"It may well be true for you in particular (though you may also be overestimating your abilities to drive safely without such assistance - most people do), but in general, statistic clearly shows that ABS does reduce the number of accidents on the roads, so in a purely utilitarian sense, it's clear that mandating it has its benefits."
Interesting. My driver's ed course told me the opposite (and I heard it reiterated here on/. by a comment to the original story) that while ABS is, theoretically, supposed to make driving safer, in reality statistics have shown that ABS have increased the number of accidents because people don't know how to use them properly.
We watched a video that explained how ABS works and it used a hypothetical scenario where someone slams on the brakes and turns the wheel, only to discover to their horror that they were sent right into oncoming traffic. The video said that this was a very common real-world occurrence with ABS and the instructor said that ABS has actually increased accidents because people don't understand how they work. I left the course with the impression that ABS is neither safer nor more dangerous. It's just different and that you need to adjust your driving accordingly.
Anyway I haven't seen any hard numbers to back up either claim so if you can provide some please do.
"Here's an idea I had... maybe we should have further driving license differentiation regarding skills. Today we have a distinct license category for those who can only drive automatic. It could be further extended to driving without ABS/EBD, for example - if you want to do so, you can, but you have to prove that you can actually do it safer than without them, by passing a driving test which would involve going through a set of excercises recreating some most common dangerous situations in which ABS helps (shouldn't be hard to pick those from some national database of road accidents). If you can consistently show that you can beat ABS, so letting you drive without it will not cause extra risk for others on the road (on average, anyway), you get a license which permits you to drive vehicles without ABS. If you can't, tough luck - either learn till you can, or drive without it on autodromes.
What do you say?"
In Ontario (and I assume that most jurisdictions have similar systems) licensing is done on a class of vehicle basis. So most people get a "class G" license because that licenses you to drive what most people refer to as "cars" or "trucks" (the class is determined by how many passengers the vehicle accommodates as well as it's weight and size etc.). If you want to drive a motorcycle or dirt-bike you need a "class M" license, large tractor trailers and buses etc. have their own class. This is basically exactly what you are proposing since each class of vehicle requires different skills to operate. The only difference is that ABS on a class G is still class G.
So maybe in the future some of these new automation features etc. will create new classes of vehicles as far as licensing is concerned.
"Would you say that driving an automatic, or driving without ABS, is "more fun"?"
I do drive without ABS. I'm not sure if ABS was common in '93 but our caravan doesn't have it.
I prefer to drive without ABS because I feel that ABS removes an option without adding anything. Ok, the wheels won't lock, but I *expect* the wheels to lock if I slam on the brakes. Driving with ABS requires different driving skills.
Manual vs. automatic transmission is a little different and I've never driven a manual. I know that my wife strongly prefers manual since she's kind of like the elitist uber-geek crowd that we have here on/. only with cars. She wants total control 100% of the time. I'm somewhat of the same way. I'm a control freak by nature so I prefer to have total control over my vehicle. But that does come with greater responsibility. In order to be able to operate the vehicle safely you need to understand as much as you can about it and the laws of physics. Most people don't.
I took a driver's ed course to get a break in my insurance premiums and to take 4 months off the time needed to get my 2nd stage license. However, I'm really glad I took it just because of how informative and educational it was. Growing up I was a computer nerd who never really cared for cars. Now I'm playing catch-up and I love it. I'm a sucker for the old days when anyone with a passing interest could open up their hood and fix things themselves etc. As cars become more complex so does fixing and maintaining them. That bothers me somewhat. So yeah, I can't wait to learn to drive a manual. I do think it will be more fun. It creates more of an artificial "connection" between the driver and the vehicle, and it aids driving to think of the vehicle as an extension of yourself. 10 years ago I never thought I would say this but I'm thinking about buying a classic in the future. My wife says that's fine as long as she gets her's first.
My driving instructor told me to run a yellow even though I could have stopped precisely because the driver behind me was tailgating and he would have hit me.
Of course this is a completely different kind of scenario than having to brake to prevent hitting something in front of you.
The law requires that you do everything that you possibly can to avoid a collision. So I would think if someone is tailgating you and you have to slam on your brakes and they hit you then, classically, they are almost always at fault. However, the law still says that if there's anything that you can do to avoid him hitting you from behind (without causing a different accident) then you're still supposed to do it. A safe and defensive driver is always aware of his/her surroundings, anticipates potential problems and acts accordingly. In driving school we were told to change lanes, turn at the nearest intersection or pull off of the road entirely in the case of an idiot driver tailgating or doing other dangerous driving behind us. Point being, while the guy is breaking traffic laws by tailgating you, you are also braking the law if you do nothing about it.
