No, education doesn't equal compliance, but it sure helps. The highly trained drivers I know ALL signal, and signal correctly, as a reflex. They also shoulder check, watch for stale greens etc. The less well trained drivers don't.
Anyway, the point is that if you properly trained drivers there wouldn't be a need for the law in the first place, because the vast majority of drivers would be able to handle the simple task of talking on a cell phone and driving.
Absolutely. Texting while driving is insane and nobody should do it. I think proper driving training would not only teach you that, but show you as well.
Talking on a phone isn't something that should be impossible for most people to do safely while driving, it just requires learning to deprioritize the phone conversation. Learning basic driving skills as reflexes would help too, such as automatic scanning to the sides when approaching an intersection or turning.
As a bike commuter I've seen a lot of people who were talking on cell phones do a lot of stupid stuff, but nothing that people who weren't on the phone haven't done. It just seems more frequent with the talkers.
"What's wrong, would you not trust your child with a computer to take to college?"
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you're not familiar with the concept (or practice) of empathetic reasoning. Otherwise known as "putting yourself in someone else's shoes."
I also didn't claim you are 15, just that you sound like it. To be clearer, your attitude towards children is reminiscent of either an insecure teenager or a get-off-my-lawn bitter oldster. Your poor manners tilted my suspicions in favour of angsty teenager. My apologies if I was incorrect.
You've heard the phrase "college kid" have you not? What's wrong, would you not trust your child with a computer to take to college? You must be some kind of idiot. Of course, you sound like you're somewhere in the under fifteen range. If so, I can certainly agree that you shouldn't be trusted with a laptop.
"I don't believe that the vast majority of people can be taught to do this safely and responsibly."
Yes, because the average person is incapable of learning simple skills. I had a roommate who was training to be an EMT. Her ambulance driving course had approximately the same number of instructional hours as my (excellent) driving training course in high school.
Now, how many quality instructional hours do you think the average driver has? How good is the test, and how often is it repeated? When I got my learners permit the ten question multiple choice test was easier than the test I'd done a week before in grade eight Home Ec. to use the sewing machine.
It is not hard to teach people skills like normal driving, dealing with distractions while driving, etc. The problem is that almost nobody gets the training because they don't have to.
The question is whether ARM-based netbooks will sell at all. It doesn't really matter what OS a netbook is running. Nobody buys any kind of computer to run an OS. They buy computers to run apps. You can argue all you want that Mac OS X is more elegant than Windows, or whatever -- but if you couldn't get a word processor for it, nobody would use it.
Good point, but you mix a couple of factors together. Nobody would buy an OS that didn't offer a word processor, no, but sometimes the particular word processor it offers isn't important. Some people do buy a computer to run Word, but most buy a computer to do word processing. If you can offer equivalent functionality then they'll go with the machine that otherwise best serves their needs. Since both Windows and OS X offer word processors, some people do buy Macs because of the OS.
Chrome does offer a word processor - Google Docs. Whether it (and all the other apps people use) works sufficiently well to provide equivalent functionality to Word, Open Office, Works, or whatever is important, but so is the OS.
That's nice. Can you even get a laptop/netbook/whatever without wifi these days?
Now, if they meant always on, if I had a kid I'd much rather give him a nice $1000 laptop rather than a crap laptop and $500+/year cellular data subscription.
Did you read the article, or just decide to post some random complaint? Even the summary isn't half bad.
The question is whether the gasses in the atmosphere outgas from the planet or whether they were delivered to Earth from space after the planet was more or less formed.
Your entire post is basically irrelevant - the story has nothing to do with whether planets can "trap gasses" or not.
Just be glad your extremely common name isn't on the no fly list. I always get selected for the random search. Once I was "randomly" selected five times between checking in and getting on the plane.
Resolving Mizar A and B (14 arcsecond separation) exceeds the theoretical resolving power of the human eye, and even with perfect vision your eye can't come close to that limit in the dark because your pupil dilates.
Sir Patrick Moore suggests that the reference is to splitting Mizar and a dim star that appears between Mizar and Alcor.
