Exactly. The primary purpose of the current generation of hybrids is to make their smug owners FEEL like they are helping the environment. And since there was apparently a pretty big untapped market selling feel good cars to pompous greens, Toyota has made a killing with the Prius. Looks like good marketing to me.
Well of course it's mostly about image and Toyota's bank roll. Yet I think it's hard to argue that the Prius isn't more environmentally friendly. This study does it by assuming a Prius will only last 100k miles, which we know is low-balling.
In reality the only thing about the hybrids that really works against them is those big batteries. The plus is lower fuel consumption. How does that work out in balance? Well I don't have the numbers to crunch, but you have to consider the difference between applying environmental protections to a big battery production plant, what parts of the battery can be recycled, etc etc vs the difficulty of adding more environmental protections to a horde of tiny ICEs. Different energy sources have different environmental impacts.
The most important thing for us right now environmentally is to wean ourselves off of petroleum products for transportation. If we were to all start driving pure electric/hydrogen/compressed air vehicles, and all of the electricity needed to produce that stored energy came from coal plants, we would still win. Because it's easier to add huge air scrubbers to a coal plant than to the exhaust of a car. And every coal plant we replace with something cleaner has a direct impact on the cleanliness of our transportation. Transportation would be decoupled from the source of energy used, allowing us to painlessly switch as technology advanced. Whereas now if we switched entirely to green electricity, our transportation infrastructure would still be polluting. Ideally we would start doing both, and our switch away from petroleum fuel and our switch away from coal power plants would each amplify the benefit of doing the other.
I don't think any Prius owner has the right to feel smug, or feel that they're saving the earth. They're not, certainly not if buying a Prius is their only nod towards the environment. I do think they are part of a positive social trend towards considering efficiency as a noble goal. Frankly if I have to deal with smug people boasting, I'd rather they boast about how many MPG they get, not how many parking spaces they take up or how huge a yacht it can pull.
You act as if concentration is a completely black & white matter. This is the same flawed arguement that many use to "prove" that videogames do not influence crime. "I've never run off the road, thus videogames must not prompt bad driving," is a logically flawed arguement. This does not take into account the more subtle distractions and lapses in concentration that can occur while trying to correct against videogame driving habits. The mental state induced by playing a driving game will not likely cause one to drive a car as if they were playing a video game, but there is a part of the subconcious that is having to work overtime to make sure that this doesn't happen. This results in a subtle lack in concentration, and heightened confusion that could likely delay ones ability to react to changing conditions.
I'm not saying that (read my 2nd paragraph again), I'm saying the difference between reality and fantasy is black & white, except for when a situation is deliberately created to blur the difference (Total Recall, Matrix, Ender's Game). Or if you are insane, which I believe is the case for those who really do go out and emulate a video game in real life. As long as that difference is clear, then the effects of video games on real behavior will be minor.
Yes, whatever you do before driving can affect your mental state and thus how you drive. This is true of everything. Are you so sure that you really have a subconscious part of the brain that has to work overtime to make you not drive like it was F-Zero, and that this hinders concentration? It sounds to me like you were more aware of the fact that you were really driving, because of that "odd feeling", and were thus paying more attention. Only you can answer that. This effect is why some studies have shown that up to a certain point of intoxication, marijuana actually improves driving ability. Yet either way was this effect greater than if you had gotten in a fight with your SO, gotten a bad score on a test/performance review, or any of the billion things that happen daily that affect our mental state?
There is absolutely no evidence, certainly not this study which at no points measures the effect on real driving, to say that it is.
This is roughly what happens when driving while on the cell-phone.
It is nothing like what happens when using the cell phone. That's a real person demanding your full attention at the same time as you are driving. That is dangerous. What you're suggesting is more like someone having a cell phone conversation before they go driving, which could have a potential but similarly ephemeral and indirect effect on subsequent driving. There is no evidence for this being significant.
The question is, then, where do you draw the line? Statistically, cell phone talking has proven to cause an even more significant reduction in ability to avoid calamity than the average drunk driver (and this is regardless of whether the cell phone is hands free or not). So, seeing as though its more intruisive than something already deemed illegal (DWI), one could make a pretty solid case for outlawing cellphone use...