"Besides, you used to hear the same sort of arguments about seatbelts. "What if I plunge into a lake and can't get out?" or, "What if the car flips upside-down, catches on fire, and the seatbelt traps me?" At this point, everyone more or less realizes that you're significantly more likely to be involved in a simple collision where you'd be thrown out through the window and onto the pavement (possibly into traffic) without your seatbelt/airbag protecting you. Seatbelts protect against a very real and common danger at the potential expense of a very unlikely scenario. This seems no different to me."
I recently completed a driver's ed course that made a very convincing argument that in those specific extreme scenarios seat-belts still increase your chances for survival. The showed us a video where they intentionally drove a car head-first into water and showed what would happen. If you weren't wearing a seat-belt the driver would be thrown forward creating a situation where he/she could be knocked unconscious or injured in such a fashion that would make it more difficult for the driver to escape via the side window.
They also interviewed survivors who had been in cars that flipped up-side-down AND caught fire. These survivors claimed that the seat-belt did absolutely nothing to prevent their escape, but did keep them in their seat which helped prevent injury which could have made escaping the disaster much more difficult.
The course actually convinced me that seat-belts should be mandated even though I used to feel otherwise. I still feel that adults should be able to take risks with their own lives if they so choose. However, the one thing that had I never considered before is that seat-belts help keep a driver in control of a vehicle and thus better able to prevent their vehicle from causing further damage to other drivers, pedestrians and property. Passengers can also become projectiles during a collision which can obstruct the driver's ability to bring the vehicle to safe stop without causing further damage.
I'm 26 and I'm just starting to drive. I could have got my learner's permit at 16 (Ontario) but never really saw the point. I didn't need to drive, didn't care etc. Was perfectly happy riding a bike, taking the bus or car pooling.
Anyway what surprised me was that I actually enjoy driving. I'm not talking about stunt driving or speeding or not following the rules of the road. I just enjoy driving around at the speed limit, stopping for stop signs etc. When I mentioned that to my relatives they said the same thing "yeah I LOVE driving".
It's a feeling of independence and mobility. My wife is more like the GP. She's a racer and loves muscle cars. However, even she is fine obeying the laws of the road. We drive a '93 dodge caravan FFS but she babies it and while she's trying to get used to the idea of me driving it she absolutely hates that I have to adjust the mirrors and seat etc. Driving is something that makes her feel like an independent adult who is free and mobile. A lot of people feel that way and it has nothing to do with them being unsafe drivers.
Take that control away and people will feel as if they lost something that isn't worth giving up. It's the reason that most teenagers can't wait to drive. It's a big part of becoming an adult.
I prefer a minority government and hope that this goes on as long as possible. The only thing the house can do is legislate and we don't need legislation right now. It's funny that the coalition is accusing Harper of partisanship but that's exactly what they're doing as well. In Dion's address he used very warm words like "consensus" and "cooperation" but he never actually presented a plan. He just pointed fingers at Harper and accused him of not cooperating and playing partisanship games without even getting into specific examples.
Harper's been the first Prime Minister in my life time to lower my taxes. As a middle-class self-employed Canadian bringing US currency into the country (I admit I'm a minority in that regard) the last 2 years have been very good to me. I'm also someone who was scared when the conservatives were elected because I've traditionally been very left and was concerned over allegations that Harper = GW Bush. However, the Liberals and NDP lost my vote in October and anyone will have a hell of a time convincing me to vote to change the only 2 years of my life that I've been happy with my government. That's not to say that I agree with all of Harper's policies. He did reopen the abortion and gay marriage issues and he has played up security theater. However, compared to the Liberals and NDP he's the lesser of the evils. I don't see how the Liberals intend to stimulate the economy by raising taxes and investing in failing industries.
"Ritalin gets you high, people love valium, vicodin etc and so on ad infinitium. But there are not huge markets for these drugs in underground channels, barely at all really."
Obviously you haven't stepped foot in a high school recently.
If the markets aren't "huge" then it's because it's extremely easy to obtain and thus the price is low. But people abuse it and there is demand for it, and it is growing. Kids get put on Ritalin in grade school and their parents like the calm nature that it gives their kids so they keep them on it. By the time they're in high school the kid starts to question why they have to take this pill every day and eventually they stop and figure out that they can make money by selling it.
Please don't mistake this as pro-regulation, though. Personally I'd prefer better education for everyone (teachers, doctors, parents and the public at large) coupled with letting people make their own informed choices. Substance abusers should get no different treatment for braking the law except, perhaps, to be given professional help at his own expense.
It's no more valid than the counter argument. Casualties are a part of life and I am not willing to make personal sacrifices to "protect" other people's kids. I'm not a babysitter and if I were I'm not being paid enough.
