The law was that people could own people. The law is soon on it's way that people can own people's minds.
Laws are meaningless. Morals are all that matter. A law does not make wrong or right. It makes legal or illegal.
All immoral laws should be broken. And questionably laws should be stood against. And seeing as how mega-corporations are paying to have the laws made for them, even ones that violate the Constitution. One must be left to ask one's self, does society have any reason to recognize those laws?
Recently, a Social Security employee was robbed and shot. The shooter, recently released from prison after 9 months "time-served" of a 10 year sentence for armed robbery.
So armed robbery, and you can be out in less than a year. Upload an unfinished video of a film and it's a year in prison.
The avg person's well being is meaningless to the Law. But the profits of a stealing mega-corporation, now that the Law is concerned with.
There is a point where the Sheriff is corrupt, and his badge is nothing more than a bully pulpit.
And realize my post was half for fun, half tongue in cheek. I do believe there would be an advantage of the submersible strike carrier.
My reasoning for the idea is largely for units like SEAL teams. To extend their range and self-extraction ability.
Yes, can't wait to see a full test of a combat ready rail gun.
The tungsten rod is a pretty cool idea.
Lasers have advanced a lot. We now use them in full atmosphere. I am sure we could build one that was affective at scrambling a human's brains. Maybe just a very focused microwave beam.
A submarine design to deploy up to four helicopters or two VTOL fighter jets. For use with strategically sensitive strikes.
The submarine can approach any coast an allow a pair of Marine strike fighter jets to attack a target, or allow up to four helicopters to deploy a special forces unit.
Why we need one of these. There is a ton of question as to whether our huge honking navy needs tons of surface ships and carriers. Will a battle really be waged at sea like it was of old. Or will these great carrier and cruiser fleets be wiped out within the first two days of surface combat?
A submersible light carrier can be used in the many less conventional wars we are fighting (ie: war on terrorism). The ability to strike any coastal region with almost zero warning is a very beneficial ability in today's conflicts.
RAIL GUN
Why not just fling a metal slug at unbelievable speeds with so much kinectic force that Microsoft would be jealous.
LASER ASSASINATOR
As seen in the movie real genius. Why send a strike force in for man like Osama bin Laden when you can simply cook him to a crisp from a satellite miles above in the sky.
Hey look, methane powered cars. Convert the methane to water and CO2. Power our cars. I mean, we're going to burn hydrocarbon for another 1/2 century or more. Might as well use that methane.
I wasn't commuting 105 miles a day due to a poor economy. So often that time on the phone is when I have to take care of business. It's often the only time I get to talk with my kids before they go to bed - before daddy gets home.
Sure, I'd like to quit and take a job locally. But then my family would be out on the street. I tried for 2 years to find a local job. No I don't have some outlandish mortgage. We have a modest house with a very modest payment, less than $100K mortgage.
That said, most of the studies conclude that driving on cell phone is equal to drunk driving. Two problems with the premise. a) Either this is an argument to abolish drunk driving and/or raise the legal blood alcohol level or b) the drunk control group was not inebriated in any way by the quantity of alcohol they were given.
Sure, there are dangers, and impediments to performance. Especially in tasks that require higher thought and concentration (financials, math, recollection).
But some studies have pointed to mere conversing on a phone being about the same risk as talking to a passenger.
And yes, while some point to the fact that you're driving. You should do nothing else but drive. Let me give a rebuttal. Seriously, who does that. Do you sit silently ignoring the passengers in your car?
Heck, in quiet like that, I am more likely to daydream, become distracted or zone out. In fact, use of cell phones has kept me awake and from nodding off - even saving my life and the lives of others.
As for the risks...yes they're there. But are they significant? I'm not sold.
I've got over a 100,000 miles driven in which I was utilizing phone, texting, or watching Netflix.
Oh yes, I've watched the entire ST:TOS series, and a 1/3 of ST:TNG all while watching Netflix streaming. And guess what I've learned from doing that.
1. No accidents while doing such. 2. Most of my close calls have been when I am NOT using my cell phone. 3. Watching re-runs of TV is much safer than dialing, texting or reading while driving. 4. Almost all built-in GPS units in vehicles are designed wrong. They're put in the center column which takes the driver's eyes off the road. Placing such units in front of the steering wheel will greatly improve safety. That way, even when a driver is looking at the GPS console, they're peripheal vision is still on the road.
