That was the point of my post. You can't control the pedestrian. You can control your cell phone. As a driver you should be held responsible for the things you can control. If you choose to endanger the lives of others by DUI or using a cell phone while driving, you should be held criminally responsible. Given that driving performance is similar, the penalties for DWC ought to be similar to the penalties for DUI.
You may have a hard time grasping it, but it turns out to be true. Why is a matter of some debate, but the data is there. There is some impact from holding a conversation with a passenger, but it's pretty tiny when compared to conversation via phone.
As a driver, can you choose when a jogger may suddenly jump out into the road in front of you?
As a driver, can you choose whether or not to engage in cell phone calls?
As a driver, you have a responsibility to drive carefully for the safety of others. When you take actions that abdicate that responsibility, you should be held criminally responsible.
Unfortunately for your theory, the evidence suggest that everyone who uses a cell phone and drives is significantly impaired. I've seen two studies using over a hundred drivers, and not one person was unimpaired/improved in driving skill while conversing on a hands free cell phone.
Actually, they did that study. Conversation with a person in the car has a much lower impact on your driving ability than does conversation over the phone. They haven't yet proven they why of that, but they have proven the fact of it.
I'm afraid he has the science behind him, not you. Go read the studies. Conversations over the phone degrade driving ability more than conversations with someone in the same car.
Did anyone have any doubt left that people on cellphones are a danger on the road? Haven't we all had at least 2 or 3 close calls with cellphone drivers by now?
The first part of your claim is true but misleading. There are many interesting problems that can be solved with a very reasonable number of qubits, but which are not practical to solve on existing computers.
The factoring problem has not been proven hard, but there isn't an efficient way to solve it currently (in the public domain), but a more efficient solver can be built for a qubit per bit in the number to be factored.
Even worse, there's plenty of evidence that they did in fact use the wheel, but that very few survived because they didn't usually carve them out of stone.
I seriously doubt if the desktop form factor will be around longer than me. We're already quickly approaching the point where the desktop has no advantages over portable. I can't imagine that in 20 years we'll still have boxes with approximately a cubic foot of space in them. That's only currently really being used for heat disappation and expandability. Heat disappation would be better served by making one entire side of the box a radiative surface. Expandability has already become largely unnecessary, or external, and I would expect that trend to continue.
So in 20 years I should still be around, but I expect my computer will be pretty thin, with a much larger surface area to volume ratio than today. That's in the least inventive future I can imagine. I actually expect things will be even more different by then.
It's punitive if you're suffering from severe pain or inability to eat due to loss of appetite from cancer treatments, and you cant get cannabanoid treatment because the government doesn't want addicts getting their hands on it.
No, the cases I'm referring to are the large numbers of cases in which conclusive innocence is proven for a jailed man. There are, for example, a significant number of people incarcerated for rape being released due to not DNA matching the perpetrator's semen.
You may be correctly confident of your search abilities despite being unable to pick out the ads. Searching is finding what you want, if the ads happen to contain what you want, your search was successful, and your confidence in your search abilities was not misplaced.
What you have to understand is that DRM doesn't affect your legal right to make copies. It just impacts your practical rights. It's like when they sold cd's but no cd-burners. There was no practical way for most people to make a copy of a cd at that time. That's how it will be again.
You may think you're poor, but in fact you aren't. Even if you managed to accumulate 200k (which would clearly put you at the extreme... any more than that just puts you in the not-so-bright range) worth of school debts to get there, you know have the financial leverage to buy a million dollar home with a 20 year mortgage, and you could do with a 10 year mortgage if you're willing to buy a lesser home. Either way, you're still in the richest 1% of the people in the world.
I included taxation in my accounting of their net earnings. When you make 60k but haven't researched the financing to realize you can afford a 400k 2 bedroom house... well, that's not the fault of the people poorer than you who are sharing a one bedroom apartment I guess.
Re:Most surprising prediction...
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 1
Thankfully, they will not be old enough to be president in 2020, unless there is a constitutional amendment. 2024 may be a gloomy election, though.
Slashdot Mirror
That was the point of my post. You can't control the pedestrian. You can control your cell phone. As a driver you should be held responsible for the things you can control. If you choose to endanger the lives of others by DUI or using a cell phone while driving, you should be held criminally responsible. Given that driving performance is similar, the penalties for DWC ought to be similar to the penalties for DUI.
http://www.nsc.org/library/shelf/inincell.htmt p://www.consumerreports.org/main/content/displa y_report.jsp?WebLogicSession=QgEptNzUinu6RgakyWGkA E4sp89lGFzzwrZWdMl26qBWIClyzP6q|159231716054469345 7/169937910/6/7005/7005/7002/7002/7005/-1|-8616694 984330132221/169937909/6/7005/7005/7002/7002/7005/ -1&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=334665&ASSORTMENT%3C%3Eas t_id=333133&bmUID=1107372468930. nwsource.com/local/199825_celldri ve16.htmlv ing_script. htmla b/
ht
http://seattlepi
http://www.vcu.edu/uns/videos/2003/dri
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionL
Just for starters. There's lots to read.
