The wiki pretty much points in the direction that more speed = more injuries and fatalities.
Yeah but since that applies to all speeds greater than zero, why is one number chosen over another? This is the point you keep avoiding. Speed kills, yeah so why not reduce the limit even further? I'm still waiting for an answer to this one
Accident stats combined with speed monitor stats are the best tools they have access to at the moment.
I disagree. Speed is simply the easiest metric to throw around. How do you measure how many people are drunk/on drugs/fatigued/playing with their phone/radio/eating etc?
All the things that cause accidents are hard to measure. Politicians like reportable numbers, so speed gets the focus because it's the easy fruit.
There's nothing logical about that statement. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know why.
Actually I'd like you to explain why if 100 is safer than 110, then it's logical that 90 is safer than 100 yeah?
So why isn't the speed limit 90 instead of 100?
The Speed Kills dogma is logically inconsistent.
I won't argue that some roads aren't marked properly (after all humans make mistakes) and I won't argue that lower speeds can result in boredom (although I get the same boredom at 120km/h when driving straight for a long time). I'd like to see a link to that study as I've never heard of it.
Considering how most countries have the same strategy towards speed limits I'd say things are probably in better shape than you think they are.
I have no problem with the concept of a speed limit. But "speed" means more than just driving faster than the posted limit. There seems to be very little effort to enlighten drivers of this, instead focusing on easy enforcement and revenue collection.
Fact is that in 30 years this will no longer be a topic of discussion as self driving cars will dictate the speed, not the driver.
Yeah and flying cars too eh? Don't believe the hype. Robot cars will never be mainstream, when a robot bus is far more efficient.
That's the point, it won't detect balaclavas because facial recognition technology is still pretty shit. It will report no matches which makes the system to easy to evade and hence a waste of money.
Maybe no-one cares about your ears?
Give me a battery with 200km range that can be charged overnight at my house or work and costs less than than $1000. This will be tipping point at which the ICE becomes extinct in major cities, and it's not that far away.
Just thought of something better. Get everyone in the car to wear a balaclava so it doesn't register anyone in the car. Get enough people doing this and the project won't last long.
Even better, print out dozens of images of Bill Oddie's face so the camera thinks you have 25 people in the car with you. For bonus points stick them all around the outside of the car too and see if it registers 100 passengers in one car.
I disagree. I was actively looking for a FB alternative, and after my first couple of weeks of G+ I still couldn't figure it out. The interface was an abomination. There was no single news-feed, but dozens of them from all the various circles I'd somehow become a part of. It never made any sense.
The FB model is that you have a group of people you know and you connect share shit with them. Simple.
The G+ model is you join a circle, see their shit, join another circle and see that, but those two circles don't see each other, so some communication is two way, while others are one way, and if you're never quite sure who the hell you're talking to. And since circles include strangers there's no intimacy like with your FB "friends". It was always complicated, and totally unlike Facebook.
When I queried friends for their experiences with G+ the answer was pretty much the same, every single time.
Exactly, which is why "Speed is bad mmkay" is vastly oversimplified strategy for road safety.
Do you believe in factual numbers?
As any first year stats student will tell you, stats are easily manipulated for any agenda.
I've actually read some of the reports listed there and can tell you the science is flakey at best. I couldn't possible rebut them all here, but the exec summary is that in some cases lower speeds are safer, but why then is the speed limit 100 instead of 90? Or 80 instead of 90? Or 70, 60 or 50? The only logical conclusion to this line of thinking is speed limits of zero.
They also tend to neglect other contributing factors (improved vehicle and road technology) that allow higher speeds, and they also don't specify that at some point, using the road is a risk and everyone has different levels of accepting that risk.
There also new research showing too low speed limits increase the risk of fatigue related accidents. so yeah, not that simple.
For a product or service to unseat a market leader, it's got to be MUCH better than the status quo..
