"...nearly 6,000 people were killed and half a million injured in crashes involving distracted drivers in 2008."
There is a flaw in jumping to conclusions of causality with statements like this, and it's disappointing to see it repeated here on Slashdot.
The presence of a characteristic in a given scenario does not make it an influencing factor. Individual "distracting" actions are not necessarily causal factors - many of them (driving "fast", using a mobile phone, etc.) can arguably be done perfectly safely in the right circumstances. The causal factor is bad judgment: not understanding when it's prudent to slow down, when to ignore a phone call or hold off on texting in favor of driving more attentively because the situation calls for it, etc.
We do our society a disservice when we ban or try to eliminate everything that CAN be a danger if done foolishly, rather than try to redress the foolishness. It leads to needless restrictions that limit self-determination with little to no benefit.
(Note: I do believe it's fair to say that drunk driving is a causal factor in accidents - the difference being that alcohol is a cause of bad judgment while things like driving too fast for the conditions are an effect of bad judgment.)
"...encourage automobilists to drive less quickly, reducing the rates of passenger fatalities..."
We should also encourage people to eat less ice cream, reducing the rates of skin cancer. After all, places where people eat more ice cream see a higher incidence of skin cancer, so ice cream is clearly the cause.
There is a deep flaw with statements like, "Speed is a factor in X percent of fatal accidents", "Mobile phone use is a factor in X percent of crashes", etc. And it's sad to see this flaw repeated thoughtlessly on Slashdot, a community of people who purportedly believe in the scientific method.
The presence of a characteristic in a given scenario does not make it an influencing factor. These individual actions are not causal factors - many of them (driving "fast", using a mobile phone, etc.) can arguably be done perfectly safely in the right circumstances. The causal factor is bad judgment: not understanding when it's prudent to slow down, when to ignore a phone call in favor of driving more attentively because the situation calls for it, etc.
We do our society a disservice when we ban or try to eliminate everything that COULD be a danger if done foolishly, rather than try to redress the foolishness. It leads to needless restrictions that limit self-determination with little to no benefit.
(Note: I do believe it's fair to say that drunk driving is a factor in accidents - the difference being that alcohol is a cause of bad judgment while things like driving too fast for the conditions are an effect of bad judgment.)
I know this is might be silly, and I swear I'm not trying to piss anybody off. I really do want to know (so please hold the snark): What exactly is this controversy about?
When I buy computer hardware, I buy it so I can do the things it enables me to do. I'm not a hard-core gamer myself, but if I wanted to play a game that requires high-end performance from a video card, I would buy a high-end card so that I can play the game. I'm a developer and I like to tinker as much as the next guy, but if the manufacturer was kind enough to provide a software driver that's stable and delivers all the capabilities of the hardware into my hands, I can probably find better uses for my time than reinventing that wheel because I'm offended by their lack of transparency.
There is a LOT of discussion here already. I'm just not sure what about. I admire the FOSS community for its adherence to principles. But seriously - what do you ACTUALLY lose from using the proprietary driver that nVidia has specifically developed for your operating system, which many people here seem to concede works perfectly well, and that is provided to you free of charge when you buy the video card? Is this ACTUALLY a problem, or is it a matter of principle? And if it's the latter, what exactly are you fighting for, and why is it a priority vs. all the other problems in the tech world that heaven knows need solving?
Um, this doesn't catch anyone else as potentially really scary? What else might (now or eventually) sneak in and evade the immune system along with it?
I'm arguing that bad judgment - in this case not recognizing when it's ACTUALLY not appropriate to use your phone - was the cause of this accident.
I know this is an unpopular perspective, but it doesn't make it wrong.
Laws against speeding and laws against driving while intoxicated are two very different things. The speed at which you drive is a RESULT of your judgment, while alcohol in your system CAUSES bad judgment.
Anecdotal example: I have been driving for 18 years, 14 of which I have carried a cell phone, 10 of which texting has been a commonplace form of communication, only 2 of which using my phone behind the wheel has been illegal (in my home state). Not once to date have I caused an accident, either as a result of my speed or of using my phone.
Have I driven fast? Yes. Have I used my phone to talk/text while driving? Extensively. But I have had the common sense to understand (a) when I need to keep my speed down to be safe, and (b) when I need to ignore that incoming call because shifting my focus from the road/car to the phone would put me and/or others in danger.
