The first article mentions fastest growing, which is to say not necessarily the most prominent factor. Also, some weird wording is going on
The study found that in 2010, 3.2 million people died prematurely from the air pollution–particularly the sooty kind that spews from the exhaust pipes of cars and trucks. And of those untimely deaths, 2.1 million were in Asia
So, in the rest of the world 1.1 million people died from air pollution, that might come from cars. I wonder how many of those 2.1 million asians were from China?
The second article directly contradicts the summary viewpoint:
In 2010, the three leading risk factors for global disease burden were high blood pressure (70% [95% uncertainty interval 62—77] of global DALYs), tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (63% [55—70]), and alcohol use (55% [50—59]). In 1990, the leading risks were childhood underweight (79% [68—94]), household air pollution from solid fuels (HAP; 70% [56—83]), and tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (61% [54—68]).
Well, you could just not use taxpayer dollars. If it's possible to determine which college the student has gone to to collect the debt, how about billing them?
Your premise is wrong. Why should any kind of antivirues algorithm/software be excused for being "new"? You're either capable of detecting malware or you don't release. You aren't supposed to "learn on the job" with malware detection
Exactly. And it's not even a rookie mistake, the guy is an assoicate professor, yet there is a whole angle of his research missing. Might be just a rush to get it done before anyone else?
The qualifiers are what makes the post newsworthy, and not just yet another piece of corporate dick-swinging. 1 billion hours? Of what? The menu? How many of those hours are re-serves from previously dropped connections? How many users contributed to the 1 billion hour number?
This is from the 1995 law that is under change proposal. Wording about who it applies to: From EUR-Lex:
(d) 'controller' shall mean the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by national or Community law; (e) 'processor' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller;
How about the middle ground and add a mandatory option to let the user choose? Or at least inform the user when their data enters the public, that meta data is present.
I look forward to the day i can treat my smartphone the same way i used to treat my old Nokia dumb phone. Like the piece of low end consumer electronic it is. My cat's been gnawing at my new phone, and having a tooth sized hole where your home button used to be sucks ass. So grats on being impervious to marketing hype, i look forward to having a phone i don't have to watch over like a small child.
Be sure to buy bits that are little more expensive than the cheapest ones. I cheaped on a case of different bits for home use and they have a tendency to rotate slightly, making them extremely difficult to remove again.
Agreed, laws need to be enforcable and the citizens need to be able to understand what constitutes legal and illegal behavior. Traffic law is a whole other league of comprehensible than, for instance tax law, wouldn't you say? I don't see how adding a test for capability to drive adds much complexity to an already very simple set of laws and rules. If the test returned true/false from some black box that nobody understood, i agree there is a problem. Not with the wish to implement a test, but rather with the (thought up) implementation. At the very least, capability hinges on more than what is in your blood and a good step in a right direction would be to acknowledge that and stop hunting arbitrary values and limits, that are only ever going to "catch" a portion of the people you really do wish to take off the roads.
You are not the only person on the road, as stated already in another reply to this.
However i didn't say anything about reaction times. That's but a small part of being a safe driver. Being in a vehicle that is functional and properly maintained is another.
My post was to point out that you're missing the point if you're throwing money after research that determines how much pot is too much pot, when the actual problem is not drivers being drunk, stoned, distracted or simply incompetent, but that some of those categories can use the road completely legally.
I don't care if people get high in their homes or do a metric ton of meth, I see that as a personal choice and none of my business. But once you get in your car and on the road, where my family and I also go on occasion, it's another matter. Being impaired while driving puts everyone at risk for no fucking reason, and where the impairment comes from is a minor detail in the larger scheme of things. As for throwing people in jail, I don't know and I don't care as long as it means them not being on the road at the same time as I am.
Where I live your license is valid until age 70. After that you have to get a new doctor's evaluation in order to renew your license every two years. Failing the doctor's evaluation you may still renew after passing a driving test, as you would when getting your license the first time. You could argue that age is an arbitrary unit to use, and I would agree, but having timed renewals of driver's licenses is a step in the right direction. Being able to test for actual driving competence would be a huge step in that same right direction. Stoned or not.
Yes i have driven around much lately, although not on a US road. But your post underlines my point really. If you are not capable of driving the vehicle you're in, then you should not be allowed to. I don't care if it is because you're 90 and have forgotten how to, or you're drunk of your ass.
I completely agree with you that there are other problems in traffic than what can be caught on a field administered test, but that is what the patrol cars are for. All I'm saying is don't go after the people high as kites only, target everyone not capable of driving.
Who cares? If you for whatever reason aren't capable of driving a vehicle, then you shouldn't be allowed to, no matter the reason. Design the test in such a way that it tests for skills needed to drive a vehicle, kind of like a field driver's exam. Then stop worrying about how much pot is too much and start concentrating on what skills are actually needed to drive. Problem solved.
Sounds much like solving the problem by pointing it at somebody else. If there's no limit to the amount of energy you can pick up with an Alcubierre warp drive, then not dealing with just makes it suck for somebody other than you.
This, and burying the costs of your robotic army in budgets overlooked by secret committees would probably help. Your public wouldn't even know the country was fighting a war.
Slashdot Mirror
The first article mentions fastest growing, which is to say not necessarily the most prominent factor. Also, some weird wording is going on
The study found that in 2010, 3.2 million people died prematurely from the air pollution–particularly the sooty kind that spews from the exhaust pipes of cars and trucks. And of those untimely deaths, 2.1 million were in Asia
So, in the rest of the world 1.1 million people died from air pollution, that might come from cars. I wonder how many of those 2.1 million asians were from China?
