That doesn't prove anything about red light cameras being effective. *Any* tool can be misused. You don't throw a tool out because the person wielding it is doing something bad with it.
Or perhaps, overall things are dropping but they are seeing a significant increase in this type of activity causing accidents? i.e. it would be better still if not for the Darwin candidates chattering away on their phones?
I've always maintained the issue isn't the use a handheld phone, but the simply focus on the remote conversation that causes these accidents. It certainly happens to a lesser extent with a live passenger, but when you have to visualize the entire conversation via the phone/headset it's much more intensive and that means you have less resources available for the road.
Banning 'all' phone use while driving is a reasonable solution to the actual problem. Never going to happen, but it makes sense.
If a website wants to actually host the ads themselves, they'll get seen by me. I simply refuse to whitelist an ad 'domain'. Host them yourselves and you'll get the benefit. Farm them out and you'll get what you pay for...nothing.
If you shut down other power sources, their risk stops. Nuclear gets to live on for centuries in the spent fuel.
And yes coal is far and away the most dangerous. But that's a different danger, those dangers are from normal operation. You 'could' filter out the CO2 emissions and other pollutants and blast open pit mines everywhere and pretty much all the coal dangers go away. It would make it considerably more expensive though.
We choose not to do that because the dangers of coal are long term, not immediate failure conditions. You can plan for and mitigate 'known' conditions. You can't do that for failure conditions precisely because things have 'failed'.
Coal being deadly doesn't mean nuclear is 'safe'. The space shuttle was considered pretty safe right up until the Columbia disaster. Then we realized we were just damned lucky. Fukishima was considered 'safe' too.
1. You can go in and clean it up without worry the very next day.
2. You can adequately plan for the failure condition, no dwellings in the river basin down river. Or at the very least, build high ground for people to escape too.
You simply can't do that with nuclear. Unless making an area of 100 sq miles off limits to residential zoning seems reasonable.
as a serious question, is the quick charger carried with the 'i'? Because the biggest problem with electrics right now besides fueling 'times' is places capable of offering such a quick charge.
Show me a good electric car at a price and performance comparable to the equivalent gasoline car.
Well, to be fair, Hydrogen cars are going to be 'electric'. You don't BURN the hydrogen, you use a fuel cell.
This is one issue most people conflate. 'Electric' vs 'Hydrogen' is like 'Internal Combustion' vs 'Gas'. They aren't always the same things. We need more cars like the Volt in the sense that the propulsion is electrically powered. We can provide that electricity now via on board gas generators and switch to batteries or hydrogen fuel cells when they mature but we need to get the cars 'running' on electricity first. Doing both together is going to be a longer and harder process because the battery tech isn't there nor is the hydrogen fuel distribution system.
I'm a big fan of hydrogen and think it is the best answer long term, but we should focus initial efforts on making the fleet capable of operating electrically.
Just like I know that nuclear power is actually relatively safe
Everything is safe when it isn't breaking. It's the breaking part that makes things unsafe and when nuclear reactors 'break' they are highly 'unsafe'. There's a reason why they have massive redundancies built into every single point of failure. Failure simply isn't an option with nuclear.
So while you can minimize the likelihood of failure from planned activities...it's the unplanned things, like tsunami's, that tend to really screw you up.
This is why nuclear is a bad option. It's ridiculously expensive because of the risks, massive redundancy needed and of course spent fuel storage for centuries. It will be necessary for another 50-100 years unfortunately but we'll get off it as renewable sources and battery tech gets better. They simply don't have the risks that nuclear will always have.
There ought to be a law that bans electoral bodies from passing laws with provisions to make the voting body an exception to the law being passed.
Except that these are exceptionally cheap to operate. If you ban them altogether, then you make running for office that much more expensive. Political 'speech' is not something to be restricted lightly.
Whatever the cable companies decide to let you do, cutting your bill is not among them. Their incremental cost of providing you with channels is essentially zero.
Not exactly. The cost to provide additional 'channels' is insignificant. The cost to provide 'content' for those channels is rather expensive for anything worth watching.
Just watch the standard bickering between sports channels and the various big Cable Co's over pricing.
"It's digital, I can jut copy and share it at no cost to me. Screw the author and his expense for creating the original copy."
Well to be fair there was no cost to the author to create the 'copy' either.
So what artists, photographers, writers, etc should be charging for is the 'creation' of art not the sale of a copy that cost nothing to make.
Or what the creators should so is leverage the infinite copy ability to drive sales of things that are not infinite. Like the support of your software, see Red Hat for an example. Who knows your stuff better than you do? THAT is the scarce good that simply can't be replicated easily or infinitely.
The photographer should be publishing his pictures far and wide to drive more people to purchase his 'skill' at taking pictures. As the internet shows, this is not a common skill but something fairly rare. Selling the digital 'copy' is just selling something it took you nothing to create, and yes that is morally wrong.
Sadly, who enforces that if its unjustly classified? The judges that were appointed by the branch of government who made it classified?