Further, as I have gotten older I've recognized that my reflexes aren't what they were at 17, and I drive slowly enough to stay ahead of the car. If and when I have a close call (admittedly, it happens), I learn and apply a lesson in preventing it next time.
So: is it right that, because people like this woman can't make a good judgment call, people like me and many others -- who clearly are able to drive and use a cell phone within the boundaries of safety -- are prohibited from doing so by a sweeping, generalized law that, with the ostensible aim of legislating good judgment, completely fails to factor judgment into the equation?
Shouldn't your reaction be to find ways to make the ban more effective, rather than scrapping it?
Absolutely! My reaction to a law that restricts behavior without any measurable benefit should be, "How can the law be changed to restrict behavior more effectively?". Not, "Maybe the law is unnecessary and this behavior doesn't need need to be restricted".
This woman totaled 3 cars in 3 years because she's a bad driver and unaware of her limitations, not because there was a phone involved. Her dad uses his phone while driving as well, but near as I can determine, in the same 3 years has totaled zero cars.
Problem: You can't legislate good judgment.
Solution: Prohibit anything that could possibly be misused by someone with bad judgment?
"...the last thing people need during a disaster is Deanna Troi."
Really? So, in a place where thousands of people are burying whatever dead loved ones they're lucky enough to find, everybody will be just fine once the running water's fixed?
There's some people over here who might disagree with that perspective.
It's not that simple. If/when the US matches or exceeds China's "carrot" incentives for Ph.D. students to stay here after graduation, China will simply introduce stronger "stick" incentives for them to return home.
These students still have all their families in the old country. If there is a threat, say, of hardship for their loved ones if they fail to come back to China after earning their degrees, they'll be gone in a heartbeat no matter what the US offers them.
A more effective approach might be what many corporations do for employees who go to graduate or business school on the company's dime: require a latent time commitment at the firm after graduation. In international student terms, this could be the refusal of an exit visa for X years after graduation (stipulating that their new US-funded expertise is actually being put to use benefiting the American economy during that time). If you or your foreign sponsor would like to reimburse the US for the full retail cost of the education, you're free to go.
It actually handles really, really well. Holds the road super tight...that is, until the back end breaks loose. Once that happens, you're not getting it back - you'll pretty much spin like a top until whenever friction overcomes inertia.
The trouble is, the center of gravity is totally out of whack, somewhere along the lines of the older Porsche 911's - the engine is centered just slightly behind the rear axle. So when the back end tries to pass the front (which is basically what a skid is), it has plenty of physics helping it along. Granted, at 130hp you really have to try hard to slip the back wheels...but once you do it's a lost cause.
It's in the Science section because it raises a pretty relevant question of science and political power struggles.
I would like to see this forum touch more on the issue of how ethical is it for some hermit in Antarctica to enact an autonomous policy of forcefully discouraging tourism by giving stranded travelers the shaft.
Another "relevant" discussion that could ensue would be: Is the science of exploration really about contingency plans? Or is it more about doing the things we dare to do?
I'll bet This guy didn't have a contingency plan -- he still made Slashdot science news, though.
Except...
...this guy didn't ram his plane into a remote snowbank or something -- he landed it at a refueling station.
Imagine you're driving through Texas or Oklahoma or something, deep in the heart of nowhere. You've been driving into the wind so your gas ran out sooner than you expected. You pull into a gas station -- it's open, and they have gas. But they won't sell you any, because they want to discourage other outsiders like you from invading their space (which isn't even theirs; they only moved there last month). They say: Too bad, you should've had a contingency plan. They'd be happy to put you on the first bus home, though. They can even have your car towed for you if you want, at your expense.
"Most people in the world," as you put it, also can't say that they've ever worked a 90-hour week, or that they spent years training for the jobs they do and honing the complex skills that they are now able to offer to make other people's lives better/easier/more efficient.
"Most people in the world" don't do work from which they never take a break -- by which I mean, as most techies reading this know, that people who command an engineering salary (as an example) are *always* engineering -- at work, on the drive home, in the shower, over dinner, at social occasions, in the john, on vacation -- we're always processing the problems that we should now be so grateful to have the opportunity to solve.
"Most people in the world" eat, sleep, crap, and screw -- and do exactly the minimum amount of work required to make sure they can do the same again tomorrow. This is why you see precious little of what we've come to know as progress emerge from the places where "most people in the world" live.