I've felt the same thing about seat-belt laws for years but recently I finally went and got my driver's license (I'm 26 and just never needed to drive before) and took a driver's ed course and it made one extremely good argument (out of lots of the typical poor ones) for mandating seat-belts.
With regards to drivers, in the event of a collision the seat-belt greatly increases the driver's ability to maintain or regain control of the vehicle, which can affect the safety of other vehicles on the road. With regards to passengers, they can become projectiles within the vehicle and can interfere with the driver's ability to control the vehicle and minimize damage during a collision.
I still yawn every time someone tells me that seat-belts save lives (I'm adult and can take risks with my own safety if I want to). But I think I'd rather have drivers on the road who are more able to bring their vehicle to a safe stop if a sudden change of inertia wants to take them out of their seat when they need to make sure that their car doesn't hit someone else.
Yeah. Who wants to live in a country that has a charter that prevents people from being convicted of crimes that don't exist after they've being tried in the court of public opinion ?
"Not going to happen. The social networking sites are financially fuelled by people's private info. They won't discourage people from giving up as much as possible."
Yeah. When I read the GP's post it reminded me of an article that I read the other day about various parental organizations petitioning toy manufacturers asking them not to market their products directly to children as much this holiday season. Both made me think the same thing... "yeah and I want a pony".
"I thought the easiest way was being born into a rich family or winning the lottery. And as to "saving"... Honey, don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining; Most of us are living paycheck to paycheck, and we spend everything we get on basic necessities. We're not "consumer idiots" -- the technical term for people like us is fucking broke."
This depends almost entirely on where you are and what you do for a living. I know students who are genuinely screwed because of student loans and lack of work. I also know people who make 30k - 50k / year, are raising kids and have a nice healthy growing savings stashed away.
Let's assume that you make $30k / year (which is considered lower middle class in the US) but you live in an area that has a relatively low cost of living. Assume that you pay $700 - $800 / month for a mortgage, $300 for utilities, $120 / month for car insurance (assuming that you ABSOLUTELY NEED to drive), $100 / month for gas, $500 / month on groceries, $50 / month on phone, $50 / month on Internet. You've still got $500 + left over at the end of the month. If you're in the US you can add health insurance to the list and I know a lot of people who spend way less than $500 / month on food (in fact, I spend $800 - $1k / month for my family of 4 and I'm a culinary student who splurges on *really expensive* ingredients, we could live on $200 / month if we ate canned and frozen foods)... and most people could stop driving and rely on public transportation if they absolutely had to. Though most won't accept it as an option since driving is so much more convenient.
In other words, if you make less than $30k / year and you live in a place like NYC where cost of living is insane then yeah it's gonna be rough. But I've supported my family on a monthly income of less than $2500 and still managed to hold a mortgage and save. For most people it's about priorities and discipline. Get rid of cable / satellite, take a bus to work, give yourself a monthly grocery budget (and stick to it) and find cheap ways to entertain yourself. I've found that when most people complain about just having enough for the necessities they're usually including all kinds of things that they could live without if they absolutely had to. For example, I grew up very poor and yet my mother consistently came up with reasons to justify paying for cable tv while she was collecting welfare!
"And almost as stupidly simple as banning soldiers from e-mailing and blogging on the public internet that, ummm, their families are on and, ummm, OK, maybe we need publicly accessible DoD computers."
Publicly accessible terminals or kiosks that don't contain any pertinent information what-so-ever, and also don't allow flashdrives (since they could, conceivably, contain sensitive information), could be set up in a DMZ to allow personnel to communicate with the "outside world" without security concerns. Sort of like an internet cafe for employees that's physically detached from the military network.
"Great, all I need is my homeowners' association determining what kind of internet connection I get. What if half of them are happy with dialup? What if some of them don't even want to pay for an internet connection? What if some of them are delinquent on their payments and my connection gets cut off?"
1) If this becomes common then the type of connection would be a factor that you would consider before moving in. Existing homeowner associations that consider implementing something like this are going to have to deal with the fact that many of their members have connections that they are perfectly happy with and don't want to change. That's not unique to you or even geeks. Solutions will be found to make everyone happy or the idea will die. The only problem I see is if everyone wants to downgrade their connection to lower costs except a few. However, I don't see how this type of system is going to be created without the possibility of allowing members to seek alternatives if they want. Simply because most people already have perfectly good connections. It just can't be implemented any other way.
2) If some people don't want to pay then I think it will play out differently depending on whether this is a new community implementing the network fresh or an existing one adopting the idea. If it's new then they might try to force it on people and those people who don't like it will find somewhere else to move into. If it's an existing community then, as I said above, I don't see how they could possibly throw it on everyone since most people already have their own connection that they're perfectly happy with. The only way this will work is if it's something that people want. Which automatically means that it would have to offer something that current ISPs don't (better prices, higher speed etc.)