You may have a hard time grasping it, but it turns out to be true. Why is a matter of some debate, but the data is there. There is some impact from holding a conversation with a passenger, but it's pretty tiny when compared to conversation via phone.
The problem with your analogy is choice:
As a driver, can you choose when a jogger may suddenly jump out into the road in front of you?
As a driver, can you choose whether or not to engage in cell phone calls?
As a driver, you have a responsibility to drive carefully for the safety of others. When you take actions that abdicate that responsibility, you should be held criminally responsible.
Unfortunately for your theory, the evidence suggest that everyone who uses a cell phone and drives is significantly impaired. I've seen two studies using over a hundred drivers, and not one person was unimpaired/improved in driving skill while conversing on a hands free cell phone.
Actually, they did that study. Conversation with a person in the car has a much lower impact on your driving ability than does conversation over the phone. They haven't yet proven they why of that, but they have proven the fact of it.
I'm afraid he has the science behind him, not you. Go read the studies. Conversations over the phone degrade driving ability more than conversations with someone in the same car.
Did anyone have any doubt left that people on cellphones are a danger on the road? Haven't we all had at least 2 or 3 close calls with cellphone drivers by now?
The first part of your claim is true but misleading. There are many interesting problems that can be solved with a very reasonable number of qubits, but which are not practical to solve on existing computers.
The factoring problem has not been proven hard, but there isn't an efficient way to solve it currently (in the public domain), but a more efficient solver can be built for a qubit per bit in the number to be factored.
Indeed it will, sometime after both come to market, in 7 to 10 years.
You just think that way and cant see the consistency because you've been brainwashed.
Even worse, there's plenty of evidence that they did in fact use the wheel, but that very few survived because they didn't usually carve them out of stone.
I seriously doubt if the desktop form factor will be around longer than me. We're already quickly approaching the point where the desktop has no advantages over portable. I can't imagine that in 20 years we'll still have boxes with approximately a cubic foot of space in them. That's only currently really being used for heat disappation and expandability. Heat disappation would be better served by making one entire side of the box a radiative surface. Expandability has already become largely unnecessary, or external, and I would expect that trend to continue.
So in 20 years I should still be around, but I expect my computer will be pretty thin, with a much larger surface area to volume ratio than today. That's in the least inventive future I can imagine. I actually expect things will be even more different by then.
It's punitive if you're suffering from severe pain or inability to eat due to loss of appetite from cancer treatments, and you cant get cannabanoid treatment because the government doesn't want addicts getting their hands on it.
No, the cases I'm referring to are the large numbers of cases in which conclusive innocence is proven for a jailed man. There are, for example, a significant number of people incarcerated for rape being released due to not DNA matching the perpetrator's semen.
Given the rate at which reviews of DNA evidence are releasing criminals in prison who really were innocent, most might actually _be_ innocent.
You may be correctly confident of your search abilities despite being unable to pick out the ads. Searching is finding what you want, if the ads happen to contain what you want, your search was successful, and your confidence in your search abilities was not misplaced.
What you have to understand is that DRM doesn't affect your legal right to make copies. It just impacts your practical rights. It's like when they sold cd's but no cd-burners. There was no practical way for most people to make a copy of a cd at that time. That's how it will be again.
That's not how it works, ip violations are a criminal matter, not a civil one. It'll be arrest warrants all around.
I wonder what percentage of people just think this is funny, and how many people _really_ get it.
Sad, though, that Berman is getting to hold onto the franchise .. he's the worst thing that ever happened to Trek.
You may think you're poor, but in fact you aren't. Even if you managed to accumulate 200k (which would clearly put you at the extreme ... any more than that just puts you in the not-so-bright range) worth of school debts to get there, you know have the financial leverage to buy a million dollar home with a 20 year mortgage, and you could do with a 10 year mortgage if you're willing to buy a lesser home. Either way, you're still in the richest 1% of the people in the world.
I included taxation in my accounting of their net earnings. When you make 60k but haven't researched the financing to realize you can afford a 400k 2 bedroom house ... well, that's not the fault of the people poorer than you who are sharing a one bedroom apartment I guess.
Thankfully, they will not be old enough to be president in 2020, unless there is a constitutional amendment. 2024 may be a gloomy election, though.
Yeah, they were shocked by that all right. And they didn't have a thing to do with it either. Nothing to see here, move along.