I disagree. If everyone hates the incumbent then all you need to do is provide a similar alternative so people have a choice. When G+ was released there was a lot of FB hate going around, and Google was still everybody's darling. Had Google created an exact clone of FB then I think it would've had a chance at burying FB, simply because GoogleBook would've had the backing of IT folk, and Business. Instead now everyone hates both FB and Google.
The big problem with G+ is that it was basically Facebook by Google.
I thought the problem was it wasn't Facebooky enough. The original Facebook UI was very intuitive to learn. You sign up, link friends and your friends see your posts and you see theres. Simple. The news feed was linear and simple to understand and with just text or pics was pretty much all most people need to keep up relationships with all levels of friends and acquaintances.
G+ and its circles was fucked by comparison. People you didn't know included you in their circles and got in on your shit, so it was less about friends sharing, and more about groupies or stalkers. If Google had've simply copied Facebook, and made it Facebook without Mark Z, it would've been much more successful.
I'm not from the UK, but in most civilised countries, conveyancy requires a license, which means some sort of training and regulation. A quick Google tells me the UK is no different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Not sure if you seen the rich list in the last 20 years. Plenty of tech workers, not many lawyers.
The Engineers who complain about their place in life are usually the worker bees who understand the tech but fail to get why the tech is there in the first place. Those the jump that gap generally do make more money than lawyers.
if two people are equal on the resume but one has more experience who is older, and you pick the younger for "social fit" , thats open and shut lawsuit.
It's more complicated than that, but "social fit" is a valid requirement. ie Communication is an important trait, so getting on with the candidate, no matter their age, is equally as important as skills or experience. If you've got a brain and the right attitude I can teach you the rest. If you're a crotchety old (or young) bastard who knows everything then I'm not interested.
A good friend of mine in his 40's went through the Google interview mill. Days of interviews until finally offered a role for half his current salary. He told them where to go and got a job with a no-name company that was paying 3x as much as the Google offer.
Re:My prediction for the Apple Watch's success
on
Apple Watch Launches
·
· Score: 1
Like the PC, the smartphone went through a boom of rapidly increasing speed, power, resolution, screen size and all the good stuff which kept customers buying. But now as those things all reach "good enough", then people will give up on paying extra for stuff they don't need, and a standard smart phone will become "good enough".
Should also mention that a 3kw system will fit on a small house. My house is 120sqm (1300sqft which is about as small as houses get here). A bigger house might use more energy, but it will also have more roof space.
Few big fat inefficient Americans have the space for so many panels to run their house
FTFY.
I looked into solar recently, my house uses about 16-18kwh/day for 4 people. My solar profile will give me an average 6hours/per day of generation over the course of the year, so a 3kw system will satisfy my requirements (3kw x 6 hours/day = 18kwh).
Of course the sun never shines consistently year round so that's where the battery and off-peak replenishment comes in. This will be a revolution for a lot of people who are energy efficient.
Strangely I was just watching a plane crash doco about Singapore Airlines Flight 0006 which attempted to take off on a closed runaway in Taiwan and crashed at speed into construction equipment killing half the passengers and crew. One of the survivors was William Wang, CEO of Vizio.
large American style tractor-trailer for those unfamiliar
I'm not American but am still no more familiar? Where I live a tractor is a machine with big wheels at the back and small wheels at the front that you use on a farm for towing stuff in the dirt, none of which would ever have electricity or the need for a TV.
The analogy was that if the stock market had timed trades, then events could occur inbetween executions that could affect price. My point was that the same thing can happen in a property sale and people deal accept it.
Sure market values rarely shift as quick in property as they do with stocks, but I still see no reason why trading can't be timed in intervals (say from a few minutes to an hour) to eliminate all the gaming of the system from players willing to burn the market for personal greed.
Slashdot Mirror
The wiki pretty much points in the direction that more speed = more injuries and fatalities.
Yeah but since that applies to all speeds greater than zero, why is one number chosen over another? This is the point you keep avoiding. Speed kills, yeah so why not reduce the limit even further? I'm still waiting for an answer to this one
Accident stats combined with speed monitor stats are the best tools they have access to at the moment.