3) With regards to the problem of delinquent payments, I think refundable security deposits are one option. The money could be kept in an escrow and the administrator could sign a contract acknowledging that they are acting in escrow and can't touch the money except to return it or use it to cover a delinquent payment.
That's probably what it is then. A high-speed hydraulic bolt. I've seen it done on TV but it either wasn't explained or I just forgot. They "inject" something into the cow's head. I assumed it was a sedative (though it knocks them out instantly) so as always the lesson is don't assume.
As you pointed out, it would not make sense to put a sedative powerful enough to knock a cow out instantly into meat that will be eaten by people.
I grew up with a love of animals and I'm also a culinary student and an aspiring chef. As such, I eat meat. Lots of meat. I can't get enough of it.
I satisfy my moral issues by caring about where my meat comes from. I won't give money to super farms that raise animals in poor conditions and give them antibiotics, steroids and cheap feed. These farms also often employ workers who really don't give a rats ass about the treatment of the animals or the quality of the meat that they're producing. They're getting paid crap and they follow the procedures in order to keep their jobs without any kind of care what-so-ever. A close friend of mine worked on such a farm when he was a teenager and went vegetarian.
I prefer free-range, organic. Before I started cooking I used to think those were just buzz-words. But in Canada, the US and the UK they're not just random marketing gibberish. They're regulated. You can't advertise a product as organic unless it's been certified (and in Canada, where I'm from, the packaging has to state the name of the certification body that certified the product - I can't say for other countries). Free-range means the animals aren't confined in cages and are free to roam around the farm etc. I firmly believe that this meat is better for you and far better quality. It's produced by people who care. They care about the product that they're selling you and thus they care about the animal. The end result is meat that tastes better and comes from an animal that wasn't mistreated.
The abattoirs are also important. In countries that regulate, animals need to be slaughtered in licensed abattoirs that slaughter the animal in a humane method. Cows are slaughtered by injecting them with a powerful sedative to knock them unconscious and then their throat is cut and the animal is drained. It's over very fast. Most other animals are slaughtered via a powerful electrical current through the brain, followed by draining.
If you can't get over raising an animal and killing it for food then it won't matter how the animal is raised or slaughtered. The way I see it, the earth is extremely brutal. If you look at animals that use venom to subdue their prey sometimes it's terrifying what the prey goes through. Humans can be better but in the end we're just another animal. Everything eats other life, even vegetarians. If we want to take a moral high ground then I believe we can do that with how we treat our food before it becomes food. Not all farms mistreat their livestock and there's a whole industry growing around farms that give their livestock better lives than many humans get.
Foie Gras is an extremely popular dish around the world that, depending on your definition of torture, is prepared via torturing the animals.
It's duck liver (though other fowl Foie Gras is produced) that has been enlarged through the practice of force-feeding the animal. While it is been banned in some countries it's available in the US, Canada, the UK, France etc. It's actually a very traditional meat in French cuisine and the vast majority of fine dining French restaurants feature it on their menu.
It's so popular, though controversial, that many farmers have developed means of producing it that does not involve force-feeding. On one episode of The F-Word (a British food show hosted by Gordan Ramsay) they presented Chef Ramsay with a blind taste test of traditional Foie Gras vs. non-force fed with the agreement that if he couldn't tell the difference he would switch to non-force fed in all of his restaurants. He did spot it though.
Of course it's totally different than skinning an animal alive... but it's an example of an extremely popular food that is prepared in a method that many view as unethical.
"Personally, I would like to have seen a state prosecutor charge her with at least second degree murder because it's a very reasonable conclusion from the evidence that Meier wouldn't have committed suicide had Drew not done what she did, and Drew had a reasonable basis to know that her actions would lead to the girl's suicide."
IANAL but it's my understanding that the deference between first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter is premeditated, unplanned (ie: passion killing) and without the element of intent (wanted to hurt him, didn't mean to kill him) respectively.
So by your logic the grounds would be first degree murder since, by your words, she had every reason to know that her actions would lead the girl's death and her actions were conducted over a period of time. Not in the heat of the moment.
I agree but there's also the "matter of national security" paradox that there are no easy fixes for. I do think that the public has every right to know what their government is doing. Yet how do you prevent your enemies from accessing sensitive information that could compromise security while also letting the public know everything and not use "it's classified" as an excuse to pull the blinds over the public ?
Slashdot Mirror
"It may well be true for you in particular (though you may also be overestimating your abilities to drive safely without such assistance - most people do), but in general, statistic clearly shows that ABS does reduce the number of accidents on the roads, so in a purely utilitarian sense, it's clear that mandating it has its benefits."