Oh, by the way, let me ad that I have not had an acciddent in over 15 years of driving. My one accident at age 19, during the first year I was driving, did not involve a cell phone.
I did get my first moving traffic violation conviction. Accidentally ran a stop sign on a drizzly day. Mind you, this stop sign is on a road that used to be a mere farm path. I've seen 3 cars use that road in a year of driving in the area.
So what is the risk? Sure, I might die while talking on a cell phone. But I might die just driving. Is the risk substantial. I think for some yes, for all some.
Is a law going to stop it? About as much as the Federal 55mph speed limit caused traffic flow not to exceed 55mph - it didn't.
Lastly, the great statistic that puts most of the junk science to rest in it's coffin.
If driving with a cell phone equals equivalent risk as driving drunk. And driving drunk is a major factor in accidents. Then with the great increase in those who are driving while using a cell phone. The number of accidents and deaths should have skyrocketed. Instead, we're seeing a steady decline.
In conclusion, why pass a law that in a dozen years might become a moot point when we all start having patented Google "AutoAutos" that drive themselves.;-)
Reading, texting is a touch more challenging. But it depends. I've found myself reading. When you're going 5 mph in Baltimore Beltway traffic and it takes 45 minutes to go one exit. Is there really harm?
Interestingly enough, I've found that watching old re-runs of Netflix streaming on my phone has the least impact on my driving.
I believe because it's low distraction, I'm familiar with the plots, and the visual is in line of sight of the traffic.
This has led me to believe that the placement of GPS units in today's vehicles is wrong and dangerous.
Presently, they're placed in the center with the idea that the passenger would be more likely to use it, while still being accessible to the driver if need be.
However, a much safer perspective is to thave the GPS on the dash in front of the wheel so that the driver can view without ever taking his eyes off the road. Even while viewing the GPS display, the driver's peripheal vision will still be maintained on the lane in front of him. Allowing for zero moments of non-viewing of the road in front of him.
Never said everyone who drives drunk gets into an accident. But those who drive drunk have a significantly higher incident rate of accidents.
A rate that is so high compared to the normal driving participants that were it applied to even the portion of drivers who talk/text on the cell phone. We'd expect to see an increase in the national average of accidents on an order of magnitude or more.
I am discounting scientific studies which are making postulations which do not bear out with reality.
"If you believe that the published science is wrong, then all you have to do is repeat the experiments and submit the results to a journal for publication."
Sure, and let me be scientific. How much are you going to pay me for this study? And do you have a desired outcome?
No seriously, re-read what I wrote. Did I say it wasn't a distraction. Didn't pose risks. Nope.
I just said that a lot of hyperbole is tossed out. And a lot of junk science is used to make outlandish political claims.
--
Second hand smoke is another good one. Sure, it's dangerous. But the claims that it is more dangerous than first hand smoke? Do we really buy that science? That a quantity of air with a minimal dose of a toxin poses more risk than a quantity of air that has a high level of said toxin + that same second hand dose. Does that mean second hand smoke is healthy. No, just that claim is pretty much junk science. Used for political reasons to push for a prohibition on tobacco use. (And yes, that's what we have. When a carton of cigarettes used to be $5 and is now $75 and growing, it's a prohibition through tax.)
Which might be why one of the founders of MADD now opposes MADD. Saying they've lowered the alcohol limit to such a low level that it's no longer about drunk driving, but prohibition.
Second, I am ranking higher a study that seemed to come to broader and more ranging conclusions with reasons behind various levels of degradation.
VS
Studies which make conclusions which fly in the face of reality. (ie: talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving drunk). Mind you, most studies have an objective goal. It's the sad truth of science. Very few studies are started to just study, most usually have an inherent bias.
If I am going to weight the studies done, I am going to give higher merit to a study with results that reflect the real world, and rank lower those which postulate more outlandish claims AND/OR fail to give a more detailed look at the specifics.
Please note the study I am recalling did not say there was no risk or impediment. They pointed out that the tasks involved greatly affected the impediment. They also noted that the impediment of certain situations was not unlike that of discoursing with a person in the car.
Oh, and I forgot to add, that they noted neglible difference between talking with a handset vs hands free device. Something which many studies have stated, yet states continue to mandate their use.
