When I was younger, the Bay and SV appealed to me. Plenty to do every weekend, great weather, lots of like-minded people, plenty of night-life. Now that I am older, I have zero desire to live in the Bay/SV... traffic sucks, prices are crazy, I want a less hectic area to raise my children in, etc.
Sacramento could easily become a tech-hub for an older crowd of startup types.
Those older types are a lot more risk-averse because they have kids and an accustomed lifestyle. Startups, particularly tech startups, are predominantly started by younger people (with backing from older money) because they have less to lose when they go bankrupt.
when i worked for Symantec they had just bought.. Verisign? which was in draper i believe.
Seeing how the Veritas merger basically took over the company, what you said was plausible enough:)
They bought PGP which was in Draper and also had a lot of Utah employees from the Altiris acquisition. Verisign was based in Mountain View when the (partial) merger happened (the part that Symantec didn't buy is now based in Virginia).
Isn't every "high tech hub" an instance of this working? They weren't hubs from the very beginning after all.
Not really, Silicon Valley is only in California because William Shockley's mother lived in Palo Alto and had failing health. If Shockley didn't found his company in the Bay Area it is highly unlikely that it would have the technology presence it has today. Every place that touts itself as "The next Silicon Valley" overlooks the fact that Silicon Valley started by happenstance.
Text Messages USED to cost money. Now, nobody actually uses TXT, as we no longer have dumb phones. We use Hangouts, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, GoogleVoice, email....
Txt was good when all you had was a feature phone.
Congrats on living in a major metropolitan area. The other 99% of the world still has to pay for texts.
I'll never get over peoples myopic view of the world.
99% of people (particularly people with cell phones) live outside of metropolitan areas? This page claims about half of the worlds people live in a city.
You know what's better than insane profits? More insane profits. And unlike data, there's no profit cap.
HOMER: Mr. Burns, you're the richest guy I know. Way richer than Lenny. BURNS: Oh, yes. But I would trade it all for a little more.
Insane profits are NEVER enough to the kind of people who are making this policy. People who have a lot of money always want MORE! It seems unintuitive (what does 2 billion dollars buy you that 1 billion didn't?) but that seems to be the way at least some humans are programmed.
Nothing is static in this world. If voters complain, things will change. You just have to convince enough of them that you are correct. Too bad they won't have access to your website and social media to know about you.
Hahaha you still think the people have a voice in US politics? Well, I guess if the person is wealthy then the politicians might listen but if you aren't bribing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H giving campaign contributions to your "representative" you have no voice.
My commute is 40 miles each way. What EV do I buy that ensures me I can get to work and back home on a single charge, accounting for common traffic jams and problems that causes for actual range, and accomodates the lack of charging slots at work?
It would be OK if I paid less than a 30% premium over typical retail price, even better if I pay only a 50% premium over the typical price of a 5-year-old used vehicle, though I generally drive 10-year-old vehicles. I know, that rules out lots of vehicles.
Electric is still not for me.
Actually, electric cars are a lot more efficient in traffic jams, you will get a lot better range going 30 MPH vs. 70 MPH. The Nissan Leaf seems to fit the bill (reasonably priced, at least 80 miles range), with associated tax credits it costs about the same as a similarly equipped ICE car.
If a business wants to get "fast lane" access among specific providers, why no co-locate servers at one of that provider's data centers or central offices?
That's exactly what they do. It benefits the ISP because it reduces the data that has to flow across their interconnects, it benefits the provider as they don't need to pay for transit across the internet and it obviously benefits the consumer. The problem Netflix has is that Comcast realizes that it benefits Netflix (plus, they are competing with Netflix) so Comcast said "Yeah, we'll allow you to place caching servers on our network, provided you pay us several million dollars per month". Netflix doesn't really have a choice, Comcast is about half of the US residential internet subscribers.
Comcast's business has long been about selling access to their customers. They sell the service to the customers then they sell the customers to advertisers. They now want to sell their internet customers to providers as well. This is blatant abuse of their monopoly position but since the political system in the US is designed to reward those with the most money nothing all all will come of this, other than the FCC asking Comcast if they should apply lube to the public before Comcast reams them (the answer is "No!").