One would hope there would be truly independent judges who would fly in the face of such activity, but I'm quite sure in 25 years we'll find out that LOTS of information was classified as 'national security' because if it got out it would make Bush, and now Obama, simply look bad and that would hurt our prestige in the world. Hence that's a security threat. And the judges signed off on it.
Hell we have literal 'secret laws' now where they won't even say what they 'think it means' citing national security concerns.
Or take the Islamic group that was accidentally mailed a copy of the case against them using the Patriot Act (I think), that the gov't argued was classified so they couldn't use as evidence. It was known data because it had been seen outside of classified circles, yet they couldn't use it to challenge the very law they were using to investigate them.
We're on the road to hell...just a question of whether we can find the stones to turn ourselves around.
Sorry, you're missing the point. They took a separate product, IE, that was losing to the competition and bundled it into windows in such a way that MS claimed it was impossible to remove. Why did they do that? Perhaps to make it that much less likely that someone would switch browsers.
Dell, Compaq, etc were unable to offer Windows without IE, so why would they bother to include a different browser? That's leveraging your existing monopoly to try and create a 2nd monopoly. That is what is illegal.
Just because you *could* install a different browser doesn't mean it isn't in violation of anti-trust laws. A browser is a program and not part of the operating system. You don't *need* the browser to use the computer. Even device drivers aren't directly tied to the system, I can quite easily replace them with another version or even one from another software source.
Yet IE, with all it's vulnerabilities, was tied directly into the heart of Windows. So even if I could install something else, i'm stuck with all it's vulnerabilities even though I don't use it.
Your evidence of ringtone isn't relevant. It isn't part of the OS of the phone. Sure it might be in the firmware and reinstalled on a hard reset, but it's still entirely replaceable. Besides it's a 'data' file, not an actual program.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't prove anything about red light cameras being effective. *Any* tool can be misused. You don't throw a tool out because the person wielding it is doing something bad with it.
Dissolving a solid into a liquid doesn't change it's mass.
My favorite exchange was this (Paraphrased from memory):
La Forge: But the specifications say no more than X!
Scotty: Who do you think WROTE the specifications?
the car won't let him change anything if it detects the vehicle is in motion
What about passengers? Putting controls on the steering wheel but then making them unusable while moving is laughably useless.
Verizon called, they closed a lane because you were driving excessively but within the speed limit they imposed... ;-)
Or perhaps, overall things are dropping but they are seeing a significant increase in this type of activity causing accidents? i.e. it would be better still if not for the Darwin candidates chattering away on their phones?
I've always maintained the issue isn't the use a handheld phone, but the simply focus on the remote conversation that causes these accidents. It certainly happens to a lesser extent with a live passenger, but when you have to visualize the entire conversation via the phone/headset it's much more intensive and that means you have less resources available for the road.
Banning 'all' phone use while driving is a reasonable solution to the actual problem. Never going to happen, but it makes sense.
got a link to the Turbo-Tax mucking? I would be interested in reading about it.
mod points if I had'em. Too damned funny!
The option of a full ad-block is within the program
For now.
you just have to tick one extra box to enable it
For now.
at which point it will most likely stay for every update until you chose to disable it
For now.
Once AdBlock Plus is corrupted by being 'paid' by an advertiser so it can be considered 'safe', the game is up.
What if someone paid McAfee/Norton to have their EXE get past the scanners? Would you consider that a good idea?
If a website wants to actually host the ads themselves, they'll get seen by me. I simply refuse to whitelist an ad 'domain'. Host them yourselves and you'll get the benefit. Farm them out and you'll get what you pay for...nothing.
No real argument. Nuclear has to be part of our solution for the next 50-100 years or so. We simply can't afford to burn enough coal to replace it.
If you shut down other power sources, their risk stops. Nuclear gets to live on for centuries in the spent fuel.
And yes coal is far and away the most dangerous. But that's a different danger, those dangers are from normal operation. You 'could' filter out the CO2 emissions and other pollutants and blast open pit mines everywhere and pretty much all the coal dangers go away. It would make it considerably more expensive though.
We choose not to do that because the dangers of coal are long term, not immediate failure conditions. You can plan for and mitigate 'known' conditions. You can't do that for failure conditions precisely because things have 'failed'.
Coal being deadly doesn't mean nuclear is 'safe'. The space shuttle was considered pretty safe right up until the Columbia disaster. Then we realized we were just damned lucky. Fukishima was considered 'safe' too.
Two main differences:
1. You can go in and clean it up without worry the very next day.
2. You can adequately plan for the failure condition, no dwellings in the river basin down river. Or at the very least, build high ground for people to escape too.
You simply can't do that with nuclear. Unless making an area of 100 sq miles off limits to residential zoning seems reasonable.
as a serious question, is the quick charger carried with the 'i'? Because the biggest problem with electrics right now besides fueling 'times' is places capable of offering such a quick charge.
Show me a good electric car at a price and performance comparable to the equivalent gasoline car.
Well, to be fair, Hydrogen cars are going to be 'electric'. You don't BURN the hydrogen, you use a fuel cell.
