In a comparison of three crappy vehicles, a Taurus wagon, Windstar minivan, and Explorer SUV, Motor Trend said "Stopping distances from 60 mph all were within six feet of each other, ranging from 142 feet for the Taurus to 148 for the Explorer-all lackluster performances." We all know 60 MPH is 88 f/s. We also can assume constant braking, because that's a worse case than the actual results. So we will assume an average 44 f/s speed. 148ft / 44ft/s = 3.36 seconds.
Sounds about right, in a good car it's around 2-3 seconds. The recommended driver distance is 2 seconds, so breaking within that is pretty much impossible, as I said.
So, someone traveling at 3.36 seconds following distance is at the exact worst distance. If they are inattentive, they will strike the car at a higher speed differential than if they were closer or farther apart. Yet, as I stated, it would be in the 2-4 second range. I've backed up my statements with math. I've done the math. I've taken classes in traffic engineering and accident reconstruction. All I've seen from you is "that sounds wrong to me" to back up your opinions.
You are amazing. You ignore all the relevant facts. Once you hit a car, it is highly likely either you, the car you hit or both are going out of control. At 110km/h, going out of control is very dangerous. You are focusing on the initial hit as if that is important. Note also that I have *never* claimed that inattention isn't dangerous, quite te opposite. I claim that tailgating is a unnecessary, stupid risk that brings no one from A to B any faster but does cause accidents. You seem to be claiming that "since accident A is more common than accident B, B is safe". That is not true.
Oh yes, of course the government hushes it all up. After leaking it by accident, of course.
Again, I'm too lazy and arrogant to look it up, but they did that with marijuana. They wanted to prove it was as bad as drunk driving, so they had a study done. It showed that stoned drivers were *safer* than sober. It leaked out because the scientistist that did it released it, as scientists are supposed to do. But the government found out that and they didn't like it, so it pretty much disappeared.
Really? Just googling for it seems to find a lot of papers right there. Some hush-up! I have never heard about the police holding "hash-raids" like they do with alcohol, nor did hash(=marijuana) figure in my driving lessons. Technically, it is illegal to drive under the influence of any drug, but I have never heard of anyone being actually convicted (yet) --- mostly it's cocain and ectasy you hear about. I do admit to live in the civilized world, so it might be different elsewhere. As far as I can see from skimming the literature, hash takes people differently, with sensitive people being severely affected. Far from hushed-up, eh?
Ah I see. So you alone have seen the light, while countless of scientist working on reducing the number of car fatalities cannot see what is right under their nose? You don't find this just a little unlikely?
The scientists and I agree on the math 100%. However, they are almost always employees of the government, and the government wouldn't like it if they said "follow closer" so they don't say anything that can be confused with that result. However, the facts are clear. If you tailgate, the initial impact will never be fatal. If you follow at 4s at 65 mph, you are at the distance most likely to do maximum damage. The science is there, and the scientists know that. They just massage reaction times and assumptions to get what their employer wants so they don't get fired. The math is undisputed.
Oh please. I don't know about the US, but around here very few scientist indeed work directly for the government, and if someone could prove that hundreds or thousands of lives could be saved simply by lowering the distance between cars, they would be heade
A study about following distance and traffic effects is unrelated to a study of following distance and fatalities.
Possibly, but rather unlikely. Usually, when enough people are injured the injuries turns out to be fatal for someone.
Tailgating, from what I've read, and yes, I'm way too lazy and arrogant to look anything up right now, *decreases* your chance of being in a fatal crash slightly.
So you say. But evidence seems to point the other way.
However, it greatly increases your chance of crashing. Ignoring secondary collisons, there is no way a crash with a 5 mph speed differential is fatal.
Of course. But secondary collisions are quite often the fatal ones. At least it seems so on the news. "The driver nicked (some other) car, lost control and went into the ditch/the other side and was killed" is a quite common sentence in fatality reports.
2-4 seconds of following distance is the most deadly.