I am of the personal opinion casual talk isn't that much of an issue beyond normal distraction. Dialing, txting, disconnections, etc are the much more dangerous factors.
Actually, most research has been very poor science geared toward unfair comparisons.
When a claim is made that talking on a cell is as dangerous as driving drunk. You can almost immediately dismiss the study as junk science. If the premise were true, based on the giant multitude we have talking on cell phones, and the occurrence of accidents amongst drunk drivers, we should all be dead.
When a premise is impossible, or does not live out to reality. Than the science behind it is junk.
A few good research experiments came up with surprisingly different and surprisingly similar results. I recall reading one which had much more realistic results.
1. Driving on a cell phone did prove to be an impairment but with great variation.
2. Simply talking conversationaly bore a very minimal increase over talking to a passenger in the vehicle.
3. Conversing while engaged in complex thoughts (recalling figures, date/times, etc) proved extremely distracting.
4. The effect of phone use varied from person to person. Some found even conversational use to be distracting and have a profound negative influence. Others showed little affect beyond taking to passengers within a vehicle. But all showed profound affects when engaged in complex thought and response.
That study, more than any other I had read, seemed to bear true to my own personal experiences.
Slashdot Mirror
The law was that people could own people. The law is soon on it's way that people can own people's minds.
Laws are meaningless. Morals are all that matter. A law does not make wrong or right. It makes legal or illegal.
All immoral laws should be broken. And questionably laws should be stood against. And seeing as how mega-corporations are paying to have the laws made for them, even ones that violate the Constitution. One must be left to ask one's self, does society have any reason to recognize those laws?
I say no...
Recently, a Social Security employee was robbed and shot. The shooter, recently released from prison after 9 months "time-served" of a 10 year sentence for armed robbery.
So armed robbery, and you can be out in less than a year. Upload an unfinished video of a film and it's a year in prison.
The avg person's well being is meaningless to the Law. But the profits of a stealing mega-corporation, now that the Law is concerned with.
There is a point where the Sheriff is corrupt, and his badge is nothing more than a bully pulpit.
Thank it's not a person, and shouldn't have the rights of one.
Program complete, enter when ready!
An intelligent government official?
Estimate 2.74 weeks until departure to the private sector.
"We never think before we act, and when we act, we act with politics in mind. Not intelligence in mind."
Progress - a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) :
Congress - opposite of progress.
Congress can't even comprehend the Constitution. How can we expect them to comprehend technology.
And realize my post was half for fun, half tongue in cheek. I do believe there would be an advantage of the submersible strike carrier.
My reasoning for the idea is largely for units like SEAL teams. To extend their range and self-extraction ability.
Yes, can't wait to see a full test of a combat ready rail gun.
The tungsten rod is a pretty cool idea.
Lasers have advanced a lot. We now use them in full atmosphere. I am sure we could build one that was affective at scrambling a human's brains. Maybe just a very focused microwave beam.
That's only in polite wars. Everyone knows once war begins, such treaties are about as meaningful as a pinch of salt in the ocean.
C18GTSO's Chicken
LSHAC
The Light Submersible Helo Aircraft Carrier
A submarine design to deploy up to four helicopters or two VTOL fighter jets. For use with strategically sensitive strikes.
The submarine can approach any coast an allow a pair of Marine strike fighter jets to attack a target, or allow up to four helicopters to deploy a special forces unit.
Why we need one of these. There is a ton of question as to whether our huge honking navy needs tons of surface ships and carriers. Will a battle really be waged at sea like it was of old. Or will these great carrier and cruiser fleets be wiped out within the first two days of surface combat?
A submersible light carrier can be used in the many less conventional wars we are fighting (ie: war on terrorism). The ability to strike any coastal region with almost zero warning is a very beneficial ability in today's conflicts.
RAIL GUN
Why not just fling a metal slug at unbelievable speeds with so much kinectic force that Microsoft would be jealous.
LASER ASSASINATOR
As seen in the movie real genius. Why send a strike force in for man like Osama bin Laden when you can simply cook him to a crisp from a satellite miles above in the sky.
The recent movie "Rise of the Planet of the Apes"
Fearing a similar occurrence of super-intelligent chimps that somehow would be able to over-power the human run world.