This luck and fortune that you proclaim has befallen us so unfairly has by no means been served to us on a silver platter. Yes, you can say we are lucky ("luck" being defined as "that which happens when preparation meets opportunity") to be able to provide for ourselves in the way that we do. But before you go telling people not to complain because their standard of living is already disproportionately high, take into account there's more to "standard of living" than salary or the quality/quantity of things that you own.
If you take into account aspects like "free time after work" or "days spent at the park playing soccer instead of sitting in class" and "nights spent relaxing and partying instead of writing papers and preparing for exams," you'll realize that we the underworked, overpaid, ungrateful people who have the audacity to complain of insufficient raises really aren't all that much better off than "most people in the world."
What if, along with a checkbox marked "weapons," they also had a checkbox marked "Open Source"? Meaning, any sites that promote Open Source software would be blocked, but sites (such as Microsoft's, which oppose Open Source, would get through?
Or perhaps a checkbox marked "abortion," which would block the likes of Planned Parenthood but let the pro-lifers through?
Or a "piracy" checkbox, which would let in the RIAA but block EFF, etc.?
None of these would be in the interest of children's protection, no more than the "weapons" fiasco is about the kids. Symantec has no business infringing on the internet exposure granted to groups of one political inclination vs. another. Except that...in this case it seems they do have some business in it, since (presumably) their sales go up on the claims that they're shielding your children from the evil, nasty guns that kill people, and from the slimy predators that promote them. Right? Um...
I have been trying to implement an incremental backup solution (as outlined in a couple of posts in this thread) with the initial 'full' backup on DVD's and the 'increments' on CD's. I'm working with a small Windows network (slight pause for the boos and hisses from the Linux crowd).
I've got all the hardware, but I can't seem to find a piece of software that's built for incremental backup to non-tape media. The closest I've found is NTI BackupNOW, but after much frustration I discovered that even their software won't support DVD-R(W) for some months to come.
Has anyone actually **SUCCEEDED** in setting up such a backup system? Bonus question - has anyone had to restore data from this kind of setup?
Slashdot Mirror
"The other day, I've seen some idiot..."
Jesus Bastard Christ - is that what's become of the English language since the U.S. gained its independence?
"...nearly 6,000 people were killed and half a million injured in crashes involving distracted drivers in 2008."
There is a flaw in jumping to conclusions of causality with statements like this, and it's disappointing to see it repeated here on Slashdot.
The presence of a characteristic in a given scenario does not make it an influencing factor. Individual "distracting" actions are not necessarily causal factors - many of them (driving "fast", using a mobile phone, etc.) can arguably be done perfectly safely in the right circumstances. The causal factor is bad judgment: not understanding when it's prudent to slow down, when to ignore a phone call or hold off on texting in favor of driving more attentively because the situation calls for it, etc.
We do our society a disservice when we ban or try to eliminate everything that CAN be a danger if done foolishly, rather than try to redress the foolishness. It leads to needless restrictions that limit self-determination with little to no benefit.
(Note: I do believe it's fair to say that drunk driving is a causal factor in accidents - the difference being that alcohol is a cause of bad judgment while things like driving too fast for the conditions are an effect of bad judgment.)
"...encourage automobilists to drive less quickly, reducing the rates of passenger fatalities..."
We should also encourage people to eat less ice cream, reducing the rates of skin cancer. After all, places where people eat more ice cream see a higher incidence of skin cancer, so ice cream is clearly the cause.
There is a deep flaw with statements like, "Speed is a factor in X percent of fatal accidents", "Mobile phone use is a factor in X percent of crashes", etc. And it's sad to see this flaw repeated thoughtlessly on Slashdot, a community of people who purportedly believe in the scientific method.
The presence of a characteristic in a given scenario does not make it an influencing factor. These individual actions are not causal factors - many of them (driving "fast", using a mobile phone, etc.) can arguably be done perfectly safely in the right circumstances. The causal factor is bad judgment: not understanding when it's prudent to slow down, when to ignore a phone call in favor of driving more attentively because the situation calls for it, etc.
We do our society a disservice when we ban or try to eliminate everything that COULD be a danger if done foolishly, rather than try to redress the foolishness. It leads to needless restrictions that limit self-determination with little to no benefit.