Mizar/Alcor are distinguishable even by people who do need glasses (maybe you should get your vision checked). It's been suggested that the only-the-people-with-the-sharpest-vision thing is actually referring to another, dimmer star that appears between Mizar and Alcor and WOULD require exceptional vision to see.
Technically the big dipper, or plough in most of England, is an asterism (a recognizable pattern of stars that is NOT a constellation) composed of stars that are part of the constellation Ursa Major (the big bear).
The computer you're typing on is a rather good example of quantum mechanics on an industrial scale. It's been estimated that quantum mechanics is in some way responsible for a large fraction (can't remember exactly - two thirds?) of our economy.
Einstein is supposed to have killed it, but all he did was rename it "the fabric of spacetime," which was later refined to be "the gravitational field." Modern quantum field theory suggests that we are always immersed in a dozen or so fields.
The summary gets a little carried away. Google is basically offering cheap (or free) satellite imagery combined with cheap access to existing software and computing power. It's a good, socially responsible project on Google's part, but it's not the breakthrough in image processing that the summary implies.
"It's interesting to contemplate the implications for intelligence gathering of Google's automated tools to compare satellite photos."
The people who do serious, large scale, satellite intelligence gathering don't need Google's satellite imagery or their free computing capability.
I answered your question with my first word. Did you not read it? Let me quote for you.
You asked: "I always have to wonder whether people who post comments like these would be the first to complain if their own foibles were at issue."
I said: "Nope."
I went on to say that, if it's a foible, it falls under the second part of my post - if someone cares about it, you didn't want to work for them anyway.
Since the FBI investigated it, I suspect it wasn't a foible. If it was, you guys really need to worry less about erasing your past indiscretions from the public record and more about reigning in your Gestapo.
Let's be clear: the poster said he did something, which he fully admits he did, and was wrong, that was investigated by the FBI. I've heard the FBI used to keep files on certain powerful people, just in case, but I doubt the US federal police make a point of checking up on Joe Blow student at whatever university for 0.00001 microgram of pot.
The latter situation falls squarely under the "you don't want to work for them anyway" category. If your potential employer is willing to disqualify you because one of your friends might have had some illicit substance in his possession 15 years ago, you don't want to work for him anyway.
Nope. If it's a foible, nobody really cares. If it's not a foible you should be held responsible for it. I believe they used to call it "personal responsibility."
Actions have consequences. Most people I know learned that when they were about two.
Sucks to have to live with the consequences of your actions, hey?
If it was something really serious, well, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If it wasn't that serious then you don't want to work for someone who would hold it against you anyway.
It is a bigger problem with something that is as politicized as global warming, but explaining to the layman is still important, for the layman but even more importantly for the scientist.
General relativity, or even special relativity is NOT easy to explain without math. Many people have tried, and screwed it up royally. There's the famous quote (from a newspaper article) that only three people in the world understand Einstein's theories. You think describing special relativity is simple because someone took the time to come up with examples and metaphors that we still repeat today.
Climate change is different. The basics can be explained simply. A greenhouse is a simple example that everyone is familiar with (thus, "the greenhouse effect"). The problem is, climate is a big, complicated system and nobody really understands how it works. That lack of understanding manifests as an inability to explain the situation simply. That lack of understanding is evident to the public.
Yes, there is a lot of anti-global warming FUD that gets thrown around. However, climatologists and others have made the mistake of descending to the level of the global warming deniers: they mention how it's a very complicated system, just trust us, we understand it, they make emotional appeals, they use scare tactics, and they generally pretend to have a greater level of understanding than they actually do. This isn't all the climatologists' doing, but they are where things start.
When both sides are using the same unscientific approach to communication what is the public supposed to think? The logical conclusion is that both sides are on roughly equal ground.
I suspect a far better approach would be to communicate clearly, explain the things we are sure about, freely recognize those we are less sure about, and quit trying to scare the public into action. Let the whackos and industry shills reveal themselves as such and quit trying to out whacko and out shill them.
Slashdot Mirror
40 cm per day. Across ten km or so.
