I have heard many "so-and-so was saved because they weren't wearing a seatbelt" stories. Very few of them come with a citation. And for every true story with a verifiable citation you come up with I'll match you 100 of where people died without wearing a seatbelt and 100 where people lived because they were wearing a seatbelt.
I have never operated a car without first fastening my seat belt, and I have never driven under the influence.
Still an irrational fear. You are going to have to be in a very odd, very specific position for the scenario you fear to come about. There are many other more likely scenarios where the seat belt will benefit you.
There is no good argument for not wearing your seatbelt as far as safety goes. If you don't want to wear your seatbelt, man up and say you don't want to wear it. At least that is an honest reason. Throwing out nonsense arguments on how the seatbelt may hurt you makes you look foolish.
I either have to break the law or ride in fear of instant decapitation from the seatbelt in case of a crash
You are suffering from irrational fear. If the accident is severe enough for a seatbelt to decapitate you, you will certainly not survive without the seatbelt.
On the other hand, it is not unreasonable that you will be in an accident of such severity that you would not be decapitated by a seatbelt but seriously injured or killed if not wearing it.
The black box is hard mounted to a solid part of the car. The black box and associated accelerometers stop hard.
A person in a seat, surround by air bags and wearing a seat belt does not stop nearly as hard.
Were you awake when you wrote that?
By your theory fighter pilots do not experience any g's because they do not smash into anything?!?
G-force is not a measure of deceleration. You can experience 40g's while smashing into a steering wheel, an airbag, or nothing at all.
Obviously not. The cage in modern vehicles is safe. His vehicle presumably had airbags. With modern safety systems, accidents are quite survivable. It is surprising he didn't have more obvious injuries since he was not wearing his seatbelt.
The article states the hypothesis is that he fell asleep at the wheel. The phenomena is much like drunk drivers -- when the person is relaxed they often escape an automobile accident with fewer injuries than an alert person that tenses up in during impact.
If the tires spin out on black ice, does the black box adjust for that? or would it just assume he's actually moving at the rate the tires are spinning?
In this case the condition of the car after the crash seems to confirm the recorded speed. If the vehicle has traction control it is likely data from spinning tires would be recorded.
Relying on black box data alone would be foolish. Considering the black box data in addition to other evidence may prove valuable.
I do not question your distinction between size of government and government spending.
However, your assumption that deficit spending is a red herring, and even further may be beneficial is flawed. That is the part I consider trolling. However, it is clear that you actually believe it, so it is not trolling but something, as you say, depressing.
Funny how distorted the discussion has become. The GP was talking about the size of the government, not the size of the national debt. You can have high deficit small government, and small deficit big government.
OK great. I'll restate for you.
So, how many federal employees and agencies are there again? How many last year, and the year before?
The government has grown wildly under all parties. Yeah, I know it is hard to troll when keeping reality in focus.
Somehow some some Americans think weapons are perfectly safe and normal, even in an environment where you don't need them for the dangerous wildlife. How sick must you be to come up with such a word?
Don't be so hard on yourself. With tens of thousands of security cameras across your cities, rampant hoplophobia, and courts that favor criminals over anyone even thinking of defending themselves, you are leading the charge into a moronic nanny state.
That's not true, the screen every bag. I had a lot of olive oils and mustards (two of my favorite condiments) as Christmas presents that I flew back with from MSP to IAD and when I arrived and got my luggage there was a little note in my bag saying the contents had made them hand search it after it was screened.
Well I feel safer now. We can't have those contraband olive oils and mustards on the plane. Meanwhile, while they are looking for everything under the sun, the stuff they want to keep out sails right through.
The TSA running down a rabbit hole chasing your condiments does not make anyone safer.
Every time I see the word sheeple I honestly cannot take the person seriously. I understand it's a fun and descriptive word but it's embarrassing to use is it not?
PARC is now an independent entity, which is not the same as being sold off. It now researches on behalf of other entities besides Xerox, but Xerox remains its largest customer.
Closer, but still not correct. PARC is an independent subsidiary, but fully owned by Xerox.
Is 'making money from it's inventions' code for suing people for patent infringement and patenting every dumb little thing possible. Or will they actually being doing something productive?
Protecting one's IP often results in suing others that infringe. If that is your major consideration, you probably won't like PARC's model, or just about any other business that seeks to innovate.
As for the rest of it, that depends on your definitions of "every dumb little thing possible" and "something productive". It seems like someone always thinks an invention is obvious after someone else has shown them how to do it.
Another corporation similar to Rambus which invents stuff and then demands royalties for licenses and patents.
Not at all. PARC invents things and then licenses their inventions to those that would like to commercialize them. Rambus patented something they managed to get written into a JEDEC specification.
You are free to choose whether or not you use PARCs IP. Rambus tried to make it impossible to conform to an industry specification without infringing on their IP.
One is a business, one is a troll. If you can't tell the difference, then too bad for you.
Slashdot Mirror
I have never operated a car without first fastening my seat belt, and I have never driven under the influence.
I couldn't agree more.
Still an irrational fear. You are going to have to be in a very odd, very specific position for the scenario you fear to come about. There are many other more likely scenarios where the seat belt will benefit you.
There is no good argument for not wearing your seatbelt as far as safety goes. If you don't want to wear your seatbelt, man up and say you don't want to wear it. At least that is an honest reason. Throwing out nonsense arguments on how the seatbelt may hurt you makes you look foolish.
I either have to break the law or ride in fear of instant decapitation from the seatbelt in case of a crash
You are suffering from irrational fear. If the accident is severe enough for a seatbelt to decapitate you, you will certainly not survive without the seatbelt.