Interesting. My driver's ed course told me the opposite (and I heard it reiterated here on /. by a comment to the original story) that while ABS is, theoretically, supposed to make driving safer, in reality statistics have shown that ABS have increased the number of accidents because people don't know how to use them properly.
We watched a video that explained how ABS works and it used a hypothetical scenario where someone slams on the brakes and turns the wheel, only to discover to their horror that they were sent right into oncoming traffic. The video said that this was a very common real-world occurrence with ABS and the instructor said that ABS has actually increased accidents because people don't understand how they work. I left the course with the impression that ABS is neither safer nor more dangerous. It's just different and that you need to adjust your driving accordingly.
Anyway I haven't seen any hard numbers to back up either claim so if you can provide some please do.
"Here's an idea I had... maybe we should have further driving license differentiation regarding skills. Today we have a distinct license category for those who can only drive automatic. It could be further extended to driving without ABS/EBD, for example - if you want to do so, you can, but you have to prove that you can actually do it safer than without them, by passing a driving test which would involve going through a set of excercises recreating some most common dangerous situations in which ABS helps (shouldn't be hard to pick those from some national database of road accidents). If you can consistently show that you can beat ABS, so letting you drive without it will not cause extra risk for others on the road (on average, anyway), you get a license which permits you to drive vehicles without ABS. If you can't, tough luck - either learn till you can, or drive without it on autodromes.
What do you say?"
In Ontario (and I assume that most jurisdictions have similar systems) licensing is done on a class of vehicle basis. So most people get a "class G" license because that licenses you to drive what most people refer to as "cars" or "trucks" (the class is determined by how many passengers the vehicle accommodates as well as it's weight and size etc.). If you want to drive a motorcycle or dirt-bike you need a "class M" license, large tractor trailers and buses etc. have their own class. This is basically exactly what you are proposing since each class of vehicle requires different skills to operate. The only difference is that ABS on a class G is still class G.
So maybe in the future some of these new automation features etc. will create new classes of vehicles as far as licensing is concerned.
"Would you say that driving an automatic, or driving without ABS, is "more fun"?"
I do drive without ABS. I'm not sure if ABS was common in '93 but our caravan doesn't have it.
I prefer to drive without ABS because I feel that ABS removes an option without adding anything. Ok, the wheels won't lock, but I *expect* the wheels to lock if I slam on the brakes. Driving with ABS requires different driving skills.
Manual vs. automatic transmission is a little different and I've never driven a manual. I know that my wife strongly prefers manual since she's kind of like the elitist uber-geek crowd that we have here on /. only with cars. She wants total control 100% of the time. I'm somewhat of the same way. I'm a control freak by nature so I prefer to have total control over my vehicle. But that does come with greater responsibility. In order to be able to operate the vehicle safely you need to understand as much as you can about it and the laws of physics. Most people don't.
I took a driver's ed course to get a break in my insurance premiums and to take 4 months off the time needed to get my 2nd stage license. However, I'm really glad I took it just because of how informative and educational it was. Growing up I was a computer nerd who never really cared for cars. Now I'm playing catch-up and I love it. I'm a sucker for the old days when anyone with a passing interest could open up their hood and fix things themselves etc. As cars become more complex so does fixing and maintaining them. That bothers me somewhat. So yeah, I can't wait to learn to drive a manual. I do think it will be more fun. It creates more of an artificial "connection" between the driver and the vehicle, and it aids driving to think of the vehicle as an extension of yourself. 10 years ago I never thought I would say this but I'm thinking about buying a classic in the future. My wife says that's fine as long as she gets her's first.
My driving instructor told me to run a yellow even though I could have stopped precisely because the driver behind me was tailgating and he would have hit me.
Of course this is a completely different kind of scenario than having to brake to prevent hitting something in front of you.
The law requires that you do everything that you possibly can to avoid a collision. So I would think if someone is tailgating you and you have to slam on your brakes and they hit you then, classically, they are almost always at fault. However, the law still says that if there's anything that you can do to avoid him hitting you from behind (without causing a different accident) then you're still supposed to do it. A safe and defensive driver is always aware of his/her surroundings, anticipates potential problems and acts accordingly. In driving school we were told to change lanes, turn at the nearest intersection or pull off of the road entirely in the case of an idiot driver tailgating or doing other dangerous driving behind us. Point being, while the guy is breaking traffic laws by tailgating you, you are also braking the law if you do nothing about it.
"Besides, you used to hear the same sort of arguments about seatbelts. "What if I plunge into a lake and can't get out?" or, "What if the car flips upside-down, catches on fire, and the seatbelt traps me?" At this point, everyone more or less realizes that you're significantly more likely to be involved in a simple collision where you'd be thrown out through the window and onto the pavement (possibly into traffic) without your seatbelt/airbag protecting you. Seatbelts protect against a very real and common danger at the potential expense of a very unlikely scenario. This seems no different to me."
