It isn't an either or thing. Alcohol decreases your ability to perform tasks that are necessary to driving a car. There's a quantitative blood alcohol limit in the law because it's something we can measure quantitatively. Fatigue is something that's more difficult to measure quantitatively, but the law here is against impaired driving - impairment can be alcohol, other drugs, fatigue, not wearing your glasses, being in an unfit emotional state, anything that causes you not to be able to operate a vehicle acceptably. Most of those things are a bit hard to measure though. In Canada there have been several initiatives against fatigued driving, including publicity and legally mandating rest stops at regular intervals on major highways. When I was in Australia this spring they had billboards up at regular intervals along the highway urging tired drivers to pull over and sleep. In Europe commercial vehicles have devices to monitor how long a driver has been driving and exceeding those limits, which are checked, is a crime.
Your original post came across as suggesting that drinking and driving is probably not a problem, or at least hasn't been shown to be unsafe. It has. So has driving tired. Lots of places are doing something about the latter, as well as the former.
Or maybe I'm just more honest with myself about my level of impairment. We'd probably been drinking a a couple beers an hour, plus some wine and whisky. I wasn't showing any outward signs of intoxication, certainly nobody I was with would think I was drunk, but at 0.08 you are impaired, and if you're honest you can notice it.
Then again, as a hang glider pilot I'm used to monitoring my abilities. There's a reason most decent pilots won't drink at all before they fly.
The hot chick on the billboard, their favourite song on the radio, the mean thing their boss said to them yesterday....
Personally I think that the driving test should involve adjusting the radio, talking on the phone, carrying on a conversation with the tester, having a couple of kids in the back seat and drinking a coffee, in the winter. With a blood alcohol level of half the legal limit. Test people in realistic to severe circumstances to see if they perform adequately, not ideal ones.
I actually did my driver training in the winter (not the test, but the training course). One evening as the instructor and I were doing some highway driving a blizzard was starting. We were going up a hill with a cliff on one side. She was going to take over at the top because conditions were getting too bad. An 18 wheeler decided to pass us. At the same time a dead deer appeared in my lane. There was JUST enough room to go between the deer and the truck.
Of course. Sitting on the couch not eating is much easier than exercise. And the two together get better results than either alone. But most people who get sufficient exercise tend to find themselves eating better anyway, and that includes not going for extreme diets that leave them crapping their pants.
Except that's not what he said. He said that people who are drunk and alone are more likely to fall asleep, regardless of the involvement of a car. It turns out he's right, about that at least. The physiological effects of alcohol are well studied.
It's possible that drunk people do NOT fall asleep as readily when they're operating a car for some reason. However, since they also get into more collisions, that doesn't seem likely.
This is all supposing that there aren't any controlled studies of alcohol and cars, together. There are. It's not that difficult to find a track or a driving simulator and some volunteers to get sloshed. Even the Mythbusters have done it.
Are there no dangerous driving laws where you live? Around here you can get a charged for impaired driving (drugs, alcohol, excessive tiredness) or dangerous driving because you were just being an idiot for no apparent reason.
So you stipulate that having a high blood alcohol level has been shown to cause people to have an increased tendency to fall asleep if alone and take increased risks if not? There's also plenty of evidence to show that reaction time is slower when you've got a high BAC.
So besides disliking the politics of MADD, what's your position? That we should just let drunk drivers, who are more prone to fall asleep, take increased risks, and have slowed reaction times, drive around anyway?
I was at a beer festival recently. Leaving, I was tipsy enough that there was no way I'd consider driving. I'm sure I could have done it, and it probably wouldn't have been a problem even, but I knew I was noticeably intoxicated and the risk was unacceptable. At the door they had a booth with breathalyzer tests. I was curious, so I did one. 0.04. I can't imagine driving at 0.08.
Yeah, the 4 foot difference in stopping distance from mentally shifting focus is DEFINITELY on par with the 88 foot difference from looking at your phone for a few seconds.
I think the point is that the danger lies in activities that take your eyes off the road. That's pretty easy to believe. If you're not looking you might crash into things. The whole "shifting mental focus" thing is a lot more tenuous. It might be true, it might not.
Where I used to work there was someone who put up no parking signs on their fence. I guess they parked their RV in their yard and wanted to be able to get it in and out. The city allows for a driveway, but you can't just say your entire frontage is no parking. Even so, the sign ensured that spot was almost always vacant. I parked there for a couple of years.