The second article directly contradicts the summary viewpoint:
In 2010, the three leading risk factors for global disease burden were high blood pressure (70% [95% uncertainty interval 62—77] of global DALYs), tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (63% [55—70]), and alcohol use (55% [50—59]). In 1990, the leading risks were childhood underweight (79% [68—94]), household air pollution from solid fuels (HAP; 70% [56—83]), and tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (61% [54—68]).
Do you have any evidence the mob is trafficking drugs?
Well, you could just not use taxpayer dollars. If it's possible to determine which college the student has gone to to collect the debt, how about billing them?
Good idea, but wouldn't that just reverse what's happening now? "us" and "them" will just trade places and the circus continues.
All the samples fed to the various detectors were infected, that's the problem with this "research", they lack a control group.
Your premise is wrong. Why should any kind of antivirues algorithm/software be excused for being "new"? You're either capable of detecting malware or you don't release. You aren't supposed to "learn on the job" with malware detection
Exactly. And it's not even a rookie mistake, the guy is an assoicate professor, yet there is a whole angle of his research missing. Might be just a rush to get it done before anyone else?
If you're gonna spam random internet forums, at least double check your google translate so you don't come off like a complete moron.
The qualifiers are what makes the post newsworthy, and not just yet another piece of corporate dick-swinging. 1 billion hours? Of what? The menu? How many of those hours are re-serves from previously dropped connections? How many users contributed to the 1 billion hour number?
This is from the 1995 law that is under change proposal. Wording about who it applies to:
From EUR-Lex:
(d) 'controller' shall mean the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by national or Community law;
(e) 'processor' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller;
How about the middle ground and add a mandatory option to let the user choose? Or at least inform the user when their data enters the public, that meta data is present.
Mathematics
I look forward to the day i can treat my smartphone the same way i used to treat my old Nokia dumb phone. Like the piece of low end consumer electronic it is. My cat's been gnawing at my new phone, and having a tooth sized hole where your home button used to be sucks ass. So grats on being impervious to marketing hype, i look forward to having a phone i don't have to watch over like a small child.
+1 But I'm fresh out of mod points
Be sure to buy bits that are little more expensive than the cheapest ones. I cheaped on a case of different bits for home use and they have a tendency to rotate slightly, making them extremely difficult to remove again.
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
Good point, though that only works for planets with a day/night cycle and aliens depending on sight during night.
Agreed, laws need to be enforcable and the citizens need to be able to understand what constitutes legal and illegal behavior. Traffic law is a whole other league of comprehensible than, for instance tax law, wouldn't you say?
I don't see how adding a test for capability to drive adds much complexity to an already very simple set of laws and rules. If the test returned true/false from some black box that nobody understood, i agree there is a problem. Not with the wish to implement a test, but rather with the (thought up) implementation.
At the very least, capability hinges on more than what is in your blood and a good step in a right direction would be to acknowledge that and stop hunting arbitrary values and limits, that are only ever going to "catch" a portion of the people you really do wish to take off the roads.
Except that a sizeable fraction of sober drivers would fail the test.
Yes they probably would, and they should.
You are not the only person on the road, as stated already in another reply to this.
However i didn't say anything about reaction times. That's but a small part of being a safe driver. Being in a vehicle that is functional and properly maintained is another.
My post was to point out that you're missing the point if you're throwing money after research that determines how much pot is too much pot, when the actual problem is not drivers being drunk, stoned, distracted or simply incompetent, but that some of those categories can use the road completely legally.
I don't care if people get high in their homes or do a metric ton of meth, I see that as a personal choice and none of my business. But once you get in your car and on the road, where my family and I also go on occasion, it's another matter. Being impaired while driving puts everyone at risk for no fucking reason, and where the impairment comes from is a minor detail in the larger scheme of things. As for throwing people in jail, I don't know and I don't care as long as it means them not being on the road at the same time as I am.
Where I live your license is valid until age 70. After that you have to get a new doctor's evaluation in order to renew your license every two years. Failing the doctor's evaluation you may still renew after passing a driving test, as you would when getting your license the first time. You could argue that age is an arbitrary unit to use, and I would agree, but having timed renewals of driver's licenses is a step in the right direction. Being able to test for actual driving competence would be a huge step in that same right direction. Stoned or not.
Yes i have driven around much lately, although not on a US road. But your post underlines my point really. If you are not capable of driving the vehicle you're in, then you should not be allowed to. I don't care if it is because you're 90 and have forgotten how to, or you're drunk of your ass.
I completely agree with you that there are other problems in traffic than what can be caught on a field administered test, but that is what the patrol cars are for. All I'm saying is don't go after the people high as kites only, target everyone not capable of driving.
Who cares? If you for whatever reason aren't capable of driving a vehicle, then you shouldn't be allowed to, no matter the reason. Design the test in such a way that it tests for skills needed to drive a vehicle, kind of like a field driver's exam. Then stop worrying about how much pot is too much and start concentrating on what skills are actually needed to drive. Problem solved.
Sounds much like solving the problem by pointing it at somebody else. If there's no limit to the amount of energy you can pick up with an Alcubierre warp drive, then not dealing with just makes it suck for somebody other than you.
Spot on.
This, and burying the costs of your robotic army in budgets overlooked by secret committees would probably help. Your public wouldn't even know the country was fighting a war.