I can stop talking and put the phone down. If the the person keeps talking, it doesn't matter.
That you claim you are capable of that is irrelevant. That people, in general, don't is causing thousands of deaths. I don't care what some guy "claims" he does better than everyone else. I care about what can be done to prevent preventable deaths.
Did you think about that at all? Or when driving do you star at your passengers?
How's your treatment for glaucoma going? For those of us not functionally blind, we can "see" our passenger without taking our eyes off the road.
None of which has been actually shown to distract any more then having a passenger, or kids, or the radio, or a blond in a convertible drive by..
Yes, it has. They've done studies where a cell phone conversation reduces safety, regardless of whether it's hand-held or hands-free, but that a passenger doesn't reduce safety as much.
That you suffer confirmation bias doesn't change reality, but dictates that there's nothing I could say, nor any cite I could give that would change your mind.
That you are an idiot jackass in getting your point across is the remainder of your point?
My point was "distracted driving" is the problem, and that happens more with a cell phone conversation than with a passenger. You disagreed with the second point so much that your point was lost, becuase you claim now to be in agreement with my point, even if disagreement with my example.
It's easy to blame cell phones, but they're not the real problem. Drivers who allow distractions of any kind in their car are the problem.
In practice, everywhere I've lived, there has been a law against "distracted driving" but that is never applied except when other laws are in effect (DUI, cell phones), or after a crash. If the police just took the time and effort to enforce the laws, rather than sleeping on the side of the road until their radar gun beeps at them, then we'd be safer, and we wouldn't need to be having this discussion.
But that's too hard, so we get targeted laws, and the broad laws are ignored. It's already illegal to drive distracted.
The other part is that you are wrong. Distractions can be good (or necessary). Feel free to argue that one.
That's the current law in most places. And, as you note, it is unenforceable. Much like tailgating in Texas is legal. It's illegal to follow so closely as to not be able to stop safely, but in practice, it's a ticket that is only given after one crashes, and never for following someone at 6" at 65 mph, as "I didn't crash" is considered a valid defense. Though I haven't paid attention much since they changed all traffic rules from crimes to infringements, so maybe it sticks better now that you aren't guaranteed a trial.
No, what Fox does is fraud. It has (mostly) unbiased news. But it has lots of opinion shows called "news" that are very very biased, in content and selection. If they had separate channels for Fox news and Fox opinion, they'd be one of the better news channels. But they have their opinion shows passed as news.
If a left news channel tells nothing but stories on police brutality, even if all true, then the watchers are shown that police brutality is out of control and growing, even if it is actually getting less and less common.
Not if the content was unbiased. How could you (unbiasedly) cover a falling statistic without ever once mentioning it's a falling statistic? You couldn't. But you presume bias when it suits your opinion.
That's true of most things. Given a sufficiently powerful system and perfect knowledge, you can emulate a simpler system. But how do you get your simpler system into the base? How can you "swap the cable" without setting off every alarm in the place? They have physical security designed against such attacks, but you make it sound trivial.
My memory of the switchover was that I had Windows 3.0 on 5.25" and Win 95 on 3.5". I never owned 3.11, so I don't have the disk type burned forever in my memory.
The passengers will help look around for traffic. Also, you can "ignore" passengers in person more politely than someone over the phone. The phone is a reduced communication medium. The quality is worse, so tone can be distorted, and you get no visual cues of the person to help you understand, so you focus more on the phone than a person sitting next to you to get the same level of understanding. The quality of conversation is different as well. You can "tune out" the people in the car more easily, your wife is asking about dinner, the kids are asking to go to the new movie. But the phone call is your boss or customer, and you need to get that information 100% correct.
There's a long list of reasons that a phone call is different from a passenger. That you can't think of any indicates a problem with you, not those who are seeking a ban to phones, but not passengers.
But the ratios are individual, so doing what the "other guy" did to lose weight, might actually cause you to gain weight. That's part of the problem. The idea that there's "one solution" to the problem. Some people who eat more poop more calories. They won't get fat. Others who eat less have their metabolism go into near-shutdown and gain weight eating less. Fixed eating with increased exercise will almost always result in weight loss, but what do you do about those who the increased burn cause greater hunger?
Your "rules" only work if you ignore hunger. That's neither safe, not practical.
So how would you word it to indicate you want to learn your news from sources that are unbiased on how they report stories, but biased in how they select them to select ones that are interesting to you? You don't want biased reporting, but a biased story selection. I don't care to see reports on the conditions of ants in Africa, and the effects of drought on their diet. I don't care to hear about things that don't affect me and I can't do anything about (lives of celebrities being high on that list). So yes, I want biased story selection. Everyone does. But we don't want biased stories. I get it that you seem to equate any thought in story selection means deliberate manipulation of the content of all stories, but I don't agree.