(Note: I do believe it's fair to say that drunk driving is a factor in accidents - the difference being that alcohol is a cause of bad judgment while things like driving too fast for the conditions are an effect of bad judgment.)
I know this is might be silly, and I swear I'm not trying to piss anybody off. I really do want to know (so please hold the snark): What exactly is this controversy about?
When I buy computer hardware, I buy it so I can do the things it enables me to do. I'm not a hard-core gamer myself, but if I wanted to play a game that requires high-end performance from a video card, I would buy a high-end card so that I can play the game. I'm a developer and I like to tinker as much as the next guy, but if the manufacturer was kind enough to provide a software driver that's stable and delivers all the capabilities of the hardware into my hands, I can probably find better uses for my time than reinventing that wheel because I'm offended by their lack of transparency.
There is a LOT of discussion here already. I'm just not sure what about. I admire the FOSS community for its adherence to principles. But seriously - what do you ACTUALLY lose from using the proprietary driver that nVidia has specifically developed for your operating system, which many people here seem to concede works perfectly well, and that is provided to you free of charge when you buy the video card? Is this ACTUALLY a problem, or is it a matter of principle? And if it's the latter, what exactly are you fighting for, and why is it a priority vs. all the other problems in the tech world that heaven knows need solving?
"it sneaks in, evades the immune system..."
Um, this doesn't catch anyone else as potentially really scary? What else might (now or eventually) sneak in and evade the immune system along with it?
Not that it's relevant to anything, but Hollywood touched on this subject a few years ago.
http://www.rockyourphone.com/index.php/mywi.html
Handy little utility to turn your iPhone into a wi-fi hotspot so you can tether any wi-fi enabled device, including the iPad.
(Disclaimer: I haven't used it personally, but it comes highly recommended.)
I'm arguing that bad judgment - in this case not recognizing when it's ACTUALLY not appropriate to use your phone - was the cause of this accident.
I know this is an unpopular perspective, but it doesn't make it wrong.
Laws against speeding and laws against driving while intoxicated are two very different things. The speed at which you drive is a RESULT of your judgment, while alcohol in your system CAUSES bad judgment.
Anecdotal example: I have been driving for 18 years, 14 of which I have carried a cell phone, 10 of which texting has been a commonplace form of communication, only 2 of which using my phone behind the wheel has been illegal (in my home state). Not once to date have I caused an accident, either as a result of my speed or of using my phone.
Have I driven fast? Yes. Have I used my phone to talk/text while driving? Extensively. But I have had the common sense to understand (a) when I need to keep my speed down to be safe, and (b) when I need to ignore that incoming call because shifting my focus from the road/car to the phone would put me and/or others in danger.
Further, as I have gotten older I've recognized that my reflexes aren't what they were at 17, and I drive slowly enough to stay ahead of the car. If and when I have a close call (admittedly, it happens), I learn and apply a lesson in preventing it next time.
So: is it right that, because people like this woman can't make a good judgment call, people like me and many others -- who clearly are able to drive and use a cell phone within the boundaries of safety -- are prohibited from doing so by a sweeping, generalized law that, with the ostensible aim of legislating good judgment, completely fails to factor judgment into the equation?
Shouldn't your reaction be to find ways to make the ban more effective, rather than scrapping it?
Absolutely! My reaction to a law that restricts behavior without any measurable benefit should be, "How can the law be changed to restrict behavior more effectively?". Not, "Maybe the law is unnecessary and this behavior doesn't need need to be restricted".
Correlation != Causation.
This woman totaled 3 cars in 3 years because she's a bad driver and unaware of her limitations, not because there was a phone involved. Her dad uses his phone while driving as well, but near as I can determine, in the same 3 years has totaled zero cars.
Problem: You can't legislate good judgment.
Solution: Prohibit anything that could possibly be misused by someone with bad judgment?
/ There has to be a better way...
"...the last thing people need during a disaster is Deanna Troi."
Really? So, in a place where thousands of people are burying whatever dead loved ones they're lucky enough to find, everybody will be just fine once the running water's fixed?
There's some people over here who might disagree with that perspective.
It's not that simple. If/when the US matches or exceeds China's "carrot" incentives for Ph.D. students to stay here after graduation, China will simply introduce stronger "stick" incentives for them to return home.
These students still have all their families in the old country. If there is a threat, say, of hardship for their loved ones if they fail to come back to China after earning their degrees, they'll be gone in a heartbeat no matter what the US offers them.
