How could it be an antitrust issue? For a start, Apple is not a monopoly. Even if they were, such an action wouldn't prevent people using iTS-purchased music on other media players because the DRM is gone now.
If they're veering all over the place, you're probably better off hanging back and not trying to go round the, which could result in a collision. With the truck, if you hang back you won't really be losing any time and even if you overtake, it' not as if the power reduction is instant
So your speed never varies at all? even if the road bends? you don't slow down and speed up?.
Obviously that wouldn't be possible, so it's fairly obvious that I'm talking about on a straight or a gentle bend.
and it seems you know your exact speed without looking at the speedo fuck me you are good.
I'm sorry, are you replying to the right post? Because I said minimal effort, not zero effort. If you need to look down so often that it degrades your ability to drive (your accusation re: speed limits) then you've not reached a safe competency in driving.
Regardless of how hard you argue if you are looking at your speedo you are NOT looking at the road and at any speed taking your eyes off the road for as little as a second can cause an accident.
In that case what difference does the speed limit make beyond existing? Are you proposing that there be no speed limits?
Oh and if the car in front slows down and speeds up I find staying back from them helps you can just lift your foot off the accelerator without braking. So if you stop tailgating you should be ok.
Who said anything about tailgating? I abhor it. But if you're at a safe following distance you're still going to be speeding up and down when the car and front does, particularly if there's other traffic about. You won't be doing it in a dangerous fashion, but it will still be irritating.
Strange works very well in france. They vary the speed on both road conditions and vehicles. As to enforce it we could try using traffic police instead of cameras, I am fairly sure that the police are intelligent enough to determine what the weather is like while they stand in it with a speed gun.
I'm unfamiliar with the system in France, how it's enforced, its comparative safety record or what would be necessary to implement such a system in the UK (or USa or Australia, etc.). Do you have any of that data?
Going faster has been scientifically proven to increase a drivers concentration. (I can't be bothered to find the article but iirc the study was carried out in italy.
If you can't be bothered to find it, I can't be bothered to believe you.
Also as I stated earlier safe speed is the key
That's somewhat tautological.
in built up housing estates 20mph should be max. However as stated the motorway is safe to speed on and little girls shouldn't be playing there.
Agreed.
Yes you are correct that lower speed limits damage & gives more time to react, but using that logic surely we should just ban cars altogether and just walk after all 2mph is a lot safer than 20mph or 30mph.
Not really given the law of diminishing returns and the additional factor of balancing up the utility of speed with its risks. Our goal is not safety alone, otherwise we wouldn't by driving at all. Is suspect that on that at least we are agreed.
look further down this thread and I have posted 2 links to (reports of) government studies proving speeding is a low percentage.
Speed causing a minority of accidents is not logically equivalent to speed being safe and people who keep saying that merely harm their case in front of anyone who understands logic and statistics. It may surprise you that I agree that you can't look at speed by itself and say it's dangerous. The issue is relative speed - relative to other traffic by and large. There was a study done by the Federal Highways Agency which showed that going faster or slower than the average speed of traffic causes accidents. It also affirmed that regardless of its role or lack thereof as a cause, speed makes crashes worse. My personal view is that speed limits should be around the natura
Actually, I find your attitude far more terrifying, especially given your last sentence that speaks volume as to your level of respect for other people. YOU aren't any more a representative of the "society" you mention than I.
People who justify risky behaviour on the basis that they're happy with the risk, without considering that maybe the people around them who can be put in danger aren't happy with those risks are selfish and a public danger. That should be fairly self-evident.
There is a preponderance of evidence to show that lowering highway speed limits does not affect the number of accidents... and only serves to increase police revenue.
Who said anything about lowering highway speed limits? We're talking about speeding i.e. exceeding existing ones which by and large are quite sensible.
I'm curious to know which page you found. I was referring to this one, which basically just collects a lot of citations for material from other sources without making comment or drawing conclusions.
That's the one I looked at. The stuff I quoted is one of the sources he used.