So because you assume the locals "allowed" the mines to be laid, and even "cheered" when doing so, they should have their farmland kept unusable, or engage in a farming practice which can (to the tune of hundreds of people a year) prove lethal.
So, because you don't like them, we should spend billions saving a few hundred per year, when the same money could save 100x as many people when applied elsewhere? What a waste of human life you are advocating. Why are you so heartless?
Easy to counter if you are trying to. It seems many of the mines in the ground are old. I expect they didn't do that. Also, the means of delaying a detonation add delicateness. Why cripple your mines with delicate triggers?
Why was Columbus's second expedition to the same place as the first? There was plenty of undiscovered land left to find.
For the stars, you send it to the same star for the same reason you'd send it anywhere else. Curiosity. Did it actually make it? How can we help the "primitives" we launched 500 years ago? Can you honestly think of no reasons to check on an "old" colony?
Yes, good only if you live in London. In other words, no use to most here, and very few on the planet. The frequency of the sales of that nature are unknown. That was one post from last year. Previous and subsequent sales didn't seem to match that level of discount.
TV doesn't exist because it was first described in "fi" books. Cell phones and nuclear-powered ships don't exist because they were first described in "fi" "fi" is proof it can't happen, rather than an exploration of "if".
. Anyone who is not shocked by seeing this is a psychopathic personality type.
So everyone working on disarming mines would already be familiar with this, and thus not "shocked", and therefore, anyone clearing mines is a psychopath. I'm not sure your conclusion works. I think anyone who thinks all others with differing opinions are psychopaths are psychopaths.
I suggest that you, with your full understanding of the economics involved, walk through minefields. Because you are an immoral fuck, and you wouldn't do it anyhow, because you are also an immoral coward.
I do not walk through minefields, nor crossing Interstates on foot. Yes, those who laid the mines should be responsible for removing them, but if we are going to make it a global charity problem, you'd save more lives per dollar buying helicopters for patient transfers/ambulance service than wasting millions cleaning up old ordinance. Why do you want to condem people to die from poor emergency response times by blocking funding for services? Oh, that's right, your pet project is mines, and if the numbers don't agree with you, *I'm* the immoral one for trying to do the most good.
It's all about the money. Although I suspect you'd be singing a differnt song if the route your children had to take to school was the minefield. As long as it is brown people in areas you and your'n will never go to , it's an acceptable thing.
Yup. If it were near me, of course it would be a bigger issue. I'd work on fences myself in spare time to keep people out, or go digging them out myself. The locals "allowed" them to be laid. Probably cheered at the time. 20M mines in Egypt, 700 dead per year. I think the locals have figured it out. So I'm not sure why it's such a hot topic that something that's less deadly than a bathtub must be removed with such urgency.
I'd expect a mine like you describe would stop working for trigger reasons. The trigger has to work, no matter how stable and waterproof the payload, if the trigger doesn't work, no boom.
If I were tasked with clearing mines, I'd use large masers to sweep the ground and spoil or detonate any ordinance in the ground. How powerful are mines? Why wouldn't a road roller be able to find them by detonating them, while remaining safe to operate and reusable? Seems odd to me that a "small" anti-personnel mine would destroy a 50,000 lb armored steamroller.
Seriously, a multi-generational nuclear powered colony or unmanned space probe going roughly 1% to 10% of the speed of light is not completely outside of possibilities.
Sure, and in every sci fi book, the next generation drive beat them there. Sometimes spending more time on the colony than the travelers spent getting there.
No, I wouldn't. Understanding actual limitations is necessary to properly using them and speeding adoption. Complaints of temperature related issues were justified because they were backed by science. Then we got enough information to understand that hybrids are hit harder by cold than EVs. EVs generally spend more engineering time on the battery pack. The temperature normalization in EVs is superior to hybrids. So report on that, and pressure hybrid makers to better treat the battery packs so that we get better performance for all battery-powered cars.
I don't want bias. I want clarity and honesty.
Learning is bias
"Spiders eat flies" is learning and unbiased. "Evil spiders eat innocent flies" is biased (opinion), as is "Spiders eat flies, like mosquitos, that spread disease" (factually correct, but pro-spider bias). You can learn without bias. Even if you only teach with bias.
Slashdot Mirror
You tell that to a customer, and you lost the sale. Some people care more about $$$ than killing the person in front of them in traffic.
The reason we get all these laws specifically targeting things is the people like you "You *could* do it safely" but nobody does, so the deaths climb.