On the other hand, it is not unreasonable that you will be in an accident of such severity that you would not be decapitated by a seatbelt but seriously injured or killed if not wearing it.
He did not experience 40g's
The black box is hard mounted to a solid part of the car. The black box and associated accelerometers stop hard. A person in a seat, surround by air bags and wearing a seat belt does not stop nearly as hard.
Were you awake when you wrote that?
By your theory fighter pilots do not experience any g's because they do not smash into anything?!?
G-force is not a measure of deceleration. You can experience 40g's while smashing into a steering wheel, an airbag, or nothing at all.
Maybe we should strap black boxes to all our politicians.
Explosives would be far more beneficial to society in general...
And probably result in the same amount of mess they make each time they do something "for the children" or for "your safety".
The other end of the seat belt connector would be your best bet if you wish to survive the accident you seem to be planning for.
If he was going that fast, he'd be dead.
Obviously not. The cage in modern vehicles is safe. His vehicle presumably had airbags. With modern safety systems, accidents are quite survivable. It is surprising he didn't have more obvious injuries since he was not wearing his seatbelt.
The article states the hypothesis is that he fell asleep at the wheel. The phenomena is much like drunk drivers -- when the person is relaxed they often escape an automobile accident with fewer injuries than an alert person that tenses up in during impact.
If the tires spin out on black ice, does the black box adjust for that? or would it just assume he's actually moving at the rate the tires are spinning?
In this case the condition of the car after the crash seems to confirm the recorded speed. If the vehicle has traction control it is likely data from spinning tires would be recorded.
Relying on black box data alone would be foolish. Considering the black box data in addition to other evidence may prove valuable.
I do not question your distinction between size of government and government spending.
However, your assumption that deficit spending is a red herring, and even further may be beneficial is flawed. That is the part I consider trolling. However, it is clear that you actually believe it, so it is not trolling but something, as you say, depressing.
Mitt Romney + tanning bed = Barack Obama.
Quite possibly the best post ever.
Funny how distorted the discussion has become. The GP was talking about the size of the government, not the size of the national debt. You can have high deficit small government, and small deficit big government.
OK great. I'll restate for you.
So, how many federal employees and agencies are there again? How many last year, and the year before?
The government has grown wildly under all parties. Yeah, I know it is hard to troll when keeping reality in focus.
He was the best one! Never pissed anyone off.
Hillary disagrees with you.
So, what is the national debt again? What was it last year, and the year before?
The government has grown wildly under all parties. Yeah, I know it is hard to troll when keeping reality in focus.
Somehow some some Americans think weapons are perfectly safe and normal, even in an environment where you don't need them for the dangerous wildlife. How sick must you be to come up with such a word?
Hoplophobe, defined.
We are slowly learning from the US laws.
Don't be so hard on yourself. With tens of thousands of security cameras across your cities, rampant hoplophobia, and courts that favor criminals over anyone even thinking of defending themselves, you are leading the charge into a moronic nanny state.
That's not true, the screen every bag. I had a lot of olive oils and mustards (two of my favorite condiments) as Christmas presents that I flew back with from MSP to IAD and when I arrived and got my luggage there was a little note in my bag saying the contents had made them hand search it after it was screened.
Well I feel safer now. We can't have those contraband olive oils and mustards on the plane. Meanwhile, while they are looking for everything under the sun, the stuff they want to keep out sails right through.
The TSA running down a rabbit hole chasing your condiments does not make anyone safer.
Every time I see the word sheeple I honestly cannot take the person seriously. I understand it's a fun and descriptive word but it's embarrassing to use is it not?
No.
No, you dummy poo-poo head.
PARC is now an independent entity, which is not the same as being sold off. It now researches on behalf of other entities besides Xerox, but Xerox remains its largest customer.
Closer, but still not correct. PARC is an independent subsidiary, but fully owned by Xerox.
For a tech savvy bunch, we can't seem to use the internet well.
http://www.parc.com/content/newsroom/factsheet_parc.pdf
How large is a normal 17-inch touchscreen?
About 17 inches.
The "very large seventeen-inch touchscreen" referenced in the summary is a metric touchscreen. Typical noob mistake.
Is 'making money from it's inventions' code for suing people for patent infringement and patenting every dumb little thing possible. Or will they actually being doing something productive?
Protecting one's IP often results in suing others that infringe. If that is your major consideration, you probably won't like PARC's model, or just about any other business that seeks to innovate.
As for the rest of it, that depends on your definitions of "every dumb little thing possible" and "something productive". It seems like someone always thinks an invention is obvious after someone else has shown them how to do it.
PARC was sold off.
You should have told them that as they don't seem to know. In fact, they even contradict your position on their website: PARC - A Xerox company.
Damn companies keep thinking they know who they are better than Slashdotters that don't even RTFS, much less RTFA.
Another corporation similar to Rambus which invents stuff and then demands royalties for licenses and patents.
Not at all. PARC invents things and then licenses their inventions to those that would like to commercialize them. Rambus patented something they managed to get written into a JEDEC specification.
You are free to choose whether or not you use PARCs IP. Rambus tried to make it impossible to conform to an industry specification without infringing on their IP.
One is a business, one is a troll. If you can't tell the difference, then too bad for you.
Off topic, but a valid point.
Monetary help - good and often needed.
Sustaining and fulfilling work - much better.
You don't seem to have the proper 99% mentality. You must be one of those 1% assholes that expects to get ahead by doing something useful.
/sarcasm
I would rather talk to my phone like it is a phone than a woman. (especially if i have to repeat myself :) )
Don't worry. She'll walk away quickly.
An observant person might think they wanted people running red lights.
A realist might think they wanted people running red lights.
Anyone capable of rational thought might think they wanted people running red lights.
Fixed that for you. Take your pick.