I just don't get why every fscking channel seems to migrate towards "reality" or "contest" tv.
Because it is fucking CHEAP. The cheaper a show is to produce, the more money the producer will make (assuming the same ratings). Why would they produce quality scripted television when they can film some attention whores and make 10x the money?
That would be the case if population and size of patrol areas wasn't increasing. Almost all cities are growing, increased population, increased density and increased size. Inflation only counts on increases in costs, not growth.
Yeah, it should be cheaper to police such a situation. If density is increasing you are still policing the same area, there are just more people in it. The increased population bring greater sales tax and property tax revenues. Maybe cities in the middle of nowhere are increasing in size but most existing cities don't have anywhere to expand to, they are already surrounded by other cities.
On the one hand you start out being polite but at the end you are rude.
Then you profess ignorance of information that is easily obtained by simply googling it which brings up a couple different studies on the issue... and then you claim to be an expert.
So I don't know how to take your post. Your politeness sounds like passive aggressiveness when followed up by the insult. And your claims to expertise in the issue sounds like hollow baseless boasting when you also ask for information that as an expert you should already have.
You see my issue here. I don't know whether to engage you as a troll or discuss with you as a reasonable person. You're giving off conflicting signals which means you're either a troll in disguise or an "expert" that needs to be more polite and likely a great deal more humble.
In any case... allow me to show you exactly how hard this information was to find:
You will of course be telling me now that the cited information says that the cellphone users are more distracted. That said, there are multiple studies that tried to control for different factors and they ultimately found that the really relevant variable was if the driver was competent and if the person distracting them... be they on a phone or beside them was respectful of their primary responsibility at that moment.
So there you go. I could probably find more on the issue if you like but as an expert on the issue you're likely far better versed in the field... right?
If my response seems hostile... appreciate that you respond with passive aggression and a rather sad attempt to brow beat me. That earned you a slap... fair is fair;)
I don't know what to make of your post. You said "statistically, driving with a passanger and talking to them is about as dangerous as talking on the cellphone while driving", but your link says "The scientific literature is mixed on the dangers of talking on a cell phone versus those of talking with a passenger." None of the referenced studies found that holding a conversation is without risk and several found that holding a conversation on a cell phone held a greater risk than holding it with a passenger. That certainly doesn't sound like the categoric fact that you are claiming.
On the subject of my post, how is it passive aggressive? I asked you to post a citation, posted a citation that refuted your point, then insinuated that you pulled the "statistic" (oh no, I used quotes again when referring to your data!) out of your ass. There was no passivity involved, I was directly challenging your assertion. I did not claim to be an expert although your post says I did. As for your post, with its patronizing "let me google that for you" and then telling me that I got a "slap" is just funny. Your googling didn't support your point, no slap was given.
I responded to you already, but here is some more:
Strayer DL, et al. "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver," Human Factors (Summer 2006): Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 381–91. http://www.distraction.gov/dow...
Fitch, G. A., Soccolich, S. A., Guo, F., McClaffert y, J., Fang, Y., Olson, R. L., Perez, M. A., Hanowski, R. J., Hankey, J. M., & Dingus, T. A. (2013, April). The impact of hand-held and hands-free cell phone use on driving performance and safety-critical event risk (Report No. DOT HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. http://www.distraction.gov/dow...
From the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety: "Two epidemiological studies have linked talking on a cellphone directly to increased crash risk, using cellphone billing records to verify phone use of crash-involved drivers. A 2005 Institute study of drivers in Western Australia found that when drivers were talking on mobile phones there was a fourfold increased likelihood of a crash resulting in injury to the driver. 10 The findings were consistent with 1997 research that showed phone use among Canadian drivers was associated with a fourfold increase in the risk of a crash involving property damage but no injury."
Seriously, there have been hundreds of studies on this topic. If all you can find is one paper, LMGTFY
I would agree. Also statistically, driving with a passanger and talking to them is about as dangerous as talking on the cellphone while driving. So since that isn't practical to ban... the cell phone issue is more of an older generation whining about the next new thing.
I'm sorry if that offends but it is accurate.
[citation needed]
It doesn't offend, it simply isn't based on facts.