I recently completed a driver's ed course that made a very convincing argument that in those specific extreme scenarios seat-belts still increase your chances for survival. The showed us a video where they intentionally drove a car head-first into water and showed what would happen. If you weren't wearing a seat-belt the driver would be thrown forward creating a situation where he/she could be knocked unconscious or injured in such a fashion that would make it more difficult for the driver to escape via the side window.
They also interviewed survivors who had been in cars that flipped up-side-down AND caught fire. These survivors claimed that the seat-belt did absolutely nothing to prevent their escape, but did keep them in their seat which helped prevent injury which could have made escaping the disaster much more difficult.
The course actually convinced me that seat-belts should be mandated even though I used to feel otherwise. I still feel that adults should be able to take risks with their own lives if they so choose. However, the one thing that had I never considered before is that seat-belts help keep a driver in control of a vehicle and thus better able to prevent their vehicle from causing further damage to other drivers, pedestrians and property. Passengers can also become projectiles during a collision which can obstruct the driver's ability to bring the vehicle to safe stop without causing further damage.
I'm 26 and I'm just starting to drive. I could have got my learner's permit at 16 (Ontario) but never really saw the point. I didn't need to drive, didn't care etc. Was perfectly happy riding a bike, taking the bus or car pooling.
Anyway what surprised me was that I actually enjoy driving. I'm not talking about stunt driving or speeding or not following the rules of the road. I just enjoy driving around at the speed limit, stopping for stop signs etc. When I mentioned that to my relatives they said the same thing "yeah I LOVE driving".
It's a feeling of independence and mobility. My wife is more like the GP. She's a racer and loves muscle cars. However, even she is fine obeying the laws of the road. We drive a '93 dodge caravan FFS but she babies it and while she's trying to get used to the idea of me driving it she absolutely hates that I have to adjust the mirrors and seat etc. Driving is something that makes her feel like an independent adult who is free and mobile. A lot of people feel that way and it has nothing to do with them being unsafe drivers.
Take that control away and people will feel as if they lost something that isn't worth giving up. It's the reason that most teenagers can't wait to drive. It's a big part of becoming an adult.
As long as there's no Linux version available I'll be sticking with Firefox.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of ;-) ... now available in limited quantities from a Russian start-up I hear.
I prefer a minority government and hope that this goes on as long as possible. The only thing the house can do is legislate and we don't need legislation right now. It's funny that the coalition is accusing Harper of partisanship but that's exactly what they're doing as well. In Dion's address he used very warm words like "consensus" and "cooperation" but he never actually presented a plan. He just pointed fingers at Harper and accused him of not cooperating and playing partisanship games without even getting into specific examples.
Harper's been the first Prime Minister in my life time to lower my taxes. As a middle-class self-employed Canadian bringing US currency into the country (I admit I'm a minority in that regard) the last 2 years have been very good to me. I'm also someone who was scared when the conservatives were elected because I've traditionally been very left and was concerned over allegations that Harper = GW Bush. However, the Liberals and NDP lost my vote in October and anyone will have a hell of a time convincing me to vote to change the only 2 years of my life that I've been happy with my government. That's not to say that I agree with all of Harper's policies. He did reopen the abortion and gay marriage issues and he has played up security theater. However, compared to the Liberals and NDP he's the lesser of the evils. I don't see how the Liberals intend to stimulate the economy by raising taxes and investing in failing industries.
"Ritalin gets you high, people love valium, vicodin etc and so on ad infinitium. But there are not huge markets for these drugs in underground channels, barely at all really."
Obviously you haven't stepped foot in a high school recently.
If the markets aren't "huge" then it's because it's extremely easy to obtain and thus the price is low. But people abuse it and there is demand for it, and it is growing. Kids get put on Ritalin in grade school and their parents like the calm nature that it gives their kids so they keep them on it. By the time they're in high school the kid starts to question why they have to take this pill every day and eventually they stop and figure out that they can make money by selling it.
Please don't mistake this as pro-regulation, though. Personally I'd prefer better education for everyone (teachers, doctors, parents and the public at large) coupled with letting people make their own informed choices. Substance abusers should get no different treatment for braking the law except, perhaps, to be given professional help at his own expense.
that now there are three IPV6 networks, rather than just the one 2 years ago ?
It's no more valid than the counter argument. Casualties are a part of life and I am not willing to make personal sacrifices to "protect" other people's kids. I'm not a babysitter and if I were I'm not being paid enough.
I've felt the same thing about seat-belt laws for years but recently I finally went and got my driver's license (I'm 26 and just never needed to drive before) and took a driver's ed course and it made one extremely good argument (out of lots of the typical poor ones) for mandating seat-belts.
