"When neither condition is true let's talk again."
Well, I suppose if you wanted to pick that one aspect to measure how primitive a civilization is, you could look at it this way. But you are ignoring quite a bit in the process.
Alternatively, you could look at us being less than a century away from colonizing another planet. Or the global information network that was put up and is being effectively use. Or all the diseases and medical advancements that have been made. Or, you could even point out that we've had the ability to devastate the world for 50 or so years, and so far we've managed not to do it.
I have a hard time calling this a primitive society. Of course, I'd be less impressed if this wasn't all accomplished if a lot of adversity didn't have to be overcome to reach this point.
"So is driving at night, in the ran, snow, sleet, hail, etc etc."
That's why some states legally require you to have snow chains, for example.
" but if they cost $600 to add to a car, forget it"
It is doubtul they'll always be $600, technology does not work that way. In the mean time, parents buying new cars for their kids would probably not mind adding $600 to a $15,000 vehicle.
"My brakes don't even cost that much."
No, but your airbags are expensive. I haven't eyeballed the price in like the last 4 years but I do remember them carrying a $1,000 price tag at one point. (corrections invited.)
" Education is the key and if that doesn't work, heavy penalties that lawyers can't slime their way out of."
Education is not working RIGHT NOW. Why do you think there is desire to try something more sophisticated?
Think about what it took for us to even be able to have this conversation. Then consider that this happened despite our species being so diverse and combative. We're not galactic overlords, but we've done some amazing stuff.
" If some guy wants to port Firefox or OpenOffice to something off the wall like AROS or some other nearly unknown platform, let him."
On the other hand, if some guy makes some software because he wants to get it done quickly AND get it out to a lot of people, he could choose to develop for one platform and reap the benefits of it.
Just because Microsoft suggested it (and I SERIOUSLY doubt they were the first or the only one) doesn't mean it's bad, mmkay. It's all a matter of what your goals are when writing software.
Heck, I recently had this choice. I recently wrote a rather complex plugin for Lightwave using its native scripting language. (here's an image of it in action so you can get an idea of what it does...) One of the questions while developing it was "should it run on the Mac?" This question wasn't so simple to answer. Because it's LW's scripting language, the code (theoretically) works on any platform that Lightwave runs on, including OSX. However, the cost of that was that the code had to be tested on both the Mac and the PC. In the end, it also meant writing code specifically to make it work on the Mac. (fortunately, that wasn't TOO hard, but Mac's file system is a little bit different. I had to cook up a standard to adhere to when using files. Also, there were a couple of bugs in Lightwave specifically on OSX that I had to get around.)
In our case, we wanted greater portability. We wanted to support both the Mac and the PC. However, if we wanted to get it out sooner, the alternative would have been to focus on the PC version. Heck, I could have added a few 'windows only' features that would have been handy.
My point? It all depends on what your motivations are. Your way is right, in one scenario. It's totally wrong in another. The point of writing code is to create something useful for the end user, as opposed to entering it in a good code writing contest. Think about your goals and make the right choice. Don't base your choice on whether or not you look like Microsoft.
"Just ask any stupid smoker why they're suicidal."
- Car drivers are suicidal. - Alcohol drinkers are suicidal. - Police officers are suicidal. - Sky divers are suicidal. - Chocolate eaters are suicidal.
Oh wait.. I mixed up 'suicidal' with 'health risk'.
"Make an assumption of the cost generated by accidents from drunk driving, and compare that to the total cost of equipping every car with this system."
My car history is fuzzy at best, but isn't that why Lee Iacoca (sp?) was generally hated?
"Yeah, I think people have a hard time separating what they want to believe from what they have a reason to believe."
Belief in either case has its uses. If society were to work based solely on proof, we'd live in a rather primitive world.
If I were to boil that statement down into simpler terms, I'd say diversity has been a wonderful force on this planet. Unfortunately, lack of respect for that diversity isn't doing anybody a lot of good.
"I'm torn on this question. Belief is a weird thing. Belief in "god". No. Belief in a plausible scientific theory? Yes."
Are you really believing in a plausible scientific theory, or are you hoping it's true and finding reason later?
I ask because that's exactly the reason I believe life exists elsewhere. I'm confident quite of few others watched Star Trek and are hoping to find the same thing as well.
It's funny how opinions over the absurdity of 'belief' are born by one's own interests. It's a pity we measure people's IQ over their beliefs. We really have no right to cast stones.
"Then by that logic are we going to mandate that everyone have anti-lock brakes, side impact airbags, and every other piece of optional safety equipment on a car?"
No, but only for a subtle difference. Those devices protect the passengers, not the people on the outside. (Partial credit for anti-lock breaks, though.. Funny thing is, most insurance companies give you a discount if you do have AL breaks. So you do have an incentive, anyway.) These devices protect everybody else from your driving. They're more like break lights, turn signals, and hazard lights in that regard. All are mandated.