Here's a counter:
"One study using a driving simulator found that drivers conversing by cell phone were more likely than those talking to passengers to drift between lanes and to miss an exit they were instructed in advance to take."
From this article, linked about 4 posts above yours. I know your "statistic" was garnered from the "University of pulled it out of my ass" but this has been an area with quite a bit of study. If what you are saying has any basis in fact you should be able to cite some researchers who found that to be the case.
"It seems counterintuitive: why is talking on a cell phone while driving any more distracting than talking to a passenger? The reasons have to do with the way our brains process information, reports the Harvard Mental Health Letter."
"One study using a driving simulator found that drivers conversing by cell phone were more likely than those talking to passengers to drift between lanes and to miss an exit they were instructed in advance to take. When the researchers analyzed the complexity of the conversations in this study, they found that drivers and passengers tended to modulate their speech in response to external traffic cues. For example, they stopped talking when a traffic problem developed, or the passenger would offer advice to help the driver navigate. "
Ship AN. "The Most Primary of Care — Talking about Driving and Distraction," New England Journal of Medicine (June 10, 2010): Vol. 362, No. 23, pp. 2145–47.
Strayer DL, et al. "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver," Human Factors (Summer 2006): Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 381–91.
"There's a long list of reasons that a phone call is different from a passenger." None of which has been actually shown to distract any more then having a passenger, or kids, or the radio, or a blond in a convertible drive by..
Yeah, talking on the phone is only as bad as drunk driving. From the study: "We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit”. It doesn't matter if the call is made on the phone or using a hands-free set, having the conversation is the distracting part. From the article:
"The study found that compared with undistracted drivers:
Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk."
It is true that there are a lot of things that distract drivers and every time there is a cell phone thread this point is brought up. The world isn't black and white (distracting vs. non-distracting). There are differing levels of distracted driving depending on the activity performed. Tuning the radio is not as distracting as watching TV. Smoking is not as distracting as making icy margaritas. And talking to a passenger is not as distracting as talking on a phone (although talking to a passenger while driving is distracting). When laws are made to restrict driving, legislatures must balance taking away freedom with a compelling public interest. Obviously some states feel that the freedom to use your phone while driving is outweighed by the societal harm from drivers distracted by such activities.
With your sig, I am really surprised that you take this position. Long before Dunning and Kruger wrote their famous paper it was well known that nearly everybody overestimates their skill in driving (c.f George Carlin on "idiots" and "assholes"). Have you considered that maybe you don't drive as well as you think you do when you are talking on the phone?
Exactly. And almost invariably you are talking about FUCKING NOTHING, you are just talking because you are afraid if you stop you will actually have to think. These aren't important conversations people are killing themselves and other people over, the vast majority are inane "What time are you going to get home?" conversations. I know family is important but you really don't need to call your wife from the road to tell her you spilled mustard on your shirt, go ahead and wait until you get home so it can be a big surprise for her!
(Sorry, I don't mean to attack you personally but more the idea of "I can't be out of touch with my family for even a second" that seems to pervade all cell phone threads)
Well I said "good natural fats" and this seems to be a big part of the whole low carb, banting, primal, paleo movement's message.
AFAIK, good fats here means omega 3, fish oil fats, coconut oil, macadamia nuts, grassfed animal fat, more coconut oil, grassfed butter, grassfed cream, etc.
Do you have evidence that feeding an animal grass rather than grain is healthier? In my searching it appears that grass fed beef has a higher ratio of Omega-3 fatty acids than grain-fed beef but the overall fat content of grass fed is lower so it's not like you are getting more Omega-3s by eating grass-fed beef. I couldn't find any hard data on the differences though, most of my search results were "health" sites which seemed to start with the conclusion that it is better than grain-fed then tried to find data to support their already-made conclusion. Are you aware of any studies on the actual health benefits of eating grass fed beef (or butter, or cream)? From my standpoint it seems like a dubious health benefit for a substantially increased price.
The previous post was discussing the problems of not having enough money or time to cook (because you are poor).
You either don't have money, or you don't have time. Rarely will you not have both as a "poor" person.