Then how do you address the issues I raised that arise from this attitude?
Not everything needs to be reduced to the most marginal safety gain possible.
Who said anything about 'most marginal safety gain possible'? You're glibbly ignoring the reality of the abilities of most cars and drivers on the road, likely including yourself.
I am willing to take a little bit of risk for a little bit of freedom... or even a feeling of freedom.
How nice of you to make that decision on behalf of society. A selfish attitude like that should be reason to keep you off the road.
Since there are no controlled environments where this can be done (no ultra-high-speed roads)
They're called racing tracks and exist in most countries with roads.
I am forced to go faster than the state limit
Oh please. You're not forced to do anything. You want to indulge your desire to drive past, but public roads do not exist for your personal indulgence. If you want to drive fast, there exist places where you can do so legally. If you don't want to do that, there is no right to drive fast. Driving itself is a privilege bestowed upon those who demonstrate basic competency (and then frequently fail to maintain said competency once they've got their licence).
Finding that not all of the evidence presented completely and unambiguously supports a position doesn't necessarily mean the position isn't basically correct.
Finding that the only evidence presented either refutes the case being made or where it appears to offer any support, is couched in caveats, is pretty good reason to be sceptical.
Try looking up Aren Cambre's database of speed-related source material, and reading some of the many studies cited there.
I had a quick look at his site and he seems like a selfish, biased nutjob. He assumes that speed limits are too low, rather than setting out to objectively examine the evidence, wants to be able to drink and drive, thinks driving is a right rather than a privilege, thinks that the only requirement that can be placed on drivers is to protect themselves (i.e. not required to avoid causing harm to others) and so on. Hardly the type to expect unbiased information from. Nevertheless, I've picked out some quotes:
There is evidence that crash risk is lowest near the average speed of traffic and increases for vehicles traveling much faster or slower than average. The occurrence of a large number of crashes involving turning maneuver partly explains the increased risk for motorists traveling slower than average and confirms the importance of safety programs involving turn lanes, access control, grade separation, and other measures to reduce conflicts resulting from large differences in travel speeds.
When the consequences of crashes are taken into account, the risk of being involved in an injury crash is lowest for vehicles that travel near the median speed or slower and increases exponentially for motorists traveling much faster. One of the major concerns in all of the studies is the travel speed before the crash. Emerging technology used in mayday, vehicle tracking, and adaptive speed control systems provide the opportunity to accurately and continuously capture travel speed. This technology should be applied in improving our understanding of the relationship between speed, speed variation, and safety.
When a crash occurs, its severity depends on the change in speed of the vehicle at impact. The fatality risk increases with the change in speed to the fourth power. International research indicates the change in injury crashes will be twice the percentage change in speed squared, and fatal crashes will be four times the percentage change in speed. These relationships are based mainly on speed limit and speed changes on high-speed roads. More research is needed to assess their applicability to low-speed urban roads.
In general, changing speed limits on low and moderate speed roads appears to have little or no effect on speed and thus little or no effect on crashes. This suggests that drivers travel at speeds they feel are reasonable and safe for the road and traffic regardless of the posted limit. However, on freeways and other high-speed roads, speed limit increases generally lead to higher speeds and crashes. The change in speed is roughly one-fourth the change in speed limit. Results from international studies suggest that for every 1 mi/h change in speed, injury accidents will change by 5 percent (3 percent for every 1km/h). However there is limited evidence that suggests the net effect of speed limits may be positive on a system wide basis. More research is needed to evaluate the net safety effect of speed limit changes.
Most of the speed related crashes involve speed too fast for conditions. This would suggest that variable speed limits that adjust with traffic and environmental conditions could provide potential benefits.
The safest speed seems to be the average speed of traffic, which is what sensible speed limits should be at or a bit above. If (a big if, I know) people genera
In fact the constant pressure NOT to speed causes accidents because I now spend more time looking at my speedo making sure I ain't speeding as I go through the 20th speed camera instead of looking at the road a head of me.