They're more similar to phone interfaces than desktop interfaces, but they're not the same. It's too bad Android courses are emphasizing that. Apple specifically recommends designing individual app UIs for iPhones and iPads, even if they're combined in one app. Some of the most used UI elements, split views and popovers, aren't available on the iPhone. Looks like Google agrees.
I'm to sure where you got yurts from. The suggestion is that quite a few problems might be solved if children (never mind adults) didn't undergo an average of 20 courses of antibiotics, many unnecessary, before they become adults.
The GP is using antibacterial in it's literal sense. Bleach is antibacterial. However, many things that are labelled "antibacterial" use antibiotics, which can lead to resistance.
The classification "mobile" is silly. "Tablet" is decent. Smartphone is okay. Laptop/notebook, good.
All of those devices are mobile, but each has a unique UI requirements due to screen size and input method. If you want to throw subnotebook in there as another class too (netbook is another silly name, at least for the devices it actually gets applied to) I could go for that.
It gets even sillier when you consider other devices. There are lots of things that have small screens and use UIs that follow a "mobile" paradigm, from printer control panels to digital thermostats. Here's a fridge that runs Android... I sure wouldn't call it mobile.
Windows 8 seems to be making the unfortunate mistake of taking a UI paradigm developed for a smart phone (small screen, touch interface) and shoe horned onto a tablet (medium size screen, touch interface) and forcing it's use on desktops and notebooks (medium to large screen, keyboard and mouse interface). In the other direction, small screen touch interface devices (Palm pilots, but now smart phones) took off when they got a UI designed specifically for them, and the tablet market took off when Apple decided not to stick a desktop UI (or a smartphone UI) onto theirs. Google came to the same conclusions with Honeycomb.
Except the empty space between icons isn't "unused," it's there so you don't hit more than one at a time. The black bar seems to be wasted space with no purpose.
No, it's a smart phone interface. At least the parts the PARC researcher is specifically highlighting. Not to mention "mobile device" is silly - my notebook is a mobile device. So is a dumb phone.
Small screen devices like smart phones pretty much need to have things full screen, even if it's just a confirmation dialog. On a notebook or desktop computer that would obviously (obvious except to MS I guess) be highly irritating. On tablets it's irritating too - notice that Android on tablets doesn't (always) use that UI paradigm and iPads don't either. Apple specifically told all their developers not to use the navigation bar screen to screen interface design on the iPad but rather to use things like split views and popup dialogs/menus. The floating split view window in the portrait orientation on an iPad is very similar in form to the start menu.
You can feel free to replace "credit card numbers" with whatever piece of sensitive information you like. If the device can leave the building it shouldn't have sensitive information on it, and it shouldn't have access to sensitive information, at least not without a separate form of authentication. What difference does it make who owns it?
That sounds like poor security to start with. If the device is leaving the building (or COULD leave the building) the network shouldn't trust it with important things, especially not without a separate piece of information, like an RSA key fob value.
It doesn't matter whether it's a company laptop, somebody's personal phone or home computer, if it's not physically secured it shouldn't be trusted.
They essentially did that, except the monthly maintenance fee might not be exactly what you'd call small, but it covers most people entirely.
What they, and the wired data providers, should be required to do is either a) charge a fair per GB rate, regardless of how much you use, or b) if it's too cheap to meter just have a truly unlimited flat rate. Any combination of the two, including caps and unreasonable per GB overage charges is abusive.
Yes, regular currencies fluctuate. But they aren't anything like as volatile as Bitcoin. IF Bitcoin catches on and IF it's infrastructure ends up being stable enough to support a major currency, THEN bitcoin may become a commonly used currency. Currently that is not the case.
Many people don't need to carry around things like credit card numbers. Actually, why would ANYONE need to carry around credit card numbers? That sounds like something that should always remain on the server, locked in a closet somewhere in the company's building.