Unless you are a industrious poor person instead of a lazy poor person. I know the common narrative is that people are poor because they are lazy but in reality a lot of poor people work multiple jobs to make ends meet and work a lot harder than their middle class counterparts. Many are single parents who need to provide for a family on their income alone. I know it may seem to moderately well-off people that they worked hard to get where they are but in the majority of cases it was the circumstances into which you were born that determines your eventual earning power.
I'm not surprised. Books, comics and video games tend to not be canon for Star Wars, and only half heartedly canon in Star Trek.
My personal opinion is that only Film-TV can be canon. Everything else in another format needs to be adapted to that format to be canon. This is why I never read fanfic trash on the internet, as much as someone might have a good head on their shoulders for writing fanfiction, it will never be canon. Parodies I sometimes see (eg robot chicken) but they're easily forgettable.
So the Lord of the Rings movies are canon, screw those dusty old books. Why rely on Tolkien when I can have Peter Jackson tell me about Hobbits?
Not really, since many officers can claim to smell marijuana in its complete absence. Make them verify the smell with some chemical test before they can search and you'll probably get a lot less searches since they aren't actually smelling weed.
Or even more nebulous, claim that their dog smells marijuana. The dog doesn't have to testify, so there is no way to impeach the evidence.
Sure, in this case the guy had a bunch of pot but we don't hear about the cases where the police claimed they smelled marijuana to justify a search but subsequently found none except through anecdotes from friends as there are no charges filed in those instances.
All told, what you seem to need are high altitude mountaineering gear. So, some cold weather gear, an oxygen bottle, and some ropes. Doubtless it would be a nasty ride but you'd probably survive.
The only thing left is about... the crushing risk. And radical sudden air pressure changes you may be exposed to.
Also... the difficulty of getting in and escaping while carrying all this gear.
In this heavy winter gear... you will likely stand out for sure.
Why radical, sudden pressure changes? The plane doesn't teleport to altitide, it has to fly there. A quick search led me to an airline pilots forum, where they say it generally takes 25-35 minutes to climb to cruising altitude in a 747. Doesn't seem to radical to me.
This is actually the OpenBSD developers diving in because the upstream (OpenSSL) was unresponsive. If you look at the actual commits, you will see removal of dead code such as VMS-specific hacks, but also weeding out a lot of fairly obvious bugs, unsafe practices such as trying to work around the mythical slow malloc, feeding your private key to the randomness engine, use after free, and so on.
It would look like it's been a while since anybody did much of anything besides half hearted scratching in very limited parts of the code. This is a very much needed effort which is likely to end up much like OpenSSH, maintained mainly as part of OpenBSD, but available to any takers. We should expect to see a lot more activity before the code base is declared stable, but by now it's clear that the burden of main source maintainership moved to a more responsive and responsible team.
But the whole heartbleed issue was caused by someone who was doing more than "half hearted scratching", he was adding an entirely new feature (heartbeats). Does anyone else think that hundreds of commits in a week is a BAD thing? It seems to me like committing that much code would make it so each change doesn't get as much of a review as it would if the changes were committed gradually. Poor review is what caused this problem in the first place, they run the risk of adding another critical vulnerability.
If the personal drone thing takes off, the government won't need to operate spy drones, the public will do it for them.
Just look at all the cell phone pictures you see posted around the internet, cats, stupid accidents, and girls butts, etc. I doubt that personal drones are going to garner the kind of information a government spy agency would want or at least make really hard to sift through.
Exactly. How do personal drones equal government surveillience? The cell phones that most people carry provide a huge amount of data for the government. The phone sends its location, autoposts pictures and videos in the internet and stores a ton of data "in the cloud". It has a microphone, camera and the means to send data to an arbitrary place. Phones are nearly ubiquitous and have a ton of data on the person using them.
Contrast this with a drone. It is controlled and transmits video using a point to point system. None of its data ever transits public data networks and is only receivable over a small area. How is the government going to obtain this drone data?
Slashdot Mirror
When I was younger, the Bay and SV appealed to me. Plenty to do every weekend, great weather, lots of like-minded people, plenty of night-life. Now that I am older, I have zero desire to live in the Bay/SV... traffic sucks, prices are crazy, I want a less hectic area to raise my children in, etc.