I can stop talking and put the phone down. If the the person keeps talking, it doesn't matter.
That you claim you are capable of that is irrelevant. That people, in general, don't is causing thousands of deaths. I don't care what some guy "claims" he does better than everyone else. I care about what can be done to prevent preventable deaths.
Did you think about that at all? Or when driving do you star at your passengers?
How's your treatment for glaucoma going? For those of us not functionally blind, we can "see" our passenger without taking our eyes off the road.
None of which has been actually shown to distract any more then having a passenger, or kids, or the radio, or a blond in a convertible drive by..
Yes, it has. They've done studies where a cell phone conversation reduces safety, regardless of whether it's hand-held or hands-free, but that a passenger doesn't reduce safety as much.
That you suffer confirmation bias doesn't change reality, but dictates that there's nothing I could say, nor any cite I could give that would change your mind.
Yes, that's a large part of my point.
That you are an idiot jackass in getting your point across is the remainder of your point?
My point was "distracted driving" is the problem, and that happens more with a cell phone conversation than with a passenger. You disagreed with the second point so much that your point was lost, becuase you claim now to be in agreement with my point, even if disagreement with my example.
It's easy to blame cell phones, but they're not the real problem. Drivers who allow distractions of any kind in their car are the problem.
In practice, everywhere I've lived, there has been a law against "distracted driving" but that is never applied except when other laws are in effect (DUI, cell phones), or after a crash. If the police just took the time and effort to enforce the laws, rather than sleeping on the side of the road until their radar gun beeps at them, then we'd be safer, and we wouldn't need to be having this discussion.
But that's too hard, so we get targeted laws, and the broad laws are ignored. It's already illegal to drive distracted.
The other part is that you are wrong. Distractions can be good (or necessary). Feel free to argue that one.
That's the current law in most places. And, as you note, it is unenforceable. Much like tailgating in Texas is legal. It's illegal to follow so closely as to not be able to stop safely, but in practice, it's a ticket that is only given after one crashes, and never for following someone at 6" at 65 mph, as "I didn't crash" is considered a valid defense. Though I haven't paid attention much since they changed all traffic rules from crimes to infringements, so maybe it sticks better now that you aren't guaranteed a trial.
It's a lot of what Fox does.
No, what Fox does is fraud. It has (mostly) unbiased news. But it has lots of opinion shows called "news" that are very very biased, in content and selection. If they had separate channels for Fox news and Fox opinion, they'd be one of the better news channels. But they have their opinion shows passed as news.
If a left news channel tells nothing but stories on police brutality, even if all true, then the watchers are shown that police brutality is out of control and growing, even if it is actually getting less and less common.
Not if the content was unbiased. How could you (unbiasedly) cover a falling statistic without ever once mentioning it's a falling statistic? You couldn't. But you presume bias when it suits your opinion.
That's true of most things. Given a sufficiently powerful system and perfect knowledge, you can emulate a simpler system. But how do you get your simpler system into the base? How can you "swap the cable" without setting off every alarm in the place? They have physical security designed against such attacks, but you make it sound trivial.
My memory of the switchover was that I had Windows 3.0 on 5.25" and Win 95 on 3.5". I never owned 3.11, so I don't have the disk type burned forever in my memory.
They can't know, because the attempts (if any) were blocked, so they couldn't be logged.
Definitely stopped several talking and driving accidents.
How are you so sure? Because you like vandalism, so it should be supported?
The passengers will help look around for traffic. Also, you can "ignore" passengers in person more politely than someone over the phone. The phone is a reduced communication medium. The quality is worse, so tone can be distorted, and you get no visual cues of the person to help you understand, so you focus more on the phone than a person sitting next to you to get the same level of understanding. The quality of conversation is different as well. You can "tune out" the people in the car more easily, your wife is asking about dinner, the kids are asking to go to the new movie. But the phone call is your boss or customer, and you need to get that information 100% correct.
There's a long list of reasons that a phone call is different from a passenger. That you can't think of any indicates a problem with you, not those who are seeking a ban to phones, but not passengers.
But the ratios are individual, so doing what the "other guy" did to lose weight, might actually cause you to gain weight. That's part of the problem. The idea that there's "one solution" to the problem. Some people who eat more poop more calories. They won't get fat. Others who eat less have their metabolism go into near-shutdown and gain weight eating less. Fixed eating with increased exercise will almost always result in weight loss, but what do you do about those who the increased burn cause greater hunger?
Your "rules" only work if you ignore hunger. That's neither safe, not practical.