If you can't maintain a constant speed with minimal effort, you're not a very good driver and certainly shouldn't be going anywhere near high speeds. One of the most basic things drivers learn is how to maintain a constant speed. Few things are more aggravating than being being a driver who keeps speeding up and slowing down.
Safe speed is what should be encouraged. On a dry, clear day with a well maintained car do 90mph on the motorway. However when it's dark & foggy slow the fuck down and take it easy..
So speed limits should vary depending on conditions? Whose deifnition of safe speed is going to matter then? How are you going to enforce it?
Take the common if you had hit little girl X and 30 instead of 35 she would have lived arguement. I can counter that with had I been doing 45 I'd have been passed her before she stepped on the road (assuming the same timeline)..
Arguing about where the speed would put you is idiotic because it cuts off both ways: go slower and you wouldn't have reached her. The things to consider are ability for involved parties to react, concentration required to drive safely and damage inflicted. Driving faster means you both have less time to react, you have to be able to concentrate harder on what is going on and you'll cause more damage on impact.
Let me get this straight, you think that the speed limit for a road should be determined by fast a good driver in peak health in a well maintained car go? What do you imagine will happen when someone who doesn't meet that criteria tries to drive at the speed limit? Accidents. You can't have different speed limits for different drivers because that's just not enforceable, so limits have to be set on the basis of what will be safest if the driving population of a whole can go at that speed. Enforcing that limit then has to be done to everyone equally, regardless of driving ability, because police and speed cameras can't determine you're ability simply from looking at the car and it would be absurd to assess your ability afterwards before deciding whether to charge/fine you.
People who think that the speed limit should be higher because they think they can safely handle a higher speed haven't through through the implications.
Incidentally, if you think that the speed limit on a UK 'highway' is 55 mph, you're very much mistaken.
Also, what happens when you are trying to pass a car that's going slower than you, and while trying to pass your engine power drops!?!?
If the car is going slower than the speed limit, why would overtaking it be a problem, unless it is only just below? Even then, it was clear from the article that the response isn't instant. There's no reason to think that you wouldn't have time to complete the overtaking manoeuvre. If the car is doing the speed limit, why would you have a good legal reason to be overtaking it?
Learn to read. The findings were mixed and in cases where increasing the speed limit saved lives, it was as simple as 'ore speed is faster' but rather 'faster highways takes speeding drivers away from other roads where accidents are more likely'.
"For example, one study found that a speed limit increase from 55 to 65 resulted in roughly a 3 percent increase in the accident rate and a 24 percent increase in the probability of a fatality once an accident occurred," Mannering said. "But then other studies have contended that legislation-enabled speed-limit increases have actually saved lives. One study argued that increasing from 55 to 65 saved lives because of shifts in law enforcement resources, the ability of higher speed limit interstates to attract riskier drivers away from inherently more dangerous non-interstate highways and reducing how often drivers speed up and slow down."
if these goveners are so blind as to jsut remove all power i can see accidents being caused by them.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I'm curious, were you being deliberately ironic when you jumped to that conclusion, or did you just not read the article?
"It actually talks to the computer which manages the engine, and it tells that computer to limit the available fuel to the engine so that it will not exceed a certain speed, whatever speed limit you're in," Dr Jobe said.
I like the part where I'm traveling at speed of traffic at 120km/h on the freeway when the power goes out.
Really? I must have missed that bit, could you point it out? All I read was something about less fuel being made available to the engine so that the car wouldn't be able to maintain a high speed.
"It actually talks to the computer which manages the engine, and it tells that computer to limit the available fuel to the engine so that it will not exceed a certain speed, whatever speed limit you're in," Dr Jobe said.
Of course the problem is that since people are being asked to make the payments and agreeing to do it, then it's pretty hard to say it wasn't authorised.
Um, no, all the competitors you've heard of support it.
Microsoft, Sony, Creative and Sandisk all produce players that can handle it, to name just a few. Just because your player doesn't support it, doesn't mean the manufacturer doesn't, or that Apple could prevent them from doing so.