Sacramento could easily become a tech-hub for an older crowd of startup types.
Those older types are a lot more risk-averse because they have kids and an accustomed lifestyle. Startups, particularly tech startups, are predominantly started by younger people (with backing from older money) because they have less to lose when they go bankrupt.
when i worked for Symantec they had just bought .. Verisign? which was in draper i believe.
Seeing how the Veritas merger basically took over the company, what you said was plausible enough :)
They bought PGP which was in Draper and also had a lot of Utah employees from the Altiris acquisition. Verisign was based in Mountain View when the (partial) merger happened (the part that Symantec didn't buy is now based in Virginia).
Isn't every "high tech hub" an instance of this working? They weren't hubs from the very beginning after all.
Not really, Silicon Valley is only in California because William Shockley's mother lived in Palo Alto and had failing health. If Shockley didn't found his company in the Bay Area it is highly unlikely that it would have the technology presence it has today. Every place that touts itself as "The next Silicon Valley" overlooks the fact that Silicon Valley started by happenstance.
Text Messages USED to cost money. Now, nobody actually uses TXT, as we no longer have dumb phones. We use Hangouts, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, GoogleVoice, email ....
Txt was good when all you had was a feature phone.
Congrats on living in a major metropolitan area. The other 99% of the world still has to pay for texts.
I'll never get over peoples myopic view of the world.
99% of people (particularly people with cell phones) live outside of metropolitan areas? This page claims about half of the worlds people live in a city.
You know what's better than insane profits? More insane profits. And unlike data, there's no profit cap.
HOMER: Mr. Burns, you're the richest guy I know. Way richer than Lenny.
BURNS: Oh, yes. But I would trade it all for a little more.
Insane profits are NEVER enough to the kind of people who are making this policy. People who have a lot of money always want MORE! It seems unintuitive (what does 2 billion dollars buy you that 1 billion didn't?) but that seems to be the way at least some humans are programmed.
Nothing is static in this world. If voters complain, things will change. You just have to convince enough of them that you are correct. Too bad they won't have access to your website and social media to know about you.
Hahaha you still think the people have a voice in US politics? Well, I guess if the person is wealthy then the politicians might listen but if you aren't bribing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H giving campaign contributions to your "representative" you have no voice.
Range is the issue.
My commute is 40 miles each way. What EV do I buy that ensures me I can get to work and back home on a single charge, accounting for common traffic jams and problems that causes for actual range, and accomodates the lack of charging slots at work?
It would be OK if I paid less than a 30% premium over typical retail price, even better if I pay only a 50% premium over the typical price of a 5-year-old used vehicle, though I generally drive 10-year-old vehicles. I know, that rules out lots of vehicles.
Electric is still not for me.
Actually, electric cars are a lot more efficient in traffic jams, you will get a lot better range going 30 MPH vs. 70 MPH. The Nissan Leaf seems to fit the bill (reasonably priced, at least 80 miles range), with associated tax credits it costs about the same as a similarly equipped ICE car.
It means nothing, because the properties of an element and a compound containing it don't necessarily bear any resemblance to each other.
Where do you think commercial hydrogen comes from? The majority comes from cracking natural gas, a hydrocarbon.
If a business wants to get "fast lane" access among specific providers, why no co-locate servers at one of that provider's data centers or central offices?
That's exactly what they do. It benefits the ISP because it reduces the data that has to flow across their interconnects, it benefits the provider as they don't need to pay for transit across the internet and it obviously benefits the consumer. The problem Netflix has is that Comcast realizes that it benefits Netflix (plus, they are competing with Netflix) so Comcast said "Yeah, we'll allow you to place caching servers on our network, provided you pay us several million dollars per month". Netflix doesn't really have a choice, Comcast is about half of the US residential internet subscribers.
Comcast's business has long been about selling access to their customers. They sell the service to the customers then they sell the customers to advertisers. They now want to sell their internet customers to providers as well. This is blatant abuse of their monopoly position but since the political system in the US is designed to reward those with the most money nothing all all will come of this, other than the FCC asking Comcast if they should apply lube to the public before Comcast reams them (the answer is "No!").