A car in a panic stop can come to a complete stop in that time
Only with superhuman reflexes and a good car. Even then, I doubt it, at least at any decent speed.
and the person behind not paying attention will still be cruising at the original speed. This results in the maximum speed differential at impact.
Once you have hit the car in front of you, you will all pile up to a stop, and *then* the inattentive driver will hit you from behind at full speed. Of course, just because you such an inconsiderate person, this will be a truck:P
So the recommended speedspacings are the most deadly.
Ah I see. So you alone have seen the light, while countless of scientist working on reducing the number of car fatalities cannot see what is right under their nose? You don't find this just a little unlikely?
And, as the government loves to do, any study that finds something they don't like, they quash.
Oh yes, of course the government hushes it all up. After leaking it by accident, of course. Tell me, how often do you reckon people crash due to UFOs?;)
The statistics show that tailgating doesn't kill. Following farther back and not having proper attention is much much more fatal. But don't let facts get in the way of your rants.
The one does not, I fear, preclude the other. Still, I'd like a link to those statistics? A short search only gave me articles that tailgating did indeed cause accidents (and thus "kills"). There is no doubt that inattention is a great killer, but tailgating is a stupid an unnecessary risk.. noone is getting along any father.
There is also a different global cool myth, which claims that the scientist agreed that such was in store for us around 1970. Hope I didn't steal your thunder;)
There was actually. I remember reading an article about it in magazine in a Doctor's office circa 1980. I recall this quite vividly because I was around 10 at the time and it scared the heck out of me.
I was just a toddler then, but according to new scientists, it was a few scientific articles that was blown way out of proportion by the media. Supposedly, back then, there were about 44 articles predicting warming and 7 predicting cooling.
It's simply mind numbing that you refuse to admit that there are costs associated with a solution which works towards avoiding climate change rather than adapting to it. That's all I've said since the first post.
Not quite. You claimed that we cannot or do not know which cost is higher. That's what the disagreement is about; of course there are costs either way.
I think you've entirely missed my point. Replacement does not consist of magically turning a gas powered vehicle into an electrical vehical.
What, how old is your current car? Most cars get discarded after about 10 years. So, next time we buy a new car, we buy this (theoretical) wonderful electric car, or we buy a new diesel/gasoline car --- that is the 2 choices. The cost is that the electric car likely will be more expensive, though I wouldn't know. Is that really so hard to grasp?
The original statement was this:
"Because the costs of adjustments to the new climate exceeds the costs of avoiding it by a huge margin."
There is no evidence presented to make this an accurate statement. There are costs, yes. Can we say the cost of adjusting is greater than the cost of avoidance? No.
I do know the original statement, after all I wrote it. And yes, we can say this, as could you if you did a minimum of research. Do I really have to point to google? It's not as it is some unknowable question, it's just basic calculations with a few scenarios making some reasonable assumptions
Why is it different if we are talking exclusivly about "global warming"?
Because we have run the numbers and come to that conclusion. I am mostly familiar with the local numbers ( for DK ) which I presume do not interest you, but I'd think the picture is similar everywhere.
I cannot refrain to comment on your vehicle hole. Do you really believe that we are going to do that, rather than simply replace them with electric or whatever cars as they are replaced anyway? It's not as if we even have an alternative today; and if we did I would argue for replacing them anyway, just to get rid of the dependence on the middle east and the oil cartels. No, the real question is: Will we replace coal? Except for environment reason, I cannot find a good reason for doing so. Coal is plentyful, cheap, and available from lots of countries that I wouldn't mind being dependent on.
Yeah, yeah, I'm sure all the data is a big conspiracy made by the windmill makers;)
My rebuttal was to the claim of "cooling the last 10 years". I freely admit I rely on the data our dear scientists gather for me, but so did the poster of that claim.
What numbers would I be investigating, exactly? Apparently it's considered trolling to question anything around here. All I'm saying is that we can't just make a blanket statement that avoiding the problem is less costly than adapting to the problem. There are no numbers that can support either case. I completely agree that avoiding the problem is probably the least disruptive solution. However, there are costs associated with keeping things the way they are. That can't be ignored when making arguments that one solution is better than another.