With regards to drivers, in the event of a collision the seat-belt greatly increases the driver's ability to maintain or regain control of the vehicle, which can affect the safety of other vehicles on the road. With regards to passengers, they can become projectiles within the vehicle and can interfere with the driver's ability to control the vehicle and minimize damage during a collision.
I still yawn every time someone tells me that seat-belts save lives (I'm adult and can take risks with my own safety if I want to). But I think I'd rather have drivers on the road who are more able to bring their vehicle to a safe stop if a sudden change of inertia wants to take them out of their seat when they need to make sure that their car doesn't hit someone else.
"So 2009 will be the year of the Linux desktop ? Just like 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000 and 1999 were going to be ?"
Where the hell have you been ? 1993 was the year of Linux on the desktop dude. Slackware FTW.
Yeah. Who wants to live in a country that has a charter that prevents people from being convicted of crimes that don't exist after they've being tried in the court of public opinion ?
Fsck that.
/ sarcasm
"Not going to happen. The social networking sites are financially fuelled by people's private info. They won't discourage people from giving up as much as possible."
Yeah. When I read the GP's post it reminded me of an article that I read the other day about various parental organizations petitioning toy manufacturers asking them not to market their products directly to children as much this holiday season. Both made me think the same thing ... "yeah and I want a pony".
"I thought the easiest way was being born into a rich family or winning the lottery. And as to "saving"... Honey, don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining; Most of us are living paycheck to paycheck, and we spend everything we get on basic necessities. We're not "consumer idiots" -- the technical term for people like us is fucking broke."
This depends almost entirely on where you are and what you do for a living. I know students who are genuinely screwed because of student loans and lack of work. I also know people who make 30k - 50k / year, are raising kids and have a nice healthy growing savings stashed away.
Let's assume that you make $30k / year (which is considered lower middle class in the US) but you live in an area that has a relatively low cost of living. Assume that you pay $700 - $800 / month for a mortgage, $300 for utilities, $120 / month for car insurance (assuming that you ABSOLUTELY NEED to drive), $100 / month for gas, $500 / month on groceries, $50 / month on phone, $50 / month on Internet. You've still got $500 + left over at the end of the month. If you're in the US you can add health insurance to the list and I know a lot of people who spend way less than $500 / month on food (in fact, I spend $800 - $1k / month for my family of 4 and I'm a culinary student who splurges on *really expensive* ingredients, we could live on $200 / month if we ate canned and frozen foods) ... and most people could stop driving and rely on public transportation if they absolutely had to. Though most won't accept it as an option since driving is so much more convenient.
In other words, if you make less than $30k / year and you live in a place like NYC where cost of living is insane then yeah it's gonna be rough. But I've supported my family on a monthly income of less than $2500 and still managed to hold a mortgage and save. For most people it's about priorities and discipline. Get rid of cable / satellite, take a bus to work, give yourself a monthly grocery budget (and stick to it) and find cheap ways to entertain yourself. I've found that when most people complain about just having enough for the necessities they're usually including all kinds of things that they could live without if they absolutely had to. For example, I grew up very poor and yet my mother consistently came up with reasons to justify paying for cable tv while she was collecting welfare!
"And almost as stupidly simple as banning soldiers from e-mailing and blogging on the public internet that, ummm, their families are on and, ummm, OK, maybe we need publicly accessible DoD computers."
Publicly accessible terminals or kiosks that don't contain any pertinent information what-so-ever, and also don't allow flashdrives (since they could, conceivably, contain sensitive information), could be set up in a DMZ to allow personnel to communicate with the "outside world" without security concerns. Sort of like an internet cafe for employees that's physically detached from the military network.
"Great, all I need is my homeowners' association determining what kind of internet connection I get. What if half of them are happy with dialup? What if some of them don't even want to pay for an internet connection? What if some of them are delinquent on their payments and my connection gets cut off?"
1) If this becomes common then the type of connection would be a factor that you would consider before moving in. Existing homeowner associations that consider implementing something like this are going to have to deal with the fact that many of their members have connections that they are perfectly happy with and don't want to change. That's not unique to you or even geeks. Solutions will be found to make everyone happy or the idea will die. The only problem I see is if everyone wants to downgrade their connection to lower costs except a few. However, I don't see how this type of system is going to be created without the possibility of allowing members to seek alternatives if they want. Simply because most people already have perfectly good connections. It just can't be implemented any other way.
2) If some people don't want to pay then I think it will play out differently depending on whether this is a new community implementing the network fresh or an existing one adopting the idea. If it's new then they might try to force it on people and those people who don't like it will find somewhere else to move into. If it's an existing community then, as I said above, I don't see how they could possibly throw it on everyone since most people already have their own connection that they're perfectly happy with. The only way this will work is if it's something that people want. Which automatically means that it would have to offer something that current ISPs don't (better prices, higher speed etc.)