I heard that using a cell phone was similar to the effect of driving at the.08 BAC (the legal limit in most states), while the average arrest is about twice that. Nevertheless, I agree you can make a solid case for outlawing it, because of a significant demonstrable effect on actual driving.
Note the difference though: You would be banned from talking on the phone while driving, just like you are banned from having a high BAC while driving. Is there any example of a law that bans a certain behavior prior to driving? It's perfectly legal to drink as much as you want before driving, so long as when you get in the car your BAC is below the limit (and subject to the usual "significant impairment" standard most such laws have, but again this standard is
Yup - his antics are so ridiculous that they made him take a sanity test.
Yeah, and the psychiatric profession is still reeling from the blow to the credibility of their sanity test. They continue to look for the solution to what they call "The Thompson Erroneous Sane Diagnosis Anomaly" or just "The Thompson Anomaly".
. However, I do believe that simply the mental difference between feeling "exactly like driving" and "close to driving", is not really very much.
But the difference between "not really driving" and "really driving" is huge. You could put me in the most realistic driving simulator on earth, a Matrix-like experience that perfectly recreates the feeling of being in a car, but if I knew it was just a simulation with no real consequences, then I would be much more likely to take risks than I would if I believed I was in a real driving situation.
Even when you are feeling "just a little off" on the freeway, you are fully aware that you can't just drive off the freeway, or ram another car, without repurcussion, yes? Any part of your brain still thinking in F-Zero terms is going against your predominant thought train, which is to drive safetly on the road because if you get in a wreck you can't just hit 'Continue'. It's the same thing as with all conditioning: Conditioning occurs with real consequences. The rewards/consequences of video game driving is nothing like real life, and most people have little trouble distinguishing, and thus the video game conditioning has little effect on real life behavior.
That's the problem with this study. It's trying to create a link between behavior in a virtual environment and behavior in the real world, when that is exactly the one thing they don't test at all! They only show a link between behavior in one virtual environment and another virtual environment. They then claim to have discovered a link between the virtual behavior and real-life behavior, which is something between stupidity and an outright lie.
Shaw right. They measured the effect of driving recklessly in a video game had on another video game. They then conclude that this has an impact on real driving.
Okay, the experiment may have been well designed, but the results of the experiment do not support the conclusions that the researchers drew in any way. In order to get their experimental results to support the conclusion that driving games effect real driving, they would have to do another experiment that showed this relationship, which is the experiment they should have been conducting in the first place!
This experiment is utterly useless for answering the question it was conducted to answer. In my book, that makes it poorly designed.
But nobody has. It's like people take pride in allowing the world of uneducated masses sucking on the corporate tit of MS. I just don't understand it.
Feisty could win the OS wars decisively, but given the over all FOSS community attitude towards ordinary people....
Um, if this attitude was such an obstacle, then Ubuntu wouldn't exist in the first place. If anything, Ubuntu is proof that there is a significant portion of the FOSS community that wants to bring FOSS to "ordinary people". Sure there are people who don't, and they're running Slackware.
So given that, I must have completely missed the part where you specified what it is that is preventing Ubuntu from winning the OS wars decisively. You say it's comes preconfigured in a way superior to Windows. Personally I think Ubuntu, and Linux in general, has a ways to go before it's really an "ordinary people" as in "Windows replacement for everyone" kind of OS. I think they're a long way from winning the OS wars decisively or otherwise. But it is getting there, by leaps and bounds. You seem to think it's even farther along this path than I do, poised and ready to claim victory, so I'm again left wondering what it is you think is holding Ubuntu back.
If he chases the ambulence, then the quest should be to steal the ambulence, drive off slowly so he can keep up, and drive it off a bridge into the ocean.
And if that wasn't the quest, it's still what I'd do.
FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Just your friendly neighborhood pedant dropping in on your excellent post.