Seriously, like even a few hundred armed chimps and gorillas could handle the mass of gangs in Los Angelos. Let alone the U.S. Marines.
Thank God we had the mighty mighty Coast Guard to save us from the "Rise of the Planet of the Dolphins"
SEMPER PARATUS
Might I offer an alternative....
Hey look, methane powered cars. Convert the methane to water and CO2. Power our cars. I mean, we're going to burn hydrocarbon for another 1/2 century or more. Might as well use that methane.
Let's drop all of Haliburton there right now.
Maybe I do...
I wasn't commuting 105 miles a day due to a poor economy. So often that time on the phone is when I have to take care of business. It's often the only time I get to talk with my kids before they go to bed - before daddy gets home.
Sure, I'd like to quit and take a job locally. But then my family would be out on the street. I tried for 2 years to find a local job. No I don't have some outlandish mortgage. We have a modest house with a very modest payment, less than $100K mortgage.
That said, most of the studies conclude that driving on cell phone is equal to drunk driving. Two problems with the premise. a) Either this is an argument to abolish drunk driving and/or raise the legal blood alcohol level or b) the drunk control group was not inebriated in any way by the quantity of alcohol they were given.
Sure, there are dangers, and impediments to performance. Especially in tasks that require higher thought and concentration (financials, math, recollection).
But some studies have pointed to mere conversing on a phone being about the same risk as talking to a passenger.
And yes, while some point to the fact that you're driving. You should do nothing else but drive. Let me give a rebuttal. Seriously, who does that. Do you sit silently ignoring the passengers in your car?
Heck, in quiet like that, I am more likely to daydream, become distracted or zone out. In fact, use of cell phones has kept me awake and from nodding off - even saving my life and the lives of others.
As for the risks...yes they're there. But are they significant? I'm not sold.
I've got over a 100,000 miles driven in which I was utilizing phone, texting, or watching Netflix.
Oh yes, I've watched the entire ST:TOS series, and a 1/3 of ST:TNG all while watching Netflix streaming. And guess what I've learned from doing that.
1. No accidents while doing such.
2. Most of my close calls have been when I am NOT using my cell phone.
3. Watching re-runs of TV is much safer than dialing, texting or reading while driving.
4. Almost all built-in GPS units in vehicles are designed wrong. They're put in the center column which takes the driver's eyes off the road. Placing such units in front of the steering wheel will greatly improve safety. That way, even when a driver is looking at the GPS console, they're peripheal vision is still on the road.
Oh, by the way, let me ad that I have not had an acciddent in over 15 years of driving. My one accident at age 19, during the first year I was driving, did not involve a cell phone.
I did get my first moving traffic violation conviction. Accidentally ran a stop sign on a drizzly day. Mind you, this stop sign is on a road that used to be a mere farm path. I've seen 3 cars use that road in a year of driving in the area.
So what is the risk? Sure, I might die while talking on a cell phone. But I might die just driving. Is the risk substantial. I think for some yes, for all some.
Is a law going to stop it? About as much as the Federal 55mph speed limit caused traffic flow not to exceed 55mph - it didn't.
Lastly, the great statistic that puts most of the junk science to rest in it's coffin.
If driving with a cell phone equals equivalent risk as driving drunk. And driving drunk is a major factor in accidents. Then with the great increase in those who are driving while using a cell phone. The number of accidents and deaths should have skyrocketed. Instead, we're seeing a steady decline.
In conclusion, why pass a law that in a dozen years might become a moot point when we all start having patented Google "AutoAutos" that drive themselves. ;-)
AutoAuto's?
???
Reading, texting is a touch more challenging. But it depends. I've found myself reading. When you're going 5 mph in Baltimore Beltway traffic and it takes 45 minutes to go one exit. Is there really harm?
Interestingly enough, I've found that watching old re-runs of Netflix streaming on my phone has the least impact on my driving.
I believe because it's low distraction, I'm familiar with the plots, and the visual is in line of sight of the traffic.
This has led me to believe that the placement of GPS units in today's vehicles is wrong and dangerous.
Presently, they're placed in the center with the idea that the passenger would be more likely to use it, while still being accessible to the driver if need be.