If you are talking specifically about the global warming, then yes, we can come up with some numbers --- like "what will it cost to build the damns and move the towns if the water rises 2 meters" and then add them up.
If you meant in general, then I completely agree that you cannot say that avoiding is better than adapting.
But "profound" thinning isn't sensationalism? Is there a scale of hyperbolic adjectives that maps to physical volumes or thicknesses? If there isn't then "profound" is an invitation to make an assumption unsupported by the facts.
Perhaps, I am not a native speaker. Profound means "deep" doesn't it? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profound writes
Descending far below the surface; opening or reaching to a great depth; deep.
but also notes a number of other meanings. Anyway, I just thought they meant that the ice was thinning far inland.
Oh, the global cooling myth, how quaint! Haven't heard that one for a while. I see you have gotten the one where decades and 100 of decades are mixed up. The trick is to count the zeros!;)
Seriously, how can anyone be surprised that the outlook 10000 years ahead is different from 100?
There is also a different global cool myth, which claims that the scientist agreed that such was in store for us around 1970. Hope I didn't steal your thunder;)
(And that's a big assumption given the major cooling trend we have been in for the last 10 years.)
Oh please. Take a look at the graph and tell me what cooling trend you see? I know that 1998 was exceptionally warm, but one years does not make a trend.
They have never been able to accurately predict what the weather will be tomorrow. It is arrogant for Al Gore (who incidentally also invented the Internet) to claim he knows what the effect will be decades from now. The largest cause of CO2 emissions is natural activity. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere
Go check the numbers yourself, it's not like it's a secret. In these parts (DK), it's mostly more damms or relocation of some towns, new sewers (that's an amazing expensive part), irrigation for the farmers and such items. On the plus side, the heating bill might get slightly smaller (but probably not as much as the cooling bill will get higher) and we might be able to grow a bit more crops, provided enough irrigation. You don't have to be that bright to see that the expenses outweigh the benefits. Perhaps a few places will really net benefit.. Siberia, Greenland, Canada? But for most of the population it will mean a lot of extra taxes.
..why there are so many BSD variants while the linux kernel only has one? Is it more difficult to get patches in, or is the different BSD variants more like distributions with a (more or less) shared kernel? Or is it that the BSD kernel lends itself more easily to more radical experiments? I see from wikipedia that DragonFly dabbles in microkernel'ism.
Perhaps you did not use it at it's specified voltage (e.g used a light dimmer)? Or more likely, you changed it more often but forgot --- a very human thing, especially if you knew you were wasting them by always having them on. Or maybe they do indeed keep longer when never turned off or on.
I seem to recall that some titles did exactly that. But I'm guessing that most companies, when pressed for resources, chooses to use them for something else rather than removing DRM.
I don't mine the intentions of DRM. I'm all for game developers getting payed for what they make. The reality, though, is that the drm gets cracked and the game gets pirated anyway. So the end result is that the game costs more to make in order to put the DRM in, the user experience is often worse from having to deal with said DRM, and the pirates still do what they do. So nobody wins.
At some point (and it may have arguably already happened with some games) the consumer will be able to a get better game by NOT paying for it, simply because they will be able to find a cracked version that doesn't treat them like a criminal. (ie phoning home regularly for security, getting pissy about being reinstalled, etc.)
I am told that DRM often holds up for 14 days, and that the devs thinks that this is worth it, since a huge amount of the sale is in those 14 days.
But yeah, DRM sucks. For games, I still think the best solution is to put some of the game on a server. For music films and such, I don't think there is a good solution.
Slashdot Mirror
In a comparison of three crappy vehicles, a Taurus wagon, Windstar minivan, and Explorer SUV, Motor Trend said "Stopping distances from 60 mph all were within six feet of each other, ranging from 142 feet for the Taurus to 148 for the Explorer-all lackluster performances." We all know 60 MPH is 88 f/s. We also can assume constant braking, because that's a worse case than the actual results. So we will assume an average 44 f/s speed. 148ft / 44ft/s = 3.36 seconds.