I'm not sure that it hasn't worked for MS, though, in so far as the goal was to hold off Linux long enough for Vista to come out. In the long term, though, this does only strengthen Linux which is bad for MS.
Oh, well yeah, I meant that's what I say to the moron who already has the phone to their head, not that my shouting does any good aside from venting my road rage. I just don't answer the phone; usually the ringer is off when I'm driving.
If the team were as security conscious as you claim, they wouldn't have simply dismissed it and would have given the issue more serious consideration.
They didn't simply dismiss it. They fixed the bug. At that point the question of how severe the vulnerability is only affects how critical getting the patch for the bug is. Being security conscious, they don't want to push out a patch without sufficient testing -- possibly causing new vulnerabilities -- unless they have to. When shown that the issue was in fact a remote exploit, they did not dismiss the issue then either, they upgraded the status of the issue and marked the patch as urgent.
All of this is perfectly consistent with security consciousness.
A team which does not take security seriously would have denied that there was a bug at all, would not have the fix, and would have found a way to claim that despite being shown exploit code for a remote vulnerability, it wasn't in fact a big deal. But that isn't what happened.
I've always thought of the BSDs (Net and Open anyway) as a smaller attack vector, nothing inherently more secure. They don't have a monopoly on smart developers and all humans make mistakes.
It is foolish to think that because all humans make mistakes, all humans make the same number and severity of mistakes, and have the same methods of identifying and correcting mistakes. For the same reason, it is foolish to think that because all software has bugs, that all software is equally buggy and the bugs are of equal severity. It is the attention payed to security, the methodologies of writing secure code, that help prevent bugs and make code that is truly inherently more secure.
OpenBSD gets a lot of scrutiny in the security world exactly for the reason that people deploy it because of its security. It may be a smaller attack vector due to market share, and due to it being harder to crack than what your typical army of script kiddies can handle. This does not mean it is not thoroughly poked and prodded by experts, nor does it mean that inherently superior security is an illusion.
I'm not sure what kind of hubris it takes to dismiss someone's ideas just because you have more money.
It's not hubris, exactly. It's a matter of values. If what you value above all else is money, then the fact that they have less money -- compared to MS, they are effectively penniless -- means that their ideas are not important to you, even if technically good ideas. They won't help you get more money, ergo what you are doing is better than what they are doing.
Your company values things other than money, so you copy good practices even if they aren't going to earn you more money.
Though I think it is fairly simple to concoct a scenario where in the long term it does cost money not to adopt good practices -- such as losing marketshare because of security problems. Short sightedness is also a problem people who value only money often have, at least the ones running publicly traded corporations.
I'm only applying exactly the motivation you yourself said: That you are a safe driver who can drive while using the phone without impacting your safe driving, while others cannot.
You think it's about head-down time? Ever seen any stats about how hands-free headsets with voice dialing don't help? Yeah, you just don't get it.
You think you are a safe driver but you are not, exactly because you think you are.
If the accident you were in five years ago wasn't your fault, why did you specify "clear of at fault"? If you didn't have any more accidents in the last five years, why did you specify "clear of at fault"?
What he inferred is, as far as I can see, completely logical conclusions from your statement.
No, he's right, I incorrectly implied that the not-at-fault accidents he was in the last five years may have been avoidable. He gives a plausible scenario in which it was not.
Doesn't change the fact that his driving record isn't anything special, especially given his claim of prescient abilities that make him a superior driver. Doesn't change the fact that actual good drivers consider an accident they could have avoided to be their fault even if they aren't "at fault", and avoids unsafe driving habits as a result.
one accident in the past 5 years thank you.. i was hit while sitting at a light behind someone else, next to someone on the right, and next to a ditch in the median on the left.. i was hit by a drunk.
Did you put down your phone before he hit you due to your uncanny ability to detect the stupid in advance?
And you were still in at least one at-fault accident before that, which is one more than me in the entire time you've been driving. Why should I be impressed with your amazing driving abilities again?
by a freaking troll who cant accept what someone else tells them, and decides to make insinuations about HIS life, and also cannot accept the fact that not everyone with a phone is incapable of driving.