A more effective approach might be what many corporations do for employees who go to graduate or business school on the company's dime: require a latent time commitment at the firm after graduation. In international student terms, this could be the refusal of an exit visa for X years after graduation (stipulating that their new US-funded expertise is actually being put to use benefiting the American economy during that time). If you or your foreign sponsor would like to reimburse the US for the full retail cost of the education, you're free to go.
Another Delorean owner here...
It actually handles really, really well. Holds the road super tight...that is, until the back end breaks loose. Once that happens, you're not getting it back - you'll pretty much spin like a top until whenever friction overcomes inertia.
The trouble is, the center of gravity is totally out of whack, somewhere along the lines of the older Porsche 911's - the engine is centered just slightly behind the rear axle. So when the back end tries to pass the front (which is basically what a skid is), it has plenty of physics helping it along. Granted, at 130hp you really have to try hard to slip the back wheels...but once you do it's a lost cause.
From the same base as the one that won't sell this guy fuel, no less (because now they want to discourage tourism).
Yeah, that makes sense...
I would like to see this forum touch more on the issue of how ethical is it for some hermit in Antarctica to enact an autonomous policy of forcefully discouraging tourism by giving stranded travelers the shaft.
Another "relevant" discussion that could ensue would be: Is the science of exploration really about contingency plans? Or is it more about doing the things we dare to do?
I'll bet This guy didn't have a contingency plan -- he still made Slashdot science news, though.
Imagine you're driving through Texas or Oklahoma or something, deep in the heart of nowhere. You've been driving into the wind so your gas ran out sooner than you expected. You pull into a gas station -- it's open, and they have gas. But they won't sell you any, because they want to discourage other outsiders like you from invading their space (which isn't even theirs; they only moved there last month). They say: Too bad, you should've had a contingency plan. They'd be happy to put you on the first bus home, though. They can even have your car towed for you if you want, at your expense.
Great attitude, diptwats.
"Most people in the world" don't do work from which they never take a break -- by which I mean, as most techies reading this know, that people who command an engineering salary (as an example) are *always* engineering -- at work, on the drive home, in the shower, over dinner, at social occasions, in the john, on vacation -- we're always processing the problems that we should now be so grateful to have the opportunity to solve.
"Most people in the world" eat, sleep, crap, and screw -- and do exactly the minimum amount of work required to make sure they can do the same again tomorrow. This is why you see precious little of what we've come to know as progress emerge from the places where "most people in the world" live.
This luck and fortune that you proclaim has befallen us so unfairly has by no means been served to us on a silver platter. Yes, you can say we are lucky ("luck" being defined as "that which happens when preparation meets opportunity") to be able to provide for ourselves in the way that we do. But before you go telling people not to complain because their standard of living is already disproportionately high, take into account there's more to "standard of living" than salary or the quality/quantity of things that you own.
If you take into account aspects like "free time after work" or "days spent at the park playing soccer instead of sitting in class" and "nights spent relaxing and partying instead of writing papers and preparing for exams," you'll realize that we the underworked, overpaid, ungrateful people who have the audacity to complain of insufficient raises really aren't all that much better off than "most people in the world."
What if, along with a checkbox marked "weapons," they also had a checkbox marked "Open Source"? Meaning, any sites that promote Open Source software would be blocked, but sites (such as Microsoft's, which oppose Open Source, would get through?
Or perhaps a checkbox marked "abortion," which would block the likes of Planned Parenthood but let the pro-lifers through?
Or a "piracy" checkbox, which would let in the RIAA but block EFF, etc.?
None of these would be in the interest of children's protection, no more than the "weapons" fiasco is about the kids. Symantec has no business infringing on the internet exposure granted to groups of one political inclination vs. another. Except that...in this case it seems they do have some business in it, since (presumably) their sales go up on the claims that they're shielding your children from the evil, nasty guns that kill people, and from the slimy predators that promote them. Right? Um...
I've got all the hardware, but I can't seem to find a piece of software that's built for incremental backup to non-tape media. The closest I've found is NTI BackupNOW, but after much frustration I discovered that even their software won't support DVD-R(W) for some months to come.
Has anyone actually **SUCCEEDED** in setting up such a backup system? Bonus question - has anyone had to restore data from this kind of setup?