However, a much safer perspective is to thave the GPS on the dash in front of the wheel so that the driver can view without ever taking his eyes off the road. Even while viewing the GPS display, the driver's peripheal vision will still be maintained on the lane in front of him. Allowing for zero moments of non-viewing of the road in front of him.
Never said everyone who drives drunk gets into an accident. But those who drive drunk have a significantly higher incident rate of accidents.
A rate that is so high compared to the normal driving participants that were it applied to even the portion of drivers who talk/text on the cell phone. We'd expect to see an increase in the national average of accidents on an order of magnitude or more.
I am discounting scientific studies which are making postulations which do not bear out with reality.
"If you believe that the published science is wrong, then all you have to do is repeat the experiments and submit the results to a journal for publication."
Sure, and let me be scientific. How much are you going to pay me for this study? And do you have a desired outcome?
No seriously, re-read what I wrote. Did I say it wasn't a distraction. Didn't pose risks. Nope.
I just said that a lot of hyperbole is tossed out. And a lot of junk science is used to make outlandish political claims.
--
Second hand smoke is another good one. Sure, it's dangerous. But the claims that it is more dangerous than first hand smoke? Do we really buy that science? That a quantity of air with a minimal dose of a toxin poses more risk than a quantity of air that has a high level of said toxin + that same second hand dose. Does that mean second hand smoke is healthy. No, just that claim is pretty much junk science. Used for political reasons to push for a prohibition on tobacco use. (And yes, that's what we have. When a carton of cigarettes used to be $5 and is now $75 and growing, it's a prohibition through tax.)
Which might be why one of the founders of MADD now opposes MADD. Saying they've lowered the alcohol limit to such a low level that it's no longer about drunk driving, but prohibition.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1119636699.html
First off, apologies for the typos above.
Second, I am ranking higher a study that seemed to come to broader and more ranging conclusions with reasons behind various levels of degradation.
VS
Studies which make conclusions which fly in the face of reality. (ie: talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving drunk). Mind you, most studies have an objective goal. It's the sad truth of science. Very few studies are started to just study, most usually have an inherent bias.
If I am going to weight the studies done, I am going to give higher merit to a study with results that reflect the real world, and rank lower those which postulate more outlandish claims AND/OR fail to give a more detailed look at the specifics.
Please note the study I am recalling did not say there was no risk or impediment. They pointed out that the tasks involved greatly affected the impediment. They also noted that the impediment of certain situations was not unlike that of discoursing with a person in the car.
Oh, and I forgot to add, that they noted neglible difference between talking with a handset vs hands free device. Something which many studies have stated, yet states continue to mandate their use.
I am of the personal opinion casual talk isn't that much of an issue beyond normal distraction. Dialing, txting, disconnections, etc are the much more dangerous factors.
Seriously, they should do something like name it Xbox Ï, that'd be much geekier.
Although that'd be an AWESOME name if Apple ever released a game console - Apple Ï.
In fact, they should have named the iPad that. Then people could have had their Apple Ï and eat it too.
Actually, most research has been very poor science geared toward unfair comparisons.
When a claim is made that talking on a cell is as dangerous as driving drunk. You can almost immediately dismiss the study as junk science. If the premise were true, based on the giant multitude we have talking on cell phones, and the occurrence of accidents amongst drunk drivers, we should all be dead.
When a premise is impossible, or does not live out to reality. Than the science behind it is junk.
A few good research experiments came up with surprisingly different and surprisingly similar results. I recall reading one which had much more realistic results.
1. Driving on a cell phone did prove to be an impairment but with great variation.
2. Simply talking conversationaly bore a very minimal increase over talking to a passenger in the vehicle.
3. Conversing while engaged in complex thoughts (recalling figures, date/times, etc) proved extremely distracting.
4. The effect of phone use varied from person to person. Some found even conversational use to be distracting and have a profound negative influence. Others showed little affect beyond taking to passengers within a vehicle. But all showed profound affects when engaged in complex thought and response.
That study, more than any other I had read, seemed to bear true to my own personal experiences.
- Match light at uber slow speed.
- Bullet impact
- The internals of a cell working
- A plant photosynthesizing
As hard as it may have been to reproduce. The error did exist.
I experienced it myself. Not from pressing down a petal, but as I lifted my foot UP from the petal, my Prius began to accelerate.
The plants REALLY do have a chance against the Zombies. They can use their quantum energy blasters!!!!