I disagree. Speed is simply the easiest metric to throw around. How do you measure how many people are drunk/on drugs/fatigued/playing with their phone/radio/eating etc? All the things that cause accidents are hard to measure. Politicians like reportable numbers, so speed gets the focus because it's the easy fruit.
There's nothing logical about that statement. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know why.
Actually I'd like you to explain why if 100 is safer than 110, then it's logical that 90 is safer than 100 yeah?
So why isn't the speed limit 90 instead of 100?
The Speed Kills dogma is logically inconsistent.
I won't argue that some roads aren't marked properly (after all humans make mistakes) and I won't argue that lower speeds can result in boredom (although I get the same boredom at 120km/h when driving straight for a long time). I'd like to see a link to that study as I've never heard of it.
We have some roads with unlimited speed zones and contrary to popular belief, people aren't dying by the dozen because of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Here's some research into fatigue: http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/...
Considering how most countries have the same strategy towards speed limits I'd say things are probably in better shape than you think they are.
I have no problem with the concept of a speed limit. But "speed" means more than just driving faster than the posted limit. There seems to be very little effort to enlighten drivers of this, instead focusing on easy enforcement and revenue collection.
Fact is that in 30 years this will no longer be a topic of discussion as self driving cars will dictate the speed, not the driver.
Yeah and flying cars too eh? Don't believe the hype. Robot cars will never be mainstream, when a robot bus is far more efficient.
That's the point, it won't detect balaclavas because facial recognition technology is still pretty shit. It will report no matches which makes the system to easy to evade and hence a waste of money.
Depends on the vehicle. I can almost buy that now for an electric bicycle.
Maybe no-one cares about your ears? Give me a battery with 200km range that can be charged overnight at my house or work and costs less than than $1000. This will be tipping point at which the ICE becomes extinct in major cities, and it's not that far away.
Just thought of something better. Get everyone in the car to wear a balaclava so it doesn't register anyone in the car. Get enough people doing this and the project won't last long.
Even better, print out dozens of images of Bill Oddie's face so the camera thinks you have 25 people in the car with you. For bonus points stick them all around the outside of the car too and see if it registers 100 passengers in one car.
This is no different than facebook.
I disagree. I was actively looking for a FB alternative, and after my first couple of weeks of G+ I still couldn't figure it out. The interface was an abomination. There was no single news-feed, but dozens of them from all the various circles I'd somehow become a part of. It never made any sense.
The FB model is that you have a group of people you know and you connect share shit with them. Simple. The G+ model is you join a circle, see their shit, join another circle and see that, but those two circles don't see each other, so some communication is two way, while others are one way, and if you're never quite sure who the hell you're talking to. And since circles include strangers there's no intimacy like with your FB "friends". It was always complicated, and totally unlike Facebook. When I queried friends for their experiences with G+ the answer was pretty much the same, every single time.
G+ was shithouse and died because of this fact.
Exactly, which is why "Speed is bad mmkay" is vastly oversimplified strategy for road safety.
Do you believe in factual numbers?
As any first year stats student will tell you, stats are easily manipulated for any agenda. I've actually read some of the reports listed there and can tell you the science is flakey at best. I couldn't possible rebut them all here, but the exec summary is that in some cases lower speeds are safer, but why then is the speed limit 100 instead of 90? Or 80 instead of 90? Or 70, 60 or 50? The only logical conclusion to this line of thinking is speed limits of zero.
They also tend to neglect other contributing factors (improved vehicle and road technology) that allow higher speeds, and they also don't specify that at some point, using the road is a risk and everyone has different levels of accepting that risk.
There also new research showing too low speed limits increase the risk of fatigue related accidents. so yeah, not that simple.
I would gladly pay more to get a more useful govt.
For a product or service to unseat a market leader, it's got to be MUCH better than the status quo. .
I disagree. If everyone hates the incumbent then all you need to do is provide a similar alternative so people have a choice. When G+ was released there was a lot of FB hate going around, and Google was still everybody's darling. Had Google created an exact clone of FB then I think it would've had a chance at burying FB, simply because GoogleBook would've had the backing of IT folk, and Business. Instead now everyone hates both FB and Google.
but the whole G+ UX is vastly superior to Facebook's.