Nobody is incapable of driving while talking on the phone. If they were incapable, there wouldn't be a problem because they wouldn't be on the road. No, the problem is idiots like you who think you can be distracted by a phone, but because of your magic ability to identify stupid people in advance -- an ability apparently not hampered by being on the phone -- you know to put the phone down before an accident happens, so you're not any less safe. You are dangerously wrong.
The problem is people like you who think that because they are capable of driving while on the phone, that ergo they are no less safe driving while on the phone. People like you are the problem. People like you cause accidents. Just because you may not have caused one yet means very little, just like you're not having been killed yet doesn't mean you are immortal. So no, I'm not going to just accept someone who says they have magical driving abilities that makes using the phone no less safe for them.
I've heard it too many times before. Someone who thinks that they are a great driver, and all problems are caused by other idiots. Someone who thinks that they are such a great driver, that what is for everyone else a bad driving habit is not any more dangerous for them. If you were such a great driver, you would not have the bad habit to begin with. But you're not. You're another idiot who thinks you're smarter than everyone else and can drive like a jacktard without putting anyone at risk. Just like every other idiot on the phone while driving.
Here's a fact: No actual good driver thinks that they themselves are not a possible source of error while driving. No actual good driver thinks they can engage in unsafe driving practices safetly. Being a good driver means knowing what is safe and unsafe, not that the rules of safety magically change. Anyone who claims that is, in fact, an unsafe driver.
This ain't a troll, this is a flame from an irate driver sick of retards who think their self-proclaimed super-driving means they can be unsafe on the road. You are no different than those you deride, and you're equally delusional. I'll wrap this up by saying to you what I say to them:
TELL THEM YOU'LL CALL THEM BACK, THEN HANG UP AND FUCKING DRIVE.
I can drive perfectly well while using a phone or eating because i know how to read the early signs of stupid people and PUT DOWN THE PHONE OR FOOD when i see them.
Yeah, I do the same thing, and the early signs of stupidity that I look for include someone holding a phone or sandwhich.
Glad to know that in your universe, stupid people always give you ample warning before swerving into your lane, considerately allowing you time to identify them, find a place to set down your phone/food/beverage, and return your hands to the wheel so that you can perform evasive maneuvers. 'Cus otherwise you might spill coffee on yourself while trying to find the cup holder while simultaneously swerving out of someone's way.
I'm clear of at fault accidents for over 5 years, and i've only been driving for 8.
Oh wow! So you got in at least one at-fault accident 5 years ago, and you've been in other accidents for which you were not techincally at fault since then. If you were so good at identifying and responding to other stupid drivers, you would have avoided those accidents. "Not at fault" does not mean that you were in no way responsible for the accident, it usually just means the one that broke the rule whether it be speeding, not using a turn signal, or running a stop sign. All of which are common and a good driver must learn to avoid.
why should i be given fines and increased insurance because other people cant handle it.
Your record is anything but "driving perfectly well", and your ability to "handle it" is severely in question. The reason you will be given fines and increased insurance is because you cannot handle it. Here's an idea: Put down the phone BEFORE you encounter any stupid people, and then you're already prepared!
Slashdot Mirror
Call me prejudiced, but I have a hard time believing any product study created by a guy named "Mr. Spinella".
Exactly. The primary purpose of the current generation of hybrids is to make their smug owners FEEL like they are helping the environment. And since there was apparently a pretty big untapped market selling feel good cars to pompous greens, Toyota has made a killing with the Prius. Looks like good marketing to me.
Well of course it's mostly about image and Toyota's bank roll. Yet I think it's hard to argue that the Prius isn't more environmentally friendly. This study does it by assuming a Prius will only last 100k miles, which we know is low-balling.
In reality the only thing about the hybrids that really works against them is those big batteries. The plus is lower fuel consumption. How does that work out in balance? Well I don't have the numbers to crunch, but you have to consider the difference between applying environmental protections to a big battery production plant, what parts of the battery can be recycled, etc etc vs the difficulty of adding more environmental protections to a horde of tiny ICEs. Different energy sources have different environmental impacts.