No, education doesn't equal compliance, but it sure helps. The highly trained drivers I know ALL signal, and signal correctly, as a reflex. They also shoulder check, watch for stale greens etc. The less well trained drivers don't.
Anyway, the point is that if you properly trained drivers there wouldn't be a need for the law in the first place, because the vast majority of drivers would be able to handle the simple task of talking on a cell phone and driving.
Absolutely. Texting while driving is insane and nobody should do it. I think proper driving training would not only teach you that, but show you as well.
Talking on a phone isn't something that should be impossible for most people to do safely while driving, it just requires learning to deprioritize the phone conversation. Learning basic driving skills as reflexes would help too, such as automatic scanning to the sides when approaching an intersection or turning.
As a bike commuter I've seen a lot of people who were talking on cell phones do a lot of stupid stuff, but nothing that people who weren't on the phone haven't done. It just seems more frequent with the talkers.
"What's wrong, would you not trust your child with a computer to take to college?"
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you're not familiar with the concept (or practice) of empathetic reasoning. Otherwise known as "putting yourself in someone else's shoes."
I also didn't claim you are 15, just that you sound like it. To be clearer, your attitude towards children is reminiscent of either an insecure teenager or a get-off-my-lawn bitter oldster. Your poor manners tilted my suspicions in favour of angsty teenager. My apologies if I was incorrect.
You've heard the phrase "college kid" have you not? What's wrong, would you not trust your child with a computer to take to college? You must be some kind of idiot. Of course, you sound like you're somewhere in the under fifteen range. If so, I can certainly agree that you shouldn't be trusted with a laptop.
"I don't believe that the vast majority of people can be taught to do this safely and responsibly."
Yes, because the average person is incapable of learning simple skills. I had a roommate who was training to be an EMT. Her ambulance driving course had approximately the same number of instructional hours as my (excellent) driving training course in high school.
Now, how many quality instructional hours do you think the average driver has? How good is the test, and how often is it repeated? When I got my learners permit the ten question multiple choice test was easier than the test I'd done a week before in grade eight Home Ec. to use the sewing machine.
It is not hard to teach people skills like normal driving, dealing with distractions while driving, etc. The problem is that almost nobody gets the training because they don't have to.
Good point, but you mix a couple of factors together. Nobody would buy an OS that didn't offer a word processor, no, but sometimes the particular word processor it offers isn't important. Some people do buy a computer to run Word, but most buy a computer to do word processing. If you can offer equivalent functionality then they'll go with the machine that otherwise best serves their needs. Since both Windows and OS X offer word processors, some people do buy Macs because of the OS.
Chrome does offer a word processor - Google Docs. Whether it (and all the other apps people use) works sufficiently well to provide equivalent functionality to Word, Open Office, Works, or whatever is important, but so is the OS.
So it only costs $1200 or so? That's one hell of a Christmas present.
That's nice. Can you even get a laptop/netbook/whatever without wifi these days?
Now, if they meant always on, if I had a kid I'd much rather give him a nice $1000 laptop rather than a crap laptop and $500+/year cellular data subscription.
Did you read the article, or just decide to post some random complaint? Even the summary isn't half bad.
The question is whether the gasses in the atmosphere outgas from the planet or whether they were delivered to Earth from space after the planet was more or less formed.
Your entire post is basically irrelevant - the story has nothing to do with whether planets can "trap gasses" or not.
Worst of all, you got modded as insightful.
Just be glad your extremely common name isn't on the no fly list. I always get selected for the random search. Once I was "randomly" selected five times between checking in and getting on the plane.
Resolving Mizar A and B (14 arcsecond separation) exceeds the theoretical resolving power of the human eye, and even with perfect vision your eye can't come close to that limit in the dark because your pupil dilates.
Sir Patrick Moore suggests that the reference is to splitting Mizar and a dim star that appears between Mizar and Alcor.
It is almost never dark.
Whoops, should have warned about that spoiler, hey?
Mizar/Alcor are distinguishable even by people who do need glasses (maybe you should get your vision checked). It's been suggested that the only-the-people-with-the-sharpest-vision thing is actually referring to another, dimmer star that appears between Mizar and Alcor and WOULD require exceptional vision to see.