I just don't get why every fscking channel seems to migrate towards "reality" or "contest" tv.
Because it is fucking CHEAP. The cheaper a show is to produce, the more money the producer will make (assuming the same ratings). Why would they produce quality scripted television when they can film some attention whores and make 10x the money?
That would be the case if population and size of patrol areas wasn't increasing. Almost all cities are growing, increased population, increased density and increased size. Inflation only counts on increases in costs, not growth.
Yeah, it should be cheaper to police such a situation. If density is increasing you are still policing the same area, there are just more people in it. The increased population bring greater sales tax and property tax revenues. Maybe cities in the middle of nowhere are increasing in size but most existing cities don't have anywhere to expand to, they are already surrounded by other cities.
... I don't know what to make of your post.
On the one hand you start out being polite but at the end you are rude.
Then you profess ignorance of information that is easily obtained by simply googling it which brings up a couple different studies on the issue... and then you claim to be an expert.
So I don't know how to take your post. Your politeness sounds like passive aggressiveness when followed up by the insult. And your claims to expertise in the issue sounds like hollow baseless boasting when you also ask for information that as an expert you should already have.
You see my issue here. I don't know whether to engage you as a troll or discuss with you as a reasonable person. You're giving off conflicting signals which means you're either a troll in disguise or an "expert" that needs to be more polite and likely a great deal more humble.
In any case... allow me to show you exactly how hard this information was to find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
You will of course be telling me now that the cited information says that the cellphone users are more distracted. That said, there are multiple studies that tried to control for different factors and they ultimately found that the really relevant variable was if the driver was competent and if the person distracting them... be they on a phone or beside them was respectful of their primary responsibility at that moment.
So there you go. I could probably find more on the issue if you like but as an expert on the issue you're likely far better versed in the field... right?
If my response seems hostile... appreciate that you respond with passive aggression and a rather sad attempt to brow beat me. That earned you a slap... fair is fair ;)
I don't know what to make of your post. You said "statistically, driving with a passanger and talking to them is about as dangerous as talking on the cellphone while driving", but your link says "The scientific literature is mixed on the dangers of talking on a cell phone versus those of talking with a passenger." None of the referenced studies found that holding a conversation is without risk and several found that holding a conversation on a cell phone held a greater risk than holding it with a passenger. That certainly doesn't sound like the categoric fact that you are claiming.
On the subject of my post, how is it passive aggressive? I asked you to post a citation, posted a citation that refuted your point, then insinuated that you pulled the "statistic" (oh no, I used quotes again when referring to your data!) out of your ass. There was no passivity involved, I was directly challenging your assertion. I did not claim to be an expert although your post says I did. As for your post, with its patronizing "let me google that for you" and then telling me that I got a "slap" is just funny. Your googling didn't support your point, no slap was given.
I responded to you already, but here is some more:
Strayer DL, et al. "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver," Human Factors (Summer 2006): Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 381–91. http://www.distraction.gov/dow...
Fitch, G. A., Soccolich, S. A., Guo, F., McClaffert y, J., Fang, Y., Olson, R. L., Perez, M. A., Hanowski, R. J., Hankey, J. M., & Dingus, T. A. (2013, April).
The impact of hand-held and hands-free cell phone use on driving performance and safety-critical event risk
(Report No. DOT HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
http://www.distraction.gov/dow...
From the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety:
"Two epidemiological studies have linked talking on a cellphone directly to increased crash risk, using cellphone billing records to verify phone use of crash-involved drivers. A 2005 Institute study of drivers in Western Australia found that when drivers were talking on mobile phones there was a fourfold increased likelihood of a crash resulting in injury to the driver. 10 The findings were consistent with 1997 research that showed phone use among Canadian drivers was associated with a fourfold increase in the risk of a crash involving property damage but no injury."
Seriously, there have been hundreds of studies on this topic. If all you can find is one paper, LMGTFY
I would agree. Also statistically, driving with a passanger and talking to them is about as dangerous as talking on the cellphone while driving. So since that isn't practical to ban... the cell phone issue is more of an older generation whining about the next new thing.
I'm sorry if that offends but it is accurate.
[citation needed]
It doesn't offend, it simply isn't based on facts.