The most important thing for us right now environmentally is to wean ourselves off of petroleum products for transportation. If we were to all start driving pure electric/hydrogen/compressed air vehicles, and all of the electricity needed to produce that stored energy came from coal plants, we would still win. Because it's easier to add huge air scrubbers to a coal plant than to the exhaust of a car. And every coal plant we replace with something cleaner has a direct impact on the cleanliness of our transportation. Transportation would be decoupled from the source of energy used, allowing us to painlessly switch as technology advanced. Whereas now if we switched entirely to green electricity, our transportation infrastructure would still be polluting. Ideally we would start doing both, and our switch away from petroleum fuel and our switch away from coal power plants would each amplify the benefit of doing the other.
I don't think any Prius owner has the right to feel smug, or feel that they're saving the earth. They're not, certainly not if buying a Prius is their only nod towards the environment. I do think they are part of a positive social trend towards considering efficiency as a noble goal. Frankly if I have to deal with smug people boasting, I'd rather they boast about how many MPG they get, not how many parking spaces they take up or how huge a yacht it can pull.
Me, my 'environmentally friendly' car is an Echo.
If you are going to play the paranoid lunatic, aim high. There is no market for half-assed tin-hattery.
But if there's a market for half-tinned ass-hattery, then I'm set!
Which doesn't change the fact that it was a softball question with a ready-made PR answer.
Sony's "gaming-only" sales pitch is exactly the same, except now BluRay is for storing all the high-def textures and geometry and audio and whatever.
You act as if concentration is a completely black & white matter. This is the same flawed arguement that many use to "prove" that videogames do not influence crime. "I've never run off the road, thus videogames must not prompt bad driving," is a logically flawed arguement. This does not take into account the more subtle distractions and lapses in concentration that can occur while trying to correct against videogame driving habits. The mental state induced by playing a driving game will not likely cause one to drive a car as if they were playing a video game, but there is a part of the subconcious that is having to work overtime to make sure that this doesn't happen. This results in a subtle lack in concentration, and heightened confusion that could likely delay ones ability to react to changing conditions.
.08 BAC (the legal limit in most states), while the average arrest is about twice that. Nevertheless, I agree you can make a solid case for outlawing it, because of a significant demonstrable effect on actual driving.
I'm not saying that (read my 2nd paragraph again), I'm saying the difference between reality and fantasy is black & white, except for when a situation is deliberately created to blur the difference (Total Recall, Matrix, Ender's Game). Or if you are insane, which I believe is the case for those who really do go out and emulate a video game in real life. As long as that difference is clear, then the effects of video games on real behavior will be minor.
Yes, whatever you do before driving can affect your mental state and thus how you drive. This is true of everything. Are you so sure that you really have a subconscious part of the brain that has to work overtime to make you not drive like it was F-Zero, and that this hinders concentration? It sounds to me like you were more aware of the fact that you were really driving, because of that "odd feeling", and were thus paying more attention. Only you can answer that. This effect is why some studies have shown that up to a certain point of intoxication, marijuana actually improves driving ability. Yet either way was this effect greater than if you had gotten in a fight with your SO, gotten a bad score on a test/performance review, or any of the billion things that happen daily that affect our mental state?
There is absolutely no evidence, certainly not this study which at no points measures the effect on real driving, to say that it is.
This is roughly what happens when driving while on the cell-phone.
It is nothing like what happens when using the cell phone. That's a real person demanding your full attention at the same time as you are driving. That is dangerous. What you're suggesting is more like someone having a cell phone conversation before they go driving, which could have a potential but similarly ephemeral and indirect effect on subsequent driving. There is no evidence for this being significant.
The question is, then, where do you draw the line? Statistically, cell phone talking has proven to cause an even more significant reduction in ability to avoid calamity than the average drunk driver (and this is regardless of whether the cell phone is hands free or not). So, seeing as though its more intruisive than something already deemed illegal (DWI), one could make a pretty solid case for outlawing cellphone use...