Technically the big dipper, or plough in most of England, is an asterism (a recognizable pattern of stars that is NOT a constellation) composed of stars that are part of the constellation Ursa Major (the big bear).
I should have been more specific: "the theory of quantum mechanics."
The computer you're typing on is a rather good example of quantum mechanics on an industrial scale. It's been estimated that quantum mechanics is in some way responsible for a large fraction (can't remember exactly - two thirds?) of our economy.
Aether didn't ever go anywhere.
Einstein is supposed to have killed it, but all he did was rename it "the fabric of spacetime," which was later refined to be "the gravitational field." Modern quantum field theory suggests that we are always immersed in a dozen or so fields.
You're making an assumption -- that there is no effect on the ambient EM fields -- that the article does not support.
There is no reason to believe that the vacuum fields will be undisturbed by this process.
The summary gets a little carried away. Google is basically offering cheap (or free) satellite imagery combined with cheap access to existing software and computing power. It's a good, socially responsible project on Google's part, but it's not the breakthrough in image processing that the summary implies.
"It's interesting to contemplate the implications for intelligence gathering of Google's automated tools to compare satellite photos."
The people who do serious, large scale, satellite intelligence gathering don't need Google's satellite imagery or their free computing capability.
I answered your question with my first word. Did you not read it? Let me quote for you.
You asked: "I always have to wonder whether people who post comments like these would be the first to complain if their own foibles were at issue."
I said: "Nope."
I went on to say that, if it's a foible, it falls under the second part of my post - if someone cares about it, you didn't want to work for them anyway.
Since the FBI investigated it, I suspect it wasn't a foible. If it was, you guys really need to worry less about erasing your past indiscretions from the public record and more about reigning in your Gestapo.
Let's be clear: the poster said he did something, which he fully admits he did, and was wrong, that was investigated by the FBI. I've heard the FBI used to keep files on certain powerful people, just in case, but I doubt the US federal police make a point of checking up on Joe Blow student at whatever university for 0.00001 microgram of pot.
The latter situation falls squarely under the "you don't want to work for them anyway" category. If your potential employer is willing to disqualify you because one of your friends might have had some illicit substance in his possession 15 years ago, you don't want to work for him anyway.
Nope. If it's a foible, nobody really cares. If it's not a foible you should be held responsible for it. I believe they used to call it "personal responsibility."
Actions have consequences. Most people I know learned that when they were about two.
Sucks to have to live with the consequences of your actions, hey?
If it was something really serious, well, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If it wasn't that serious then you don't want to work for someone who would hold it against you anyway.
It is a bigger problem with something that is as politicized as global warming, but explaining to the layman is still important, for the layman but even more importantly for the scientist.
General relativity, or even special relativity is NOT easy to explain without math. Many people have tried, and screwed it up royally. There's the famous quote (from a newspaper article) that only three people in the world understand Einstein's theories. You think describing special relativity is simple because someone took the time to come up with examples and metaphors that we still repeat today.
Climate change is different. The basics can be explained simply. A greenhouse is a simple example that everyone is familiar with (thus, "the greenhouse effect"). The problem is, climate is a big, complicated system and nobody really understands how it works. That lack of understanding manifests as an inability to explain the situation simply. That lack of understanding is evident to the public.
Yes, there is a lot of anti-global warming FUD that gets thrown around. However, climatologists and others have made the mistake of descending to the level of the global warming deniers: they mention how it's a very complicated system, just trust us, we understand it, they make emotional appeals, they use scare tactics, and they generally pretend to have a greater level of understanding than they actually do. This isn't all the climatologists' doing, but they are where things start.
When both sides are using the same unscientific approach to communication what is the public supposed to think? The logical conclusion is that both sides are on roughly equal ground.
I suspect a far better approach would be to communicate clearly, explain the things we are sure about, freely recognize those we are less sure about, and quit trying to scare the public into action. Let the whackos and industry shills reveal themselves as such and quit trying to out whacko and out shill them.