Here's a counter:
"One study using a driving simulator found that drivers conversing by cell phone were more likely than those talking to passengers to drift between lanes and to miss an exit they were instructed in advance to take."
From this article, linked about 4 posts above yours. I know your "statistic" was garnered from the "University of pulled it out of my ass" but this has been an area with quite a bit of study. If what you are saying has any basis in fact you should be able to cite some researchers who found that to be the case.
Also (cited later in the thread)
"It seems counterintuitive: why is talking on a cell phone while driving any more distracting than talking to a passenger? The reasons have to do with the way our brains process information, reports the Harvard Mental Health Letter."
"One study using a driving simulator found that drivers conversing by cell phone were more likely than those talking to passengers to drift between lanes and to miss an exit they were instructed in advance to take. When the researchers analyzed the complexity of the conversations in this study, they found that drivers and passengers tended to modulate their speech in response to external traffic cues. For example, they stopped talking when a traffic problem developed, or the passenger would offer advice to help the driver navigate. "
Ship AN. "The Most Primary of Care — Talking about Driving and Distraction," New England Journal of Medicine (June 10, 2010): Vol. 362, No. 23, pp. 2145–47.
Strayer DL, et al. "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver," Human Factors (Summer 2006): Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 381–91.
article
"There's a long list of reasons that a phone call is different from a passenger."
None of which has been actually shown to distract any more then having a passenger, or kids, or the radio, or a blond in a convertible drive by..
Yeah, talking on the phone is only as bad as drunk driving. From the study: "We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit”. It doesn't matter if the call is made on the phone or using a hands-free set, having the conversation is the distracting part. From the article:
"The study found that compared with undistracted drivers:
Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk."
It is true that there are a lot of things that distract drivers and every time there is a cell phone thread this point is brought up. The world isn't black and white (distracting vs. non-distracting). There are differing levels of distracted driving depending on the activity performed. Tuning the radio is not as distracting as watching TV. Smoking is not as distracting as making icy margaritas. And talking to a passenger is not as distracting as talking on a phone (although talking to a passenger while driving is distracting). When laws are made to restrict driving, legislatures must balance taking away freedom with a compelling public interest. Obviously some states feel that the freedom to use your phone while driving is outweighed by the societal harm from drivers distracted by such activities.
With your sig, I am really surprised that you take this position. Long before Dunning and Kruger wrote their famous paper it was well known that nearly everybody overestimates their skill in driving (c.f George Carlin on "idiots" and "assholes"). Have you considered that maybe you don't drive as well as you think you do when you are talking on the phone?
Bullshit.
The phone is my wife or family
Exactly. And almost invariably you are talking about FUCKING NOTHING, you are just talking because you are afraid if you stop you will actually have to think. These aren't important conversations people are killing themselves and other people over, the vast majority are inane "What time are you going to get home?" conversations. I know family is important but you really don't need to call your wife from the road to tell her you spilled mustard on your shirt, go ahead and wait until you get home so it can be a big surprise for her!
(Sorry, I don't mean to attack you personally but more the idea of "I can't be out of touch with my family for even a second" that seems to pervade all cell phone threads)
Well I said "good natural fats" and this seems to be a big part of the whole low carb, banting, primal, paleo movement's message.
AFAIK, good fats here means omega 3, fish oil fats, coconut oil, macadamia nuts, grassfed animal fat, more coconut oil, grassfed butter, grassfed cream, etc.
Do you have evidence that feeding an animal grass rather than grain is healthier? In my searching it appears that grass fed beef has a higher ratio of Omega-3 fatty acids than grain-fed beef but the overall fat content of grass fed is lower so it's not like you are getting more Omega-3s by eating grass-fed beef. I couldn't find any hard data on the differences though, most of my search results were "health" sites which seemed to start with the conclusion that it is better than grain-fed then tried to find data to support their already-made conclusion. Are you aware of any studies on the actual health benefits of eating grass fed beef (or butter, or cream)? From my standpoint it seems like a dubious health benefit for a substantially increased price.
The previous post was discussing the problems of not having enough money or time to cook (because you are poor).
You either don't have money, or you don't have time. Rarely will you not have both as a "poor" person.