Those competitors must also pay Apple a premium in order to be allowed to do so.
Who told you that? As far as I can tell, Via Licensing seems to handle the licenses and lists Apple as a licensee, not a licensor. In fact, it looks like Apple is one of many companies paying Sony et al for permission to use AAC. Of course I may have misunderstood the site, but I don't see how anyone could claim that Apple owns AAC. I doubt a 15c/unit fee constitutes much of a barrier to competition either.
How does using m4a lock anyone out of the iTunes Store? Virtually all of Apple's competitors support it in one product or another, which Apple has done nothing to prevent. How is it remotely an anti-trust issue?
The trees are a blurry mess and there's a fair bit of watercolouring e.g. on the road and on the car on the left, which is symptomatic of detail-destroying noise reduction. And that's all in good lighting conditions. Would to see it in worse lighting. Your image would probably be passable as a 6x4 printout, but no more than that.
The trouble with vending machines is that you can't sample what you want. A big part of book buying for some people is browsing through what's available, reading a chapter or two. Vending machines could work well for the latest in-demand bestseller, but for browsing, they'd be a bit rubbish.
My point is that in your post you implied many things, the first (and most obvious) is that God exists
One Christian makes a claim about Dr Hawking and salvation. Another Christian comments on this claim by explaining his understanding of Christianity. A third (me) disagrees with the second and makes comments that would support the first. Three Christians debating what Christianity says about what is required for salvation. Of course there's an underlying assumption that God exists! Christians don't exactly need to explain that to each other. This wasn't a case of a Christian trying to convince a non-Christian.
and the the Christian bible is His divinely inspired word. In addition to this, you imply that no other holy books are.
Again, these are things that were not being disputed by the three people involved in the debate. This is akin to three people debating whether a penalty had correctly been awarded in a rugby match then a fourth coming along and saying that there the only true form of football uses round balls instead of oval ones. True or not, it's quite irrelevant to the discussion.
Certainly, Jewish scriptures mention the coming of a Messiah, but it is widely accepted (I would say almost completely accepted) that Jesus was not it.
Widely accepted by who? Every Christian believes it. Not exactly sure what Muslims think, though I'm not all that interested to be honest. Quite a few Jews believe it too - some of them now call themselves Christians, while others call themselves Messianic Jews.
So, when you say that in order for Prof. Hawking to be "saved" (ie, get into heaven) he must "trust in Jesus Christ", you are also saying that Judaism is wrong.
Judaism which denies that Jesus is the Messiah? Yes. Your point?
I mentioned the Quran and UFO stories in my post because they are both just as reliable (in terms of evidence) as the Christian bible. They are all examples of anecdote.
You're just showing how uninformed you are. In what respect do you think the Christian Bible lacks evidence? Evidence of what? Events? Authorship? Dating? Which bits? How did you go about comparing it with the Quran and UFO stories? What was your method of investigation? Where is the rigour in your approach to this issue?
And that's a very shallow interpretation of my comments.
I'm sorry, but if you bring UFO stories into a debate then you're not very likely to get taken seriously are you? How many universities have departments of theology and professors of biblical studies? Now how many have departments that are going to study UFOs? What are the hither to unplumbed depths of your comment that I missed upon first (and second) reading?
I think Prof. Hawking needs to set up a video camera so that there's no way religious vultures can claim a deathbed conversion (as is Richard Dawkins' plan).
It's a little unseemly that people do that. Christianity's veracity does not rest on the confession of any living person. The gospels stands or dies on the historicity of the crucifixion and resurrection. If they happened, Christianity means everything. If they didn't, it is nothing more than a lie and those who confess, on their deathbeds or elsewhere, are to be pitied.
But I do sincerely hope that he pulls through and that he lives to do more.
I hope he lives to. I'm slightly disgusted though by the fact that so many seem to want him to live on the basis of his achievements. It would appear that that not all lives are equal in value according to many Slashdot readers. That isn't a comment directed at you, by the way. I don't know what your precise view is on the matter.