I don't work in industry but frequent glances over the stuff the business people are always pecking away at on their notebooks and Blackberries seems to indicate that most of it is boring busywork.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't an either or thing. Alcohol decreases your ability to perform tasks that are necessary to driving a car. There's a quantitative blood alcohol limit in the law because it's something we can measure quantitatively. Fatigue is something that's more difficult to measure quantitatively, but the law here is against impaired driving - impairment can be alcohol, other drugs, fatigue, not wearing your glasses, being in an unfit emotional state, anything that causes you not to be able to operate a vehicle acceptably. Most of those things are a bit hard to measure though. In Canada there have been several initiatives against fatigued driving, including publicity and legally mandating rest stops at regular intervals on major highways. When I was in Australia this spring they had billboards up at regular intervals along the highway urging tired drivers to pull over and sleep. In Europe commercial vehicles have devices to monitor how long a driver has been driving and exceeding those limits, which are checked, is a crime.
Your original post came across as suggesting that drinking and driving is probably not a problem, or at least hasn't been shown to be unsafe. It has. So has driving tired. Lots of places are doing something about the latter, as well as the former.
Or maybe I'm just more honest with myself about my level of impairment. We'd probably been drinking a a couple beers an hour, plus some wine and whisky. I wasn't showing any outward signs of intoxication, certainly nobody I was with would think I was drunk, but at 0.08 you are impaired, and if you're honest you can notice it.
Then again, as a hang glider pilot I'm used to monitoring my abilities. There's a reason most decent pilots won't drink at all before they fly.
The hot chick on the billboard, their favourite song on the radio, the mean thing their boss said to them yesterday....
Personally I think that the driving test should involve adjusting the radio, talking on the phone, carrying on a conversation with the tester, having a couple of kids in the back seat and drinking a coffee, in the winter. With a blood alcohol level of half the legal limit. Test people in realistic to severe circumstances to see if they perform adequately, not ideal ones.
I actually did my driver training in the winter (not the test, but the training course). One evening as the instructor and I were doing some highway driving a blizzard was starting. We were going up a hill with a cliff on one side. She was going to take over at the top because conditions were getting too bad. An 18 wheeler decided to pass us. At the same time a dead deer appeared in my lane. There was JUST enough room to go between the deer and the truck.
Of course. Sitting on the couch not eating is much easier than exercise. And the two together get better results than either alone. But most people who get sufficient exercise tend to find themselves eating better anyway, and that includes not going for extreme diets that leave them crapping their pants.
Except that's not what he said. He said that people who are drunk and alone are more likely to fall asleep, regardless of the involvement of a car. It turns out he's right, about that at least. The physiological effects of alcohol are well studied.
It's possible that drunk people do NOT fall asleep as readily when they're operating a car for some reason. However, since they also get into more collisions, that doesn't seem likely.
This is all supposing that there aren't any controlled studies of alcohol and cars, together. There are. It's not that difficult to find a track or a driving simulator and some volunteers to get sloshed. Even the Mythbusters have done it.
Are there no dangerous driving laws where you live? Around here you can get a charged for impaired driving (drugs, alcohol, excessive tiredness) or dangerous driving because you were just being an idiot for no apparent reason.
So you stipulate that having a high blood alcohol level has been shown to cause people to have an increased tendency to fall asleep if alone and take increased risks if not? There's also plenty of evidence to show that reaction time is slower when you've got a high BAC.
So besides disliking the politics of MADD, what's your position? That we should just let drunk drivers, who are more prone to fall asleep, take increased risks, and have slowed reaction times, drive around anyway?
I was at a beer festival recently. Leaving, I was tipsy enough that there was no way I'd consider driving. I'm sure I could have done it, and it probably wouldn't have been a problem even, but I knew I was noticeably intoxicated and the risk was unacceptable. At the door they had a booth with breathalyzer tests. I was curious, so I did one. 0.04. I can't imagine driving at 0.08.
Yeah, the 4 foot difference in stopping distance from mentally shifting focus is DEFINITELY on par with the 88 foot difference from looking at your phone for a few seconds.
I think the point is that the danger lies in activities that take your eyes off the road. That's pretty easy to believe. If you're not looking you might crash into things. The whole "shifting mental focus" thing is a lot more tenuous. It might be true, it might not.
You're right. Whoops. He still doesn't have a very good toolbox. Bikes have used various sizes of Torx, including the infamous T10 for ages.
Just wire up a speaker so you can call up and say "hello? Who's there? Hey you, stop right there!"