Unless you are a industrious poor person instead of a lazy poor person. I know the common narrative is that people are poor because they are lazy but in reality a lot of poor people work multiple jobs to make ends meet and work a lot harder than their middle class counterparts. Many are single parents who need to provide for a family on their income alone. I know it may seem to moderately well-off people that they worked hard to get where they are but in the majority of cases it was the circumstances into which you were born that determines your eventual earning power.
I'm not surprised. Books, comics and video games tend to not be canon for Star Wars, and only half heartedly canon in Star Trek.
My personal opinion is that only Film-TV can be canon. Everything else in another format needs to be adapted to that format to be canon. This is why I never read fanfic trash on the internet, as much as someone might have a good head on their shoulders for writing fanfiction, it will never be canon. Parodies I sometimes see (eg robot chicken) but they're easily forgettable.
So the Lord of the Rings movies are canon, screw those dusty old books. Why rely on Tolkien when I can have Peter Jackson tell me about Hobbits?
Not really, since many officers can claim to smell marijuana in its complete absence. Make them verify the smell with some chemical test before they can search and you'll probably get a lot less searches since they aren't actually smelling weed.
Or even more nebulous, claim that their dog smells marijuana. The dog doesn't have to testify, so there is no way to impeach the evidence.
Sure, in this case the guy had a bunch of pot but we don't hear about the cases where the police claimed they smelled marijuana to justify a search but subsequently found none except through anecdotes from friends as there are no charges filed in those instances.
All told, what you seem to need are high altitude mountaineering gear. So, some cold weather gear, an oxygen bottle, and some ropes. Doubtless it would be a nasty ride but you'd probably survive.
The only thing left is about... the crushing risk. And radical sudden air pressure changes you may be exposed to.
Also... the difficulty of getting in and escaping while carrying all this gear.
In this heavy winter gear... you will likely stand out for sure.
Why radical, sudden pressure changes? The plane doesn't teleport to altitide, it has to fly there. A quick search led me to an airline pilots forum, where they say it generally takes 25-35 minutes to climb to cruising altitude in a 747. Doesn't seem to radical to me.
This is actually the OpenBSD developers diving in because the upstream (OpenSSL) was unresponsive. If you look at the actual commits, you will see removal of dead code such as VMS-specific hacks, but also weeding out a lot of fairly obvious bugs, unsafe practices such as trying to work around the mythical slow malloc, feeding your private key to the randomness engine, use after free, and so on.
It would look like it's been a while since anybody did much of anything besides half hearted scratching in very limited parts of the code. This is a very much needed effort which is likely to end up much like OpenSSH, maintained mainly as part of OpenBSD, but available to any takers. We should expect to see a lot more activity before the code base is declared stable, but by now it's clear that the burden of main source maintainership moved to a more responsive and responsible team.
But the whole heartbleed issue was caused by someone who was doing more than "half hearted scratching", he was adding an entirely new feature (heartbeats). Does anyone else think that hundreds of commits in a week is a BAD thing? It seems to me like committing that much code would make it so each change doesn't get as much of a review as it would if the changes were committed gradually. Poor review is what caused this problem in the first place, they run the risk of adding another critical vulnerability.
More free skeet targets.
If you want your robot back, don't send it over my airspace.
You don't control the airspace above your property. You cannot (legally) shoot down a drone any more than you can shoot a medical helicopter or cessna that flies over your house.
If the personal drone thing takes off, the government won't need to operate spy drones, the public will do it for them.
Just look at all the cell phone pictures you see posted around the internet, cats, stupid accidents, and girls butts, etc. I doubt that personal drones are going to garner the kind of information a government spy agency would want or at least make really hard to sift through.
Exactly. How do personal drones equal government surveillience? The cell phones that most people carry provide a huge amount of data for the government. The phone sends its location, autoposts pictures and videos in the internet and stores a ton of data "in the cloud". It has a microphone, camera and the means to send data to an arbitrary place. Phones are nearly ubiquitous and have a ton of data on the person using them.
Contrast this with a drone. It is controlled and transmits video using a point to point system. None of its data ever transits public data networks and is only receivable over a small area. How is the government going to obtain this drone data?