As you yourself have said, the Pope thought it was a personal attack. Whether it was or not, it was at least perceived to be, so it becomes difficult to argue that the action was taken purely on the basis of an opinion on science. If heliocentrism was the root problem, surely action would have been taken earlier? The fact that it wasn't taken until the insult makes it rather likely that heliocentrism wasn't the issue. And before you blame it all on 'church' remember that there were plenty of Christians outside the Roman Catholic church and there were plenty within who supported heliocentrism. Really the issue here was one Pope, whose influence lasted longer than it should have because of the authority structures and weight of tradition within the RC church.
Of course, even if it was true that the Christian church as a whole opposed heliocentrism for a period of time, that says nect to nothing about whether the church (I'm not sure if it original comment was addressed against the RCs, or all Christians) commonly teaches things that are opposed to logic and science. One debatable historical incident is not proof of continuing, widespread action or attitude, otherwise I could say that Americans commonly try to assassinate their president.
The Catholic church is one of those few churches that does not anymore charges 10% of all your salaries just because you are a sheep in the congregation.
I can't think of any mainstream denominations that charge anyone to come to church. It is suggested that 10% is a good amount to give on the basis of Old Testament tithes. New Testament teaching on the matter e.g. in 2 Corinthians 8, makes clear that giving is good, but not mandator. The principle of grace seems to lie at the heart of it i.e. giving is not obligatory, it costs the giver and it meets a need in the given to, with Christ's death on a the cross as the ultimate example of all this.
It's common for your church to teach believes that oppose to logic and science (remember Galileo?).
Given that the church was funding research into heliocentrism and Galileo's problems came from insulting comments he made about the Pope, the question is: how well do you remember Galileo?
Given that we were discussing the Christian view of God and salvation, it doesn't make much sense to look at the Quran. As for Jewish scriptures, obviously Jesus didn't appear in them by name because he hadn't been incarnated by the time they were written. There is however a great expectation of the coming of the Messiah and arguably the appearance of a pre-incarnate Christ at certain points.
You really shouldn't go around touting that one book is the actual truth when it's just as reliable as UFO stories.
That's a very juvenile and glib treatment of the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
How could it be an antitrust issue? For a start, Apple is not a monopoly. Even if they were, such an action wouldn't prevent people using iTS-purchased music on other media players because the DRM is gone now.
If they're veering all over the place, you're probably better off hanging back and not trying to go round the, which could result in a collision. With the truck, if you hang back you won't really be losing any time and even if you overtake, it' not as if the power reduction is instant
I'm guessing that they mean that the throttle will be reduced, as would happen if you take your foot off the accelerator.
Obviously that wouldn't be possible, so it's fairly obvious that I'm talking about on a straight or a gentle bend.
I'm sorry, are you replying to the right post? Because I said minimal effort, not zero effort. If you need to look down so often that it degrades your ability to drive (your accusation re: speed limits) then you've not reached a safe competency in driving.
In that case what difference does the speed limit make beyond existing? Are you proposing that there be no speed limits?
Who said anything about tailgating? I abhor it. But if you're at a safe following distance you're still going to be speeding up and down when the car and front does, particularly if there's other traffic about. You won't be doing it in a dangerous fashion, but it will still be irritating.
I'm unfamiliar with the system in France, how it's enforced, its comparative safety record or what would be necessary to implement such a system in the UK (or USa or Australia, etc.). Do you have any of that data?
If you can't be bothered to find it, I can't be bothered to believe you.
That's somewhat tautological.
Agreed.
Not really given the law of diminishing returns and the additional factor of balancing up the utility of speed with its risks. Our goal is not safety alone, otherwise we wouldn't by driving at all. Is suspect that on that at least we are agreed.