Sounds about right, in a good car it's around 2-3 seconds. The recommended driver distance is 2 seconds, so breaking within that is pretty much impossible, as I said.
So, someone traveling at 3.36 seconds following distance is at the exact worst distance. If they are inattentive, they will strike the car at a higher speed differential than if they were closer or farther apart. Yet, as I stated, it would be in the 2-4 second range. I've backed up my statements with math. I've done the math. I've taken classes in traffic engineering and accident reconstruction. All I've seen from you is "that sounds wrong to me" to back up your opinions.
You are amazing. You ignore all the relevant facts. Once you hit a car, it is highly likely either you, the car you hit or both are going out of control. At 110km/h, going out of control is very dangerous. You are focusing on the initial hit as if that is important. Note also that I have *never* claimed that inattention isn't dangerous, quite te opposite. I claim that tailgating is a unnecessary, stupid risk that brings no one from A to B any faster but does cause accidents. You seem to be claiming that "since accident A is more common than accident B, B is safe". That is not true.
Oh yes, of course the government hushes it all up. After leaking it by accident, of course. Again, I'm too lazy and arrogant to look it up, but they did that with marijuana. They wanted to prove it was as bad as drunk driving, so they had a study done. It showed that stoned drivers were *safer* than sober. It leaked out because the scientistist that did it released it, as scientists are supposed to do. But the government found out that and they didn't like it, so it pretty much disappeared.
Really? Just googling for it seems to find a lot of papers right there. Some hush-up! I have never heard about the police holding "hash-raids" like they do with alcohol, nor did hash(=marijuana) figure in my driving lessons. Technically, it is illegal to drive under the influence of any drug, but I have never heard of anyone being actually convicted (yet) --- mostly it's cocain and ectasy you hear about. I do admit to live in the civilized world, so it might be different elsewhere. As far as I can see from skimming the literature, hash takes people differently, with sensitive people being severely affected. Far from hushed-up, eh?
Ah I see. So you alone have seen the light, while countless of scientist working on reducing the number of car fatalities cannot see what is right under their nose? You don't find this just a little unlikely? The scientists and I agree on the math 100%. However, they are almost always employees of the government, and the government wouldn't like it if they said "follow closer" so they don't say anything that can be confused with that result. However, the facts are clear. If you tailgate, the initial impact will never be fatal. If you follow at 4s at 65 mph, you are at the distance most likely to do maximum damage. The science is there, and the scientists know that. They just massage reaction times and assumptions to get what their employer wants so they don't get fired. The math is undisputed.
Oh please. I don't know about the US, but around here very few scientist indeed work directly for the government, and if someone could prove that hundreds or thousands of lives could be saved simply by lowering the distance between cars, they would be heade
A study about following distance and traffic effects is unrelated to a study of following distance and fatalities.
Possibly, but rather unlikely. Usually, when enough people are injured the injuries turns out to be fatal for someone.
Tailgating, from what I've read, and yes, I'm way too lazy and arrogant to look anything up right now, *decreases* your chance of being in a fatal crash slightly.
So you say. But evidence seems to point the other way.
However, it greatly increases your chance of crashing. Ignoring secondary collisons, there is no way a crash with a 5 mph speed differential is fatal.
Of course. But secondary collisions are quite often the fatal ones. At least it seems so on the news. "The driver nicked (some other) car, lost control and went into the ditch/the other side and was killed" is a quite common sentence in fatality reports.
2-4 seconds of following distance is the most deadly.
A car in a panic stop can come to a complete stop in that time
Only with superhuman reflexes and a good car. Even then, I doubt it, at least at any decent speed.
and the person behind not paying attention will still be cruising at the original speed. This results in the maximum speed differential at impact.
Once you have hit the car in front of you, you will all pile up to a stop, and *then* the inattentive driver will hit you from behind at full speed. Of course, just because you such an inconsiderate person, this will be a truck :P
So the recommended speedspacings are the most deadly.