Where I used to work there was someone who put up no parking signs on their fence. I guess they parked their RV in their yard and wanted to be able to get it in and out. The city allows for a driveway, but you can't just say your entire frontage is no parking. Even so, the sign ensured that spot was almost always vacant. I parked there for a couple of years.
Strange, I don't see the word "in" anywhere in my post. Have you had your coffee today?
They're more similar to phone interfaces than desktop interfaces, but they're not the same. It's too bad Android courses are emphasizing that. Apple specifically recommends designing individual app UIs for iPhones and iPads, even if they're combined in one app. Some of the most used UI elements, split views and popovers, aren't available on the iPhone. Looks like Google agrees.
I'm to sure where you got yurts from. The suggestion is that quite a few problems might be solved if children (never mind adults) didn't undergo an average of 20 courses of antibiotics, many unnecessary, before they become adults.
Sounds wonderful. I think I'll stick to running, the gym and my kayak.
The GP is using antibacterial in it's literal sense. Bleach is antibacterial. However, many things that are labelled "antibacterial" use antibiotics, which can lead to resistance.
The classification "mobile" is silly. "Tablet" is decent. Smartphone is okay. Laptop/notebook, good.
All of those devices are mobile, but each has a unique UI requirements due to screen size and input method. If you want to throw subnotebook in there as another class too (netbook is another silly name, at least for the devices it actually gets applied to) I could go for that.
It gets even sillier when you consider other devices. There are lots of things that have small screens and use UIs that follow a "mobile" paradigm, from printer control panels to digital thermostats. Here's a fridge that runs Android... I sure wouldn't call it mobile.
Windows 8 seems to be making the unfortunate mistake of taking a UI paradigm developed for a smart phone (small screen, touch interface) and shoe horned onto a tablet (medium size screen, touch interface) and forcing it's use on desktops and notebooks (medium to large screen, keyboard and mouse interface). In the other direction, small screen touch interface devices (Palm pilots, but now smart phones) took off when they got a UI designed specifically for them, and the tablet market took off when Apple decided not to stick a desktop UI (or a smartphone UI) onto theirs. Google came to the same conclusions with Honeycomb.
Except the empty space between icons isn't "unused," it's there so you don't hit more than one at a time. The black bar seems to be wasted space with no purpose.
No, it's a smart phone interface. At least the parts the PARC researcher is specifically highlighting. Not to mention "mobile device" is silly - my notebook is a mobile device. So is a dumb phone.
Small screen devices like smart phones pretty much need to have things full screen, even if it's just a confirmation dialog. On a notebook or desktop computer that would obviously (obvious except to MS I guess) be highly irritating. On tablets it's irritating too - notice that Android on tablets doesn't (always) use that UI paradigm and iPads don't either. Apple specifically told all their developers not to use the navigation bar screen to screen interface design on the iPad but rather to use things like split views and popup dialogs/menus. The floating split view window in the portrait orientation on an iPad is very similar in form to the start menu.
You can feel free to replace "credit card numbers" with whatever piece of sensitive information you like. If the device can leave the building it shouldn't have sensitive information on it, and it shouldn't have access to sensitive information, at least not without a separate form of authentication. What difference does it make who owns it?
That sounds like poor security to start with. If the device is leaving the building (or COULD leave the building) the network shouldn't trust it with important things, especially not without a separate piece of information, like an RSA key fob value.
It doesn't matter whether it's a company laptop, somebody's personal phone or home computer, if it's not physically secured it shouldn't be trusted.
They essentially did that, except the monthly maintenance fee might not be exactly what you'd call small, but it covers most people entirely.
What they, and the wired data providers, should be required to do is either a) charge a fair per GB rate, regardless of how much you use, or b) if it's too cheap to meter just have a truly unlimited flat rate. Any combination of the two, including caps and unreasonable per GB overage charges is abusive.
Yes, regular currencies fluctuate. But they aren't anything like as volatile as Bitcoin. IF Bitcoin catches on and IF it's infrastructure ends up being stable enough to support a major currency, THEN bitcoin may become a commonly used currency. Currently that is not the case.
Many people don't need to carry around things like credit card numbers. Actually, why would ANYONE need to carry around credit card numbers? That sounds like something that should always remain on the server, locked in a closet somewhere in the company's building.
I don't work in industry but frequent glances over the stuff the business people are always pecking away at on their notebooks and Blackberries seems to indicate that most of it is boring busywork.