Speed causing a minority of accidents is not logically equivalent to speed being safe and people who keep saying that merely harm their case in front of anyone who understands logic and statistics. It may surprise you that I agree that you can't look at speed by itself and say it's dangerous. The issue is relative speed - relative to other traffic by and large. There was a study done by the Federal Highways Agency which showed that going faster or slower than the average speed of traffic causes accidents. It also affirmed that regardless of its role or lack thereof as a cause, speed makes crashes worse. My personal view is that speed limits should be around the natura
People who justify risky behaviour on the basis that they're happy with the risk, without considering that maybe the people around them who can be put in danger aren't happy with those risks are selfish and a public danger. That should be fairly self-evident.
Who said anything about lowering highway speed limits? We're talking about speeding i.e. exceeding existing ones which by and large are quite sensible.
That's the one I looked at. The stuff I quoted is one of the sources he used.
Then how do you address the issues I raised that arise from this attitude?
Who said anything about 'most marginal safety gain possible'? You're glibbly ignoring the reality of the abilities of most cars and drivers on the road, likely including yourself.
How nice of you to make that decision on behalf of society. A selfish attitude like that should be reason to keep you off the road.
They're called racing tracks and exist in most countries with roads.
Oh please. You're not forced to do anything. You want to indulge your desire to drive past, but public roads do not exist for your personal indulgence. If you want to drive fast, there exist places where you can do so legally. If you don't want to do that, there is no right to drive fast. Driving itself is a privilege bestowed upon those who demonstrate basic competency (and then frequently fail to maintain said competency once they've got their licence).
Finding that the only evidence presented either refutes the case being made or where it appears to offer any support, is couched in caveats, is pretty good reason to be sceptical.
I had a quick look at his site and he seems like a selfish, biased nutjob. He assumes that speed limits are too low, rather than setting out to objectively examine the evidence, wants to be able to drink and drive, thinks driving is a right rather than a privilege, thinks that the only requirement that can be placed on drivers is to protect themselves (i.e. not required to avoid causing harm to others) and so on. Hardly the type to expect unbiased information from. Nevertheless, I've picked out some quotes:
There is evidence that crash risk is lowest near the average speed of traffic and increases for vehicles traveling much faster or slower than average. The occurrence of a large number of crashes involving turning maneuver partly explains the increased risk for motorists traveling slower than average and confirms the importance of safety programs involving turn lanes, access control, grade separation, and other measures to reduce conflicts resulting from large differences in travel speeds.
When the consequences of crashes are taken into account, the risk of being involved in an injury crash is lowest for vehicles that travel near the median speed or slower and increases exponentially for motorists traveling much faster. One of the major concerns in all of the studies is the travel speed before the crash. Emerging technology used in mayday, vehicle tracking, and adaptive speed control systems provide the opportunity to accurately and continuously capture travel speed. This technology should be applied in improving our understanding of the relationship between speed, speed variation, and safety.
When a crash occurs, its severity depends on the change in speed of the vehicle at impact. The fatality risk increases with the change in speed to the fourth power. International research indicates the change in injury crashes will be twice the percentage change in speed squared, and fatal crashes will be four times the percentage change in speed. These relationships are based mainly on speed limit and speed changes on high-speed roads. More research is needed to assess their applicability to low-speed urban roads.
In general, changing speed limits on low and moderate speed roads appears to have little or no effect on speed and thus little or no effect on crashes. This suggests that drivers travel at speeds they feel are reasonable and safe for the road and traffic regardless of the posted limit. However, on freeways and other high-speed roads, speed limit increases generally lead to higher speeds and crashes. The change in speed is roughly one-fourth the change in speed limit. Results from international studies suggest that for every 1 mi/h change in speed, injury accidents will change by 5 percent (3 percent for every 1km/h). However there is limited evidence that suggests the net effect of speed limits may be positive on a system wide basis. More research is needed to evaluate the net safety effect of speed limit changes.
Most of the speed related crashes involve speed too fast for conditions. This would suggest that variable speed limits that adjust with traffic and environmental conditions could provide potential benefits.
Synthesis of safety research related to speed and speed limits
The safest speed seems to be the average speed of traffic, which is what sensible speed limits should be at or a bit above. If (a big if, I know) people genera
That's a bit different to all power being cut, which was the whole point.
