curious they are, and lots of smart, curious people don't go to school. Anybody can learn to code, but the smart and curious people are really good at it. Some of the best IT people I have worked with in the last 25 years had very little college education.
You want to be a doctor or a lawyer or a consultant and have your own business?? Pay for the degree, many people put stock in it.
Aren't that smart?? Pay for the degree, it fools some people.
Otherwise, save your money. Learn what you need, go to a tech school or get a 4 year at a state school if it's that important to you.
If you are smart, curious, and have a strong work ethic, you will do fine.
But my guess is that nothing will happen to Palin and this guy will get punished. Sorry, I'm just your typical American who has lost a great deal of faith in our government, economy, and legal system.
As it should be. Many people here would think a lot differently if this moron broke into their personal email records and published all the nasty stuff that was in there.
If he was smart, he would have gotten the username and password to someone in the media that at least could have claimed some type of freedom of the press right.
Yawn ... nothing to see here ... move along.
It was 'disapproved' by the majority because the majority had no fucking idea what is going on or what it was doing. All they heard as 'bailout' and 'CEO salaries' and made up their minds without any clue.
The current economic situation is now starting to cost jobs. People can't get loans to buy cars or houses or anything now. My wife's company can no longer refinance a building they have even with half of the building's worth in the bank because their bank will no longer do commercial loans because of the risk.
People who should never have been allowed to get loans, got loans because some dumbasses BEFORE BUSH EVEN GOT INTO OFFICE decided it would be a good idea to stimulate the economy by providing loans to people who previously couldn't get them. That dumped a shitload of people into buying houses, which drove prices up, which attracted even more investors, and even more people who shouldn't be buying houses, which drove up the prices even more.
Then .. one day ... those morons who got loans their banks told them they could afford, couldn't afford them. Either because their ARM kicked in or reality struck. Or maybe because they really were poor credit risks and didn't know how to manage the finances. First one, then a couple, then like an avalanche thousands of homes hit the market. Prices started to drop, and then even people like me with good credit can't refinance because the moron across the street sold his home for below-market value and now my home is worth 25K less than it was three years ago. (I got a loan I could afford, even when the ARM kicked in, I'm not worried ... yet.)
So everyone take all of their conspiracy theory bullshit and face reality ... our esteemed politicians tried to fix something 10 years ago, and now we are faced with the results. No conspiracy, just people who tried to do the right thing, but didn't get it right.
I drink bourbon and tequila mostly, so I'm not familiar with scotch, although some of my scotch-drinking friends do ask for a 'splash'. I assumed it was just for the lower end stuff. I've only had a few scotch labels that I liked, and they were in your $100 range. I have found enough variety in the bourbons in the $50 range that I don't spend more. Maybe some further experimentation is in order. Time for a trip to Bev-Mo!!!
I do prefer some Irish whiskeys on the rocks, your comment may explain why. Tequila with ice was just nasty the few times I've tried it.
Thanks for the explanation.