So how would you word it to indicate you want to learn your news from sources that are unbiased on how they report stories, but biased in how they select them to select ones that are interesting to you? You don't want biased reporting, but a biased story selection. I don't care to see reports on the conditions of ants in Africa, and the effects of drought on their diet. I don't care to hear about things that don't affect me and I can't do anything about (lives of celebrities being high on that list). So yes, I want biased story selection. Everyone does. But we don't want biased stories. I get it that you seem to equate any thought in story selection means deliberate manipulation of the content of all stories, but I don't agree.
So because you assume the locals "allowed" the mines to be laid, and even "cheered" when doing so, they should have their farmland kept unusable, or engage in a farming practice which can (to the tune of hundreds of people a year) prove lethal.
So, because you don't like them, we should spend billions saving a few hundred per year, when the same money could save 100x as many people when applied elsewhere? What a waste of human life you are advocating. Why are you so heartless?
That'd work, but I was thinking of the http://www.dreamstime.com/roya... ones.
Whatever works faster and most areas is cheapest to clear them. Perhaps simple enough for locals to use to clear the mines themselves.
Easy to counter if you are trying to. It seems many of the mines in the ground are old. I expect they didn't do that. Also, the means of delaying a detonation add delicateness. Why cripple your mines with delicate triggers?
Why was Columbus's second expedition to the same place as the first? There was plenty of undiscovered land left to find.
For the stars, you send it to the same star for the same reason you'd send it anywhere else. Curiosity. Did it actually make it? How can we help the "primitives" we launched 500 years ago? Can you honestly think of no reasons to check on an "old" colony?
Yes, good only if you live in London. In other words, no use to most here, and very few on the planet. The frequency of the sales of that nature are unknown. That was one post from last year. Previous and subsequent sales didn't seem to match that level of discount.
TV doesn't exist because it was first described in "fi" books. Cell phones and nuclear-powered ships don't exist because they were first described in "fi" "fi" is proof it can't happen, rather than an exploration of "if".
And then every generation when we could get there 10% faster?
. Anyone who is not shocked by seeing this is a psychopathic personality type.
So everyone working on disarming mines would already be familiar with this, and thus not "shocked", and therefore, anyone clearing mines is a psychopath. I'm not sure your conclusion works. I think anyone who thinks all others with differing opinions are psychopaths are psychopaths.
I suggest that you, with your full understanding of the economics involved, walk through minefields. Because you are an immoral fuck, and you wouldn't do it anyhow, because you are also an immoral coward.
I do not walk through minefields, nor crossing Interstates on foot. Yes, those who laid the mines should be responsible for removing them, but if we are going to make it a global charity problem, you'd save more lives per dollar buying helicopters for patient transfers/ambulance service than wasting millions cleaning up old ordinance. Why do you want to condem people to die from poor emergency response times by blocking funding for services? Oh, that's right, your pet project is mines, and if the numbers don't agree with you, *I'm* the immoral one for trying to do the most good.
It's all about the money. Although I suspect you'd be singing a differnt song if the route your children had to take to school was the minefield. As long as it is brown people in areas you and your'n will never go to , it's an acceptable thing.
Yup. If it were near me, of course it would be a bigger issue. I'd work on fences myself in spare time to keep people out, or go digging them out myself. The locals "allowed" them to be laid. Probably cheered at the time. 20M mines in Egypt, 700 dead per year. I think the locals have figured it out. So I'm not sure why it's such a hot topic that something that's less deadly than a bathtub must be removed with such urgency.
I'd expect a mine like you describe would stop working for trigger reasons. The trigger has to work, no matter how stable and waterproof the payload, if the trigger doesn't work, no boom.
If I were tasked with clearing mines, I'd use large masers to sweep the ground and spoil or detonate any ordinance in the ground. How powerful are mines? Why wouldn't a road roller be able to find them by detonating them, while remaining safe to operate and reusable? Seems odd to me that a "small" anti-personnel mine would destroy a 50,000 lb armored steamroller.
You didn't exclude Jupiter or Saturn in your list of issues. So should we expect to find some giant gas-bags on Jupiter eventually?
Seriously, a multi-generational nuclear powered colony or unmanned space probe going roughly 1% to 10% of the speed of light is not completely outside of possibilities.
Sure, and in every sci fi book, the next generation drive beat them there. Sometimes spending more time on the colony than the travelers spent getting there.
I don't want bias. I want clarity and honesty.
Learning is bias
"Spiders eat flies" is learning and unbiased. "Evil spiders eat innocent flies" is biased (opinion), as is "Spiders eat flies, like mosquitos, that spread disease" (factually correct, but pro-spider bias). You can learn without bias. Even if you only teach with bias.