3) With regards to the problem of delinquent payments, I think refundable security deposits are one option. The money could be kept in an escrow and the administrator could sign a contract acknowledging that they are acting in escrow and can't touch the money except to return it or use it to cover a delinquent payment.
That's probably what it is then. A high-speed hydraulic bolt. I've seen it done on TV but it either wasn't explained or I just forgot. They "inject" something into the cow's head. I assumed it was a sedative (though it knocks them out instantly) so as always the lesson is don't assume.
As you pointed out, it would not make sense to put a sedative powerful enough to knock a cow out instantly into meat that will be eaten by people.
Agreed 100%. /. should also have a forum for these issues so we don't have to post OT and we can provide user feedback.
I grew up with a love of animals and I'm also a culinary student and an aspiring chef. As such, I eat meat. Lots of meat. I can't get enough of it.
I satisfy my moral issues by caring about where my meat comes from. I won't give money to super farms that raise animals in poor conditions and give them antibiotics, steroids and cheap feed. These farms also often employ workers who really don't give a rats ass about the treatment of the animals or the quality of the meat that they're producing. They're getting paid crap and they follow the procedures in order to keep their jobs without any kind of care what-so-ever. A close friend of mine worked on such a farm when he was a teenager and went vegetarian.
I prefer free-range, organic. Before I started cooking I used to think those were just buzz-words. But in Canada, the US and the UK they're not just random marketing gibberish. They're regulated. You can't advertise a product as organic unless it's been certified (and in Canada, where I'm from, the packaging has to state the name of the certification body that certified the product - I can't say for other countries). Free-range means the animals aren't confined in cages and are free to roam around the farm etc. I firmly believe that this meat is better for you and far better quality. It's produced by people who care. They care about the product that they're selling you and thus they care about the animal. The end result is meat that tastes better and comes from an animal that wasn't mistreated.
The abattoirs are also important. In countries that regulate, animals need to be slaughtered in licensed abattoirs that slaughter the animal in a humane method. Cows are slaughtered by injecting them with a powerful sedative to knock them unconscious and then their throat is cut and the animal is drained. It's over very fast. Most other animals are slaughtered via a powerful electrical current through the brain, followed by draining.
If you can't get over raising an animal and killing it for food then it won't matter how the animal is raised or slaughtered. The way I see it, the earth is extremely brutal. If you look at animals that use venom to subdue their prey sometimes it's terrifying what the prey goes through. Humans can be better but in the end we're just another animal. Everything eats other life, even vegetarians. If we want to take a moral high ground then I believe we can do that with how we treat our food before it becomes food. Not all farms mistreat their livestock and there's a whole industry growing around farms that give their livestock better lives than many humans get.
Foie Gras is an extremely popular dish around the world that, depending on your definition of torture, is prepared via torturing the animals.
It's duck liver (though other fowl Foie Gras is produced) that has been enlarged through the practice of force-feeding the animal. While it is been banned in some countries it's available in the US, Canada, the UK, France etc. It's actually a very traditional meat in French cuisine and the vast majority of fine dining French restaurants feature it on their menu.
It's so popular, though controversial, that many farmers have developed means of producing it that does not involve force-feeding. On one episode of The F-Word (a British food show hosted by Gordan Ramsay) they presented Chef Ramsay with a blind taste test of traditional Foie Gras vs. non-force fed with the agreement that if he couldn't tell the difference he would switch to non-force fed in all of his restaurants. He did spot it though.
Of course it's totally different than skinning an animal alive ... but it's an example of an extremely popular food that is prepared in a method that many view as unethical.
You mean compete ? You must be new here. Welcome to North America :)
"Personally, I would like to have seen a state prosecutor charge her with at least second degree murder because it's a very reasonable conclusion from the evidence that Meier wouldn't have committed suicide had Drew not done what she did, and Drew had a reasonable basis to know that her actions would lead to the girl's suicide."
IANAL but it's my understanding that the deference between first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter is premeditated, unplanned (ie: passion killing) and without the element of intent (wanted to hurt him, didn't mean to kill him) respectively.
So by your logic the grounds would be first degree murder since, by your words, she had every reason to know that her actions would lead the girl's death and her actions were conducted over a period of time. Not in the heat of the moment.
I agree but there's also the "matter of national security" paradox that there are no easy fixes for. I do think that the public has every right to know what their government is doing. Yet how do you prevent your enemies from accessing sensitive information that could compromise security while also letting the public know everything and not use "it's classified" as an excuse to pull the blinds over the public ?