If you can't maintain a constant speed with minimal effort, you're not a very good driver and certainly shouldn't be going anywhere near high speeds. One of the most basic things drivers learn is how to maintain a constant speed. Few things are more aggravating than being being a driver who keeps speeding up and slowing down.
So speed limits should vary depending on conditions? Whose deifnition of safe speed is going to matter then? How are you going to enforce it?
Arguing about where the speed would put you is idiotic because it cuts off both ways: go slower and you wouldn't have reached her. The things to consider are ability for involved parties to react, concentration required to drive safely and damage inflicted. Driving faster means you both have less time to react, you have to be able to concentrate harder on what is going on and you'll cause more damage on impact.
Let me get this straight, you think that the speed limit for a road should be determined by fast a good driver in peak health in a well maintained car go? What do you imagine will happen when someone who doesn't meet that criteria tries to drive at the speed limit? Accidents. You can't have different speed limits for different drivers because that's just not enforceable, so limits have to be set on the basis of what will be safest if the driving population of a whole can go at that speed. Enforcing that limit then has to be done to everyone equally, regardless of driving ability, because police and speed cameras can't determine you're ability simply from looking at the car and it would be absurd to assess your ability afterwards before deciding whether to charge/fine you.
People who think that the speed limit should be higher because they think they can safely handle a higher speed haven't through through the implications.
Incidentally, if you think that the speed limit on a UK 'highway' is 55 mph, you're very much mistaken.
If the car is going slower than the speed limit, why would overtaking it be a problem, unless it is only just below? Even then, it was clear from the article that the response isn't instant. There's no reason to think that you wouldn't have time to complete the overtaking manoeuvre. If the car is doing the speed limit, why would you have a good legal reason to be overtaking it?
Learn to read. The findings were mixed and in cases where increasing the speed limit saved lives, it was as simple as 'ore speed is faster' but rather 'faster highways takes speeding drivers away from other roads where accidents are more likely'.
"For example, one study found that a speed limit increase from 55 to 65 resulted in roughly a 3 percent increase in the accident rate and a 24 percent increase in the probability of a fatality once an accident occurred," Mannering said. "But then other studies have contended that legislation-enabled speed-limit increases have actually saved lives. One study argued that increasing from 55 to 65 saved lives because of shifts in law enforcement resources, the ability of higher speed limit interstates to attract riskier drivers away from inherently more dangerous non-interstate highways and reducing how often drivers speed up and slow down."
I'm curious, were you being deliberately ironic when you jumped to that conclusion, or did you just not read the article?
"It actually talks to the computer which manages the engine, and it tells that computer to limit the available fuel to the engine so that it will not exceed a certain speed, whatever speed limit you're in," Dr Jobe said.
Really? I must have missed that bit, could you point it out? All I read was something about less fuel being made available to the engine so that the car wouldn't be able to maintain a high speed.
"It actually talks to the computer which manages the engine, and it tells that computer to limit the available fuel to the engine so that it will not exceed a certain speed, whatever speed limit you're in," Dr Jobe said.
Of course the problem is that since people are being asked to make the payments and agreeing to do it, then it's pretty hard to say it wasn't authorised.
Microsoft, Sony, Creative and Sandisk all produce players that can handle it, to name just a few. Just because your player doesn't support it, doesn't mean the manufacturer doesn't, or that Apple could prevent them from doing so.
Who told you that? As far as I can tell, Via Licensing seems to handle the licenses and lists Apple as a licensee, not a licensor. In fact, it looks like Apple is one of many companies paying Sony et al for permission to use AAC. Of course I may have misunderstood the site, but I don't see how anyone could claim that Apple owns AAC. I doubt a 15c/unit fee constitutes much of a barrier to competition either.
How does using m4a lock anyone out of the iTunes Store? Virtually all of Apple's competitors support it in one product or another, which Apple has done nothing to prevent. How is it remotely an anti-trust issue?