"The last thing I need is the government telling me I have to live in a padded room because I might hurt myself."
Again, the concern here is that you might hurt others. It's more like having to pass a bouncer to get into your car than being locked into a padded room.
" If anything, teach responsibility with alcohol instead, that would do much more good than a piece of equipment on a car,"
Do both. Resonsible alchol drinking has been taught for years. Drunk driving is still dangerous.
"And those people that are determined to drive after "a few" will find a way to do so."
After watching some 'real police videos' involving drunk drivers, I doubt that's the case. A lot of them get in their cars due to 'auto-pilot', not some higher reasoning in their brain.
" I don't think I should be forced to replace my perfectly good steering wheel in my car with a $600 one that, to me, would be completely worthless."
It wouldn't be worthless if everybody else did it, too.
I don't drink either, but if it were mandated that we all had to get these on our cars, I wouldn't cry too much. I'm not afraid of me drinking while driving, I'm afraid of everybody else.
That is besides the point, though. Just because it could be thwarted doesn't mean it'll be thwarted every single time. Heck, commiting a crime without leaving fingerprints is easy to do, but people still leave them around anyway. People STILL get busted because their face was caught on security cameras that are in plain view. In this case, the person thwarting it is really only guilty if they're drunk in the first place. How smart do you expect them to be, then?
Slashdot Mirror
"When neither condition is true let's talk again."
Well, I suppose if you wanted to pick that one aspect to measure how primitive a civilization is, you could look at it this way. But you are ignoring quite a bit in the process.
Alternatively, you could look at us being less than a century away from colonizing another planet. Or the global information network that was put up and is being effectively use. Or all the diseases and medical advancements that have been made. Or, you could even point out that we've had the ability to devastate the world for 50 or so years, and so far we've managed not to do it.
I have a hard time calling this a primitive society. Of course, I'd be less impressed if this wasn't all accomplished if a lot of adversity didn't have to be overcome to reach this point.
Shilling for myself, actually. I did some of the artwork for it.
Not gonna bother. You'll just go straight into "Nuh uh!" mode. You've already demonstrated that.
What's with the willful ignorance today?
"So what your saying is god is an alien... who would have thunk it?"
Heh. Anybody who believes God wasn't born on Earth, I suppose.
"So is driving at night, in the ran, snow, sleet, hail, etc etc."
That's why some states legally require you to have snow chains, for example.
" but if they cost $600 to add to a car, forget it"
It is doubtul they'll always be $600, technology does not work that way. In the mean time, parents buying new cars for their kids would probably not mind adding $600 to a $15,000 vehicle.
"My brakes don't even cost that much."
No, but your airbags are expensive. I haven't eyeballed the price in like the last 4 years but I do remember them carrying a $1,000 price tag at one point. (corrections invited.)
" Education is the key and if that doesn't work, heavy penalties that lawyers can't slime their way out of."
Education is not working RIGHT NOW. Why do you think there is desire to try something more sophisticated?
"What makes you believe that we don't?"
Think about what it took for us to even be able to have this conversation. Then consider that this happened despite our species being so diverse and combative. We're not galactic overlords, but we've done some amazing stuff.
" If some guy wants to port Firefox or OpenOffice to something off the wall like AROS or some other nearly unknown platform, let him."
On the other hand, if some guy makes some software because he wants to get it done quickly AND get it out to a lot of people, he could choose to develop for one platform and reap the benefits of it.
Just because Microsoft suggested it (and I SERIOUSLY doubt they were the first or the only one) doesn't mean it's bad, mmkay. It's all a matter of what your goals are when writing software.
Heck, I recently had this choice. I recently wrote a rather complex plugin for Lightwave using its native scripting language. (here's an image of it in action so you can get an idea of what it does...) One of the questions while developing it was "should it run on the Mac?" This question wasn't so simple to answer. Because it's LW's scripting language, the code (theoretically) works on any platform that Lightwave runs on, including OSX. However, the cost of that was that the code had to be tested on both the Mac and the PC. In the end, it also meant writing code specifically to make it work on the Mac. (fortunately, that wasn't TOO hard, but Mac's file system is a little bit different. I had to cook up a standard to adhere to when using files. Also, there were a couple of bugs in Lightwave specifically on OSX that I had to get around.)
In our case, we wanted greater portability. We wanted to support both the Mac and the PC. However, if we wanted to get it out sooner, the alternative would have been to focus on the PC version. Heck, I could have added a few 'windows only' features that would have been handy.
My point? It all depends on what your motivations are. Your way is right, in one scenario. It's totally wrong in another. The point of writing code is to create something useful for the end user, as opposed to entering it in a good code writing contest. Think about your goals and make the right choice. Don't base your choice on whether or not you look like Microsoft.