Ah I see. So you alone have seen the light, while countless of scientist working on reducing the number of car fatalities cannot see what is right under their nose? You don't find this just a little unlikely?
And, as the government loves to do, any study that finds something they don't like, they quash.
Oh yes, of course the government hushes it all up. After leaking it by accident, of course. Tell me, how often do you reckon people crash due to UFOs? ;)
The statistics show that tailgating doesn't kill. Following farther back and not having proper attention is much much more fatal. But don't let facts get in the way of your rants.
The one does not, I fear, preclude the other. Still, I'd like a link to those statistics? A short search only gave me articles that tailgating did indeed cause accidents (and thus "kills"). There is no doubt that inattention is a great killer, but tailgating is a stupid an unnecessary risk.. noone is getting along any father.
There is also a different global cool myth, which claims that the scientist agreed that such was in store for us around 1970. Hope I didn't steal your thunder ;)
There was actually. I remember reading an article about it in magazine in a Doctor's office circa 1980. I recall this quite vividly because I was around 10 at the time and it scared the heck out of me.
I was just a toddler then, but according to new scientists, it was a few scientific articles that was blown way out of proportion by the media. Supposedly, back then, there were about 44 articles predicting warming and 7 predicting cooling.
It's simply mind numbing that you refuse to admit that there are costs associated with a solution which works towards avoiding climate change rather than adapting to it. That's all I've said since the first post.
Not quite. You claimed that we cannot or do not know which cost is higher. That's what the disagreement is about; of course there are costs either way.
I think you've entirely missed my point. Replacement does not consist of magically turning a gas powered vehicle into an electrical vehical.
What, how old is your current car? Most cars get discarded after about 10 years. So, next time we buy a new car, we buy this (theoretical) wonderful electric car, or we buy a new diesel/gasoline car --- that is the 2 choices. The cost is that the electric car likely will be more expensive, though I wouldn't know. Is that really so hard to grasp?
The original statement was this:
"Because the costs of adjustments to the new climate exceeds the costs of avoiding it by a huge margin."
There is no evidence presented to make this an accurate statement. There are costs, yes. Can we say the cost of adjusting is greater than the cost of avoidance? No.
I do know the original statement, after all I wrote it. And yes, we can say this, as could you if you did a minimum of research. Do I really have to point to google? It's not as it is some unknowable question, it's just basic calculations with a few scenarios making some reasonable assumptions
Why is it different if we are talking exclusivly about "global warming"?
Because we have run the numbers and come to that conclusion. I am mostly familiar with the local numbers ( for DK ) which I presume do not interest you, but I'd think the picture is similar everywhere.
I cannot refrain to comment on your vehicle hole. Do you really believe that we are going to do that, rather than simply replace them with electric or whatever cars as they are replaced anyway? It's not as if we even have an alternative today; and if we did I would argue for replacing them anyway, just to get rid of the dependence on the middle east and the oil cartels. No, the real question is: Will we replace coal? Except for environment reason, I cannot find a good reason for doing so. Coal is plentyful, cheap, and available from lots of countries that I wouldn't mind being dependent on.
You should try verifying that graph scientifically. Some have, with interesting results.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/23/taking-a-bite-out-of-climate-data/
Yeah, yeah, I'm sure all the data is a big conspiracy made by the windmill makers ;)
My rebuttal was to the claim of "cooling the last 10 years". I freely admit I rely on the data our dear scientists gather for me, but so did the poster of that claim.
What numbers would I be investigating, exactly? Apparently it's considered trolling to question anything around here. All I'm saying is that we can't just make a blanket statement that avoiding the problem is less costly than adapting to the problem. There are no numbers that can support either case. I completely agree that avoiding the problem is probably the least disruptive solution. However, there are costs associated with keeping things the way they are. That can't be ignored when making arguments that one solution is better than another.
If you are talking specifically about the global warming, then yes, we can come up with some numbers