I heard that using a cell phone was similar to the effect of driving at the
Note the difference though: You would be banned from talking on the phone while driving, just like you are banned from having a high BAC while driving. Is there any example of a law that bans a certain behavior prior to driving? It's perfectly legal to drink as much as you want before driving, so long as when you get in the car your BAC is below the limit (and subject to the usual "significant impairment" standard most such laws have, but again this standard is
"Is there any reason to buy a PS3 if I don't also buy an HD tv set?"
"Buy an HD tv set, even a small one."
Which, to answer the first question directly, means "no".
Yup - his antics are so ridiculous that they made him take a sanity test.
Yeah, and the psychiatric profession is still reeling from the blow to the credibility of their sanity test. They continue to look for the solution to what they call "The Thompson Erroneous Sane Diagnosis Anomaly" or just "The Thompson Anomaly".
. However, I do believe that simply the mental difference between feeling "exactly like driving" and "close to driving", is not really very much.
But the difference between "not really driving" and "really driving" is huge. You could put me in the most realistic driving simulator on earth, a Matrix-like experience that perfectly recreates the feeling of being in a car, but if I knew it was just a simulation with no real consequences, then I would be much more likely to take risks than I would if I believed I was in a real driving situation.
Even when you are feeling "just a little off" on the freeway, you are fully aware that you can't just drive off the freeway, or ram another car, without repurcussion, yes? Any part of your brain still thinking in F-Zero terms is going against your predominant thought train, which is to drive safetly on the road because if you get in a wreck you can't just hit 'Continue'. It's the same thing as with all conditioning: Conditioning occurs with real consequences. The rewards/consequences of video game driving is nothing like real life, and most people have little trouble distinguishing, and thus the video game conditioning has little effect on real life behavior.
That's the problem with this study. It's trying to create a link between behavior in a virtual environment and behavior in the real world, when that is exactly the one thing they don't test at all! They only show a link between behavior in one virtual environment and another virtual environment. They then claim to have discovered a link between the virtual behavior and real-life behavior, which is something between stupidity and an outright lie.
RTFA, the experiment was well designed.
Shaw right. They measured the effect of driving recklessly in a video game had on another video game. They then conclude that this has an impact on real driving.
Okay, the experiment may have been well designed, but the results of the experiment do not support the conclusions that the researchers drew in any way. In order to get their experimental results to support the conclusion that driving games effect real driving, they would have to do another experiment that showed this relationship, which is the experiment they should have been conducting in the first place!
This experiment is utterly useless for answering the question it was conducted to answer. In my book, that makes it poorly designed.
But nobody has. It's like people take pride in allowing the world of uneducated masses sucking on the corporate tit of MS. I just don't understand it.
Feisty could win the OS wars decisively, but given the over all FOSS community attitude towards ordinary people....
Um, if this attitude was such an obstacle, then Ubuntu wouldn't exist in the first place. If anything, Ubuntu is proof that there is a significant portion of the FOSS community that wants to bring FOSS to "ordinary people". Sure there are people who don't, and they're running Slackware.
So given that, I must have completely missed the part where you specified what it is that is preventing Ubuntu from winning the OS wars decisively. You say it's comes preconfigured in a way superior to Windows. Personally I think Ubuntu, and Linux in general, has a ways to go before it's really an "ordinary people" as in "Windows replacement for everyone" kind of OS. I think they're a long way from winning the OS wars decisively or otherwise. But it is getting there, by leaps and bounds. You seem to think it's even farther along this path than I do, poised and ready to claim victory, so I'm again left wondering what it is you think is holding Ubuntu back.
If he chases the ambulence, then the quest should be to steal the ambulence, drive off slowly so he can keep up, and drive it off a bridge into the ocean.
And if that wasn't the quest, it's still what I'd do.
FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Just your friendly neighborhood pedant dropping in on your excellent post.
I'm not sure that it hasn't worked for MS, though, in so far as the goal was to hold off Linux long enough for Vista to come out. In the long term, though, this does only strengthen Linux which is bad for MS.