"Oh. Well. That's different. If it was on a news station it must be true."
I didn't say it was true. The point was that it wasn't a tabloid story.
"Just ask any stupid smoker why they're suicidal."
- Car drivers are suicidal.
- Alcohol drinkers are suicidal.
- Police officers are suicidal.
- Sky divers are suicidal.
- Chocolate eaters are suicidal.
Oh wait.. I mixed up 'suicidal' with 'health risk'.
"Make an assumption of the cost generated by accidents from drunk driving, and compare that to the total cost of equipping every car with this system."
My car history is fuzzy at best, but isn't that why Lee Iacoca (sp?) was generally hated?
"Guilt? LOL! What guilt is there in refusing to believe an unsupported claim?"
Heh. Nope. You also have an emotional attachment to an unsupportable position.
"Believe it? I've never really considered the question in terms of believing it or not. I hope so,"
Ah.. you're consistent. I respect that. (note: No sarcasm there, I promise.)
"Interesting?? It's WorldNetDaily. It's a tabloid."
Watch the video feed. The report is from a news station and presumably went on the air.
"Yeah, I think people have a hard time separating what they want to believe from what they have a reason to believe."
Belief in either case has its uses. If society were to work based solely on proof, we'd live in a rather primitive world.
If I were to boil that statement down into simpler terms, I'd say diversity has been a wonderful force on this planet. Unfortunately, lack of respect for that diversity isn't doing anybody a lot of good.
"You have an emotional attachement to an unsupportable position, and that's your own problem, not anyone else's."
You are no less guilty, my friend.
So, I gotta ask, do you believe life exists on other planets?
"I'm torn on this question. Belief is a weird thing. Belief in "god". No. Belief in a plausible scientific theory? Yes."
Are you really believing in a plausible scientific theory, or are you hoping it's true and finding reason later?
I ask because that's exactly the reason I believe life exists elsewhere. I'm confident quite of few others watched Star Trek and are hoping to find the same thing as well.
It's funny how opinions over the absurdity of 'belief' are born by one's own interests. It's a pity we measure people's IQ over their beliefs. We really have no right to cast stones.
"I mean, seriously, why would anyone believe that the only planet in the universe that supports life is this one?"
The same reason a lot of people don't believe there is a god. No proof.
"Then by that logic are we going to mandate that everyone have anti-lock brakes, side impact airbags, and every other piece of optional safety equipment on a car?"
No, but only for a subtle difference. Those devices protect the passengers, not the people on the outside. (Partial credit for anti-lock breaks, though.. Funny thing is, most insurance companies give you a discount if you do have AL breaks. So you do have an incentive, anyway.) These devices protect everybody else from your driving. They're more like break lights, turn signals, and hazard lights in that regard. All are mandated.
"The last thing I need is the government telling me I have to live in a padded room because I might hurt myself."
Again, the concern here is that you might hurt others. It's more like having to pass a bouncer to get into your car than being locked into a padded room.
" If anything, teach responsibility with alcohol instead, that would do much more good than a piece of equipment on a car,"
Do both. Resonsible alchol drinking has been taught for years. Drunk driving is still dangerous.
"And those people that are determined to drive after "a few" will find a way to do so."
After watching some 'real police videos' involving drunk drivers, I doubt that's the case. A lot of them get in their cars due to 'auto-pilot', not some higher reasoning in their brain.
"Think about it: how many adults are going to pay $600 for something that restricts the use of their car"
Just about any parent buying their kids a new car.
"Another invention for the some do-goodnik politician to make mandatory on our vehicles. As if they aren't expensive enough already."
A friend of mine came dangerously close to being paralyzed because of a drunk driver. $600 is cheaper than her medical bills.
"Gloves."
Gloves would prevent fingerprints from getting left, too. Funny, people are still busted by leaving fingerprints.
" I don't think I should be forced to replace my perfectly good steering wheel in my car with a $600 one that, to me, would be completely worthless."
It wouldn't be worthless if everybody else did it, too.
I don't drink either, but if it were mandated that we all had to get these on our cars, I wouldn't cry too much. I'm not afraid of me drinking while driving, I'm afraid of everybody else.
"What's to stop you from just wearing gloves"
It could require you to touch it, first.
That is besides the point, though. Just because it could be thwarted doesn't mean it'll be thwarted every single time. Heck, commiting a crime without leaving fingerprints is easy to do, but people still leave them around anyway. People STILL get busted because their face was caught on security cameras that are in plain view. In this case, the person thwarting it is really only guilty if they're drunk in the first place. How smart do you expect them to be, then?
"A technical solution to a behavioural problem... yeah, those always work."
It's hard to expect people who are drunk to respect social boundaries. Technical solutions are not precluded in this case.