WTF? The G+ UX sucks balls which is why no-one uses it. I've never met a single person who ever liked it.
The big problem with G+ is that it was basically Facebook by Google.
I thought the problem was it wasn't Facebooky enough. The original Facebook UI was very intuitive to learn. You sign up, link friends and your friends see your posts and you see theres. Simple. The news feed was linear and simple to understand and with just text or pics was pretty much all most people need to keep up relationships with all levels of friends and acquaintances.
G+ and its circles was fucked by comparison. People you didn't know included you in their circles and got in on your shit, so it was less about friends sharing, and more about groupies or stalkers. If Google had've simply copied Facebook, and made it Facebook without Mark Z, it would've been much more successful.
WindowsXP market share is still around 17%, which is higher than Apple's share of the smartphone market.
I'm not from the UK, but in most civilised countries, conveyancy requires a license, which means some sort of training and regulation. A quick Google tells me the UK is no different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Not sure if you seen the rich list in the last 20 years. Plenty of tech workers, not many lawyers. The Engineers who complain about their place in life are usually the worker bees who understand the tech but fail to get why the tech is there in the first place. Those the jump that gap generally do make more money than lawyers.
if two people are equal on the resume but one has more experience who is older, and you pick the younger for "social fit" , thats open and shut lawsuit.
It's more complicated than that, but "social fit" is a valid requirement. ie Communication is an important trait, so getting on with the candidate, no matter their age, is equally as important as skills or experience. If you've got a brain and the right attitude I can teach you the rest. If you're a crotchety old (or young) bastard who knows everything then I'm not interested.
A good friend of mine in his 40's went through the Google interview mill. Days of interviews until finally offered a role for half his current salary. He told them where to go and got a job with a no-name company that was paying 3x as much as the Google offer.
Like the PC, the smartphone went through a boom of rapidly increasing speed, power, resolution, screen size and all the good stuff which kept customers buying. But now as those things all reach "good enough", then people will give up on paying extra for stuff they don't need, and a standard smart phone will become "good enough".
It extends the battery life of your phone because you are not powering it on as often.
At the expense of the battery in your watch. So total battery usage is still up though yeah?
Why they didn't use Linux, BSD, even the Russia or RedFlag version ?
Because their UI is shit? I mean it's 2015, and Linux still hasn't made any headway onto the desktop...
Should also mention that a 3kw system will fit on a small house. My house is 120sqm (1300sqft which is about as small as houses get here). A bigger house might use more energy, but it will also have more roof space.
Few big fat inefficient Americans have the space for so many panels to run their house
FTFY. I looked into solar recently, my house uses about 16-18kwh/day for 4 people. My solar profile will give me an average 6hours/per day of generation over the course of the year, so a 3kw system will satisfy my requirements (3kw x 6 hours/day = 18kwh).
Of course the sun never shines consistently year round so that's where the battery and off-peak replenishment comes in. This will be a revolution for a lot of people who are energy efficient.
Strangely I was just watching a plane crash doco about Singapore Airlines Flight 0006 which attempted to take off on a closed runaway in Taiwan and crashed at speed into construction equipment killing half the passengers and crew. One of the survivors was William Wang, CEO of Vizio.
large American style tractor-trailer for those unfamiliar
I'm not American but am still no more familiar? Where I live a tractor is a machine with big wheels at the back and small wheels at the front that you use on a farm for towing stuff in the dirt, none of which would ever have electricity or the need for a TV.
The analogy was that if the stock market had timed trades, then events could occur inbetween executions that could affect price. My point was that the same thing can happen in a property sale and people deal accept it.
Sure market values rarely shift as quick in property as they do with stocks, but I still see no reason why trading can't be timed in intervals (say from a few minutes to an hour) to eliminate all the gaming of the system from players willing to burn the market for personal greed.