The internet version of severed head on a pike. I like it!
I thought this was.
127,000 units sold of your brand new console is dissapointing.
136,000 units sold of your extremely old, obsolete console is not unreasonable.
295,000 units sold of your old, obsolete console is impressive.
Where is the bravery? Recognizing context? Understanding that different numbers mean different things for different situations?
Here's another example of how similar numbers could be either impressive or dissapointing, depending on context.
"Florence Joyner ran a dissapointing 11.4s 100m dash in a 1997 time trial..."
"Stephen Hawking ran a truly incredible 12s 100m dash yesterday..."
Oh, well yeah, I meant that's what I say to the moron who already has the phone to their head, not that my shouting does any good aside from venting my road rage. I just don't answer the phone; usually the ringer is off when I'm driving.
If the team were as security conscious as you claim, they wouldn't have simply dismissed it and would have given the issue more serious consideration.
They didn't simply dismiss it. They fixed the bug. At that point the question of how severe the vulnerability is only affects how critical getting the patch for the bug is. Being security conscious, they don't want to push out a patch without sufficient testing -- possibly causing new vulnerabilities -- unless they have to. When shown that the issue was in fact a remote exploit, they did not dismiss the issue then either, they upgraded the status of the issue and marked the patch as urgent.
All of this is perfectly consistent with security consciousness.
A team which does not take security seriously would have denied that there was a bug at all, would not have the fix, and would have found a way to claim that despite being shown exploit code for a remote vulnerability, it wasn't in fact a big deal. But that isn't what happened.
I've always thought of the BSDs (Net and Open anyway) as a smaller attack vector, nothing inherently more secure. They don't have a monopoly on smart developers and all humans make mistakes.
It is foolish to think that because all humans make mistakes, all humans make the same number and severity of mistakes, and have the same methods of identifying and correcting mistakes. For the same reason, it is foolish to think that because all software has bugs, that all software is equally buggy and the bugs are of equal severity. It is the attention payed to security, the methodologies of writing secure code, that help prevent bugs and make code that is truly inherently more secure.
OpenBSD gets a lot of scrutiny in the security world exactly for the reason that people deploy it because of its security. It may be a smaller attack vector due to market share, and due to it being harder to crack than what your typical army of script kiddies can handle. This does not mean it is not thoroughly poked and prodded by experts, nor does it mean that inherently superior security is an illusion.
Media center components? New role? Games are media. Consoles are components. The person who wrote the article is an asshat.
Are you sure they aren't a rectal-cranial-covering synergistic value-add?
I'm not sure what kind of hubris it takes to dismiss someone's ideas just because you have more money.
It's not hubris, exactly. It's a matter of values. If what you value above all else is money, then the fact that they have less money -- compared to MS, they are effectively penniless -- means that their ideas are not important to you, even if technically good ideas. They won't help you get more money, ergo what you are doing is better than what they are doing.
Your company values things other than money, so you copy good practices even if they aren't going to earn you more money.
Though I think it is fairly simple to concoct a scenario where in the long term it does cost money not to adopt good practices -- such as losing marketshare because of security problems. Short sightedness is also a problem people who value only money often have, at least the ones running publicly traded corporations.
Don't?!
Shit, I'm in trouble!
Wouldn't a billion-billionth of a second be one second? I would have said billionth of a billionth if I didn't want to use an uncommonly large prefix.
Unsafe idiot driver.
I'm only applying exactly the motivation you yourself said: That you are a safe driver who can drive while using the phone without impacting your safe driving, while others cannot.
You think it's about head-down time? Ever seen any stats about how hands-free headsets with voice dialing don't help? Yeah, you just don't get it.
You think you are a safe driver but you are not, exactly because you think you are.
HANG THE FUCK UP AND DRIVE, ASSHOLE.
If the accident you were in five years ago wasn't your fault, why did you specify "clear of at fault"?
If you didn't have any more accidents in the last five years, why did you specify "clear of at fault"?
What he inferred is, as far as I can see, completely logical conclusions from your statement.