This is one issue most people conflate. 'Electric' vs 'Hydrogen' is like 'Internal Combustion' vs 'Gas'. They aren't always the same things. We need more cars like the Volt in the sense that the propulsion is electrically powered. We can provide that electricity now via on board gas generators and switch to batteries or hydrogen fuel cells when they mature but we need to get the cars 'running' on electricity first. Doing both together is going to be a longer and harder process because the battery tech isn't there nor is the hydrogen fuel distribution system.
I'm a big fan of hydrogen and think it is the best answer long term, but we should focus initial efforts on making the fleet capable of operating electrically.
Just like I know that nuclear power is actually relatively safe
Everything is safe when it isn't breaking. It's the breaking part that makes things unsafe and when nuclear reactors 'break' they are highly 'unsafe'. There's a reason why they have massive redundancies built into every single point of failure. Failure simply isn't an option with nuclear.
So while you can minimize the likelihood of failure from planned activities...it's the unplanned things, like tsunami's, that tend to really screw you up.
This is why nuclear is a bad option. It's ridiculously expensive because of the risks, massive redundancy needed and of course spent fuel storage for centuries. It will be necessary for another 50-100 years unfortunately but we'll get off it as renewable sources and battery tech gets better. They simply don't have the risks that nuclear will always have.
So 'public' messages will be provided to LOC in 'public'.
'private' messages will be provided to LOC in 'private'....?
"Oops, we forgot to filter by private flag!"
There ought to be a law that bans electoral bodies from passing laws with provisions to make the voting body an exception to the law being passed.
Except that these are exceptionally cheap to operate. If you ban them altogether, then you make running for office that much more expensive. Political 'speech' is not something to be restricted lightly.
Whatever the cable companies decide to let you do, cutting your bill is not among them. Their incremental cost of providing you with channels is essentially zero.
Not exactly. The cost to provide additional 'channels' is insignificant. The cost to provide 'content' for those channels is rather expensive for anything worth watching.
Just watch the standard bickering between sports channels and the various big Cable Co's over pricing.
Let me choose about 20 channels, and cut my bill about 70%
Add in 40% service fee for the 'option' to choose and you're probably closer to the reality of it...
"It's digital, I can jut copy and share it at no cost to me. Screw the author and his expense for creating the original copy."
Well to be fair there was no cost to the author to create the 'copy' either.
So what artists, photographers, writers, etc should be charging for is the 'creation' of art not the sale of a copy that cost nothing to make.
Or what the creators should so is leverage the infinite copy ability to drive sales of things that are not infinite. Like the support of your software, see Red Hat for an example. Who knows your stuff better than you do? THAT is the scarce good that simply can't be replicated easily or infinitely.
The photographer should be publishing his pictures far and wide to drive more people to purchase his 'skill' at taking pictures. As the internet shows, this is not a common skill but something fairly rare. Selling the digital 'copy' is just selling something it took you nothing to create, and yes that is morally wrong.
It was the 20 year time period that really made me wonder. This is the internet...odds are FB won't be around for 10 years, let alone 20.
Sadly, who enforces that if its unjustly classified? The judges that were appointed by the branch of government who made it classified?
One would hope there would be truly independent judges who would fly in the face of such activity, but I'm quite sure in 25 years we'll find out that LOTS of information was classified as 'national security' because if it got out it would make Bush, and now Obama, simply look bad and that would hurt our prestige in the world. Hence that's a security threat. And the judges signed off on it.
Hell we have literal 'secret laws' now where they won't even say what they 'think it means' citing national security concerns.
Or take the Islamic group that was accidentally mailed a copy of the case against them using the Patriot Act (I think), that the gov't argued was classified so they couldn't use as evidence. It was known data because it had been seen outside of classified circles, yet they couldn't use it to challenge the very law they were using to investigate them.
We're on the road to hell...just a question of whether we can find the stones to turn ourselves around.
Expect an even worse version to be submitted in the US in the near future.
You sir are a pessimist.
This is *America*. We can do censorship BETTER than anyone else...and we will!
Sorry, you're missing the point. They took a separate product, IE, that was losing to the competition and bundled it into windows in such a way that MS claimed it was impossible to remove. Why did they do that? Perhaps to make it that much less likely that someone would switch browsers.
Dell, Compaq, etc were unable to offer Windows without IE, so why would they bother to include a different browser? That's leveraging your existing monopoly to try and create a 2nd monopoly. That is what is illegal.
Just because you *could* install a different browser doesn't mean it isn't in violation of anti-trust laws. A browser is a program and not part of the operating system. You don't *need* the browser to use the computer. Even device drivers aren't directly tied to the system, I can quite easily replace them with another version or even one from another software source.
Yet IE, with all it's vulnerabilities, was tied directly into the heart of Windows. So even if I could install something else, i'm stuck with all it's vulnerabilities even though I don't use it.
Your evidence of ringtone isn't relevant. It isn't part of the OS of the phone. Sure it might be in the firmware and reinstalled on a hard reset, but it's still entirely replaceable. Besides it's a 'data' file, not an actual program.