The trees are a blurry mess and there's a fair bit of watercolouring e.g. on the road and on the car on the left, which is symptomatic of detail-destroying noise reduction. And that's all in good lighting conditions. Would to see it in worse lighting. Your image would probably be passable as a 6x4 printout, but no more than that.
The trouble with vending machines is that you can't sample what you want. A big part of book buying for some people is browsing through what's available, reading a chapter or two. Vending machines could work well for the latest in-demand bestseller, but for browsing, they'd be a bit rubbish.
One Christian makes a claim about Dr Hawking and salvation. Another Christian comments on this claim by explaining his understanding of Christianity. A third (me) disagrees with the second and makes comments that would support the first. Three Christians debating what Christianity says about what is required for salvation. Of course there's an underlying assumption that God exists! Christians don't exactly need to explain that to each other. This wasn't a case of a Christian trying to convince a non-Christian.
Again, these are things that were not being disputed by the three people involved in the debate. This is akin to three people debating whether a penalty had correctly been awarded in a rugby match then a fourth coming along and saying that there the only true form of football uses round balls instead of oval ones. True or not, it's quite irrelevant to the discussion.
Widely accepted by who? Every Christian believes it. Not exactly sure what Muslims think, though I'm not all that interested to be honest. Quite a few Jews believe it too - some of them now call themselves Christians, while others call themselves Messianic Jews.
Judaism which denies that Jesus is the Messiah? Yes. Your point?
You're just showing how uninformed you are. In what respect do you think the Christian Bible lacks evidence? Evidence of what? Events? Authorship? Dating? Which bits? How did you go about comparing it with the Quran and UFO stories? What was your method of investigation? Where is the rigour in your approach to this issue?
I'm sorry, but if you bring UFO stories into a debate then you're not very likely to get taken seriously are you? How many universities have departments of theology and professors of biblical studies? Now how many have departments that are going to study UFOs? What are the hither to unplumbed depths of your comment that I missed upon first (and second) reading?
It's a little unseemly that people do that. Christianity's veracity does not rest on the confession of any living person. The gospels stands or dies on the historicity of the crucifixion and resurrection. If they happened, Christianity means everything. If they didn't, it is nothing more than a lie and those who confess, on their deathbeds or elsewhere, are to be pitied.
I hope he lives to. I'm slightly disgusted though by the fact that so many seem to want him to live on the basis of his achievements. It would appear that that not all lives are equal in value according to many Slashdot readers. That isn't a comment directed at you, by the way. I don't know what your precise view is on the matter.
As you yourself have said, the Pope thought it was a personal attack. Whether it was or not, it was at least perceived to be, so it becomes difficult to argue that the action was taken purely on the basis of an opinion on science. If heliocentrism was the root problem, surely action would have been taken earlier? The fact that it wasn't taken until the insult makes it rather likely that heliocentrism wasn't the issue. And before you blame it all on 'church' remember that there were plenty of Christians outside the Roman Catholic church and there were plenty within who supported heliocentrism. Really the issue here was one Pope, whose influence lasted longer than it should have because of the authority structures and weight of tradition within the RC church.
Of course, even if it was true that the Christian church as a whole opposed heliocentrism for a period of time, that says nect to nothing about whether the church (I'm not sure if it original comment was addressed against the RCs, or all Christians) commonly teaches things that are opposed to logic and science. One debatable historical incident is not proof of continuing, widespread action or attitude, otherwise I could say that Americans commonly try to assassinate their president.
I can't think of any mainstream denominations that charge anyone to come to church. It is suggested that 10% is a good amount to give on the basis of Old Testament tithes. New Testament teaching on the matter e.g. in 2 Corinthians 8, makes clear that giving is good, but not mandator. The principle of grace seems to lie at the heart of it i.e. giving is not obligatory, it costs the giver and it meets a need in the given to, with Christ's death on a the cross as the ultimate example of all this.
Given that the church was funding research into heliocentrism and Galileo's problems came from insulting comments he made about the Pope, the question is: how well do you remember Galileo?
That's a very juvenile and glib treatment of the issue.