No, he's right, I incorrectly implied that the not-at-fault accidents he was in the last five years may have been avoidable. He gives a plausible scenario in which it was not.
Doesn't change the fact that his driving record isn't anything special, especially given his claim of prescient abilities that make him a superior driver. Doesn't change the fact that actual good drivers consider an accident they could have avoided to be their fault even if they aren't "at fault", and avoids unsafe driving habits as a result.
one accident in the past 5 years thank you.. i was hit while sitting at a light behind someone else, next to someone on the right, and next to a ditch in the median on the left.. i was hit by a drunk.
Did you put down your phone before he hit you due to your uncanny ability to detect the stupid in advance?
And you were still in at least one at-fault accident before that, which is one more than me in the entire time you've been driving. Why should I be impressed with your amazing driving abilities again?
by a freaking troll who cant accept what someone else tells them, and decides to make insinuations about HIS life, and also cannot accept the fact that not everyone with a phone is incapable of driving.
Nobody is incapable of driving while talking on the phone. If they were incapable, there wouldn't be a problem because they wouldn't be on the road. No, the problem is idiots like you who think you can be distracted by a phone, but because of your magic ability to identify stupid people in advance -- an ability apparently not hampered by being on the phone -- you know to put the phone down before an accident happens, so you're not any less safe. You are dangerously wrong.
The problem is people like you who think that because they are capable of driving while on the phone, that ergo they are no less safe driving while on the phone. People like you are the problem. People like you cause accidents. Just because you may not have caused one yet means very little, just like you're not having been killed yet doesn't mean you are immortal. So no, I'm not going to just accept someone who says they have magical driving abilities that makes using the phone no less safe for them.
I've heard it too many times before. Someone who thinks that they are a great driver, and all problems are caused by other idiots. Someone who thinks that they are such a great driver, that what is for everyone else a bad driving habit is not any more dangerous for them. If you were such a great driver, you would not have the bad habit to begin with. But you're not. You're another idiot who thinks you're smarter than everyone else and can drive like a jacktard without putting anyone at risk. Just like every other idiot on the phone while driving.
Here's a fact: No actual good driver thinks that they themselves are not a possible source of error while driving. No actual good driver thinks they can engage in unsafe driving practices safetly. Being a good driver means knowing what is safe and unsafe, not that the rules of safety magically change. Anyone who claims that is, in fact, an unsafe driver.
This ain't a troll, this is a flame from an irate driver sick of retards who think their self-proclaimed super-driving means they can be unsafe on the road. You are no different than those you deride, and you're equally delusional. I'll wrap this up by saying to you what I say to them:
TELL THEM YOU'LL CALL THEM BACK, THEN HANG UP AND FUCKING DRIVE.
I can drive perfectly well while using a phone or eating because i know how to read the early signs of stupid people and PUT DOWN THE PHONE OR FOOD when i see them.
Yeah, I do the same thing, and the early signs of stupidity that I look for include someone holding a phone or sandwhich.
Glad to know that in your universe, stupid people always give you ample warning before swerving into your lane, considerately allowing you time to identify them, find a place to set down your phone/food/beverage, and return your hands to the wheel so that you can perform evasive maneuvers. 'Cus otherwise you might spill coffee on yourself while trying to find the cup holder while simultaneously swerving out of someone's way.
I'm clear of at fault accidents for over 5 years, and i've only been driving for 8.
Oh wow! So you got in at least one at-fault accident 5 years ago, and you've been in other accidents for which you were not techincally at fault since then. If you were so good at identifying and responding to other stupid drivers, you would have avoided those accidents. "Not at fault" does not mean that you were in no way responsible for the accident, it usually just means the one that broke the rule whether it be speeding, not using a turn signal, or running a stop sign. All of which are common and a good driver must learn to avoid.
why should i be given fines and increased insurance because other people cant handle it.
Your record is anything but "driving perfectly well", and your ability to "handle it" is severely in question. The reason you will be given fines and increased insurance is because you cannot handle it. Here's an idea: Put down the phone BEFORE you encounter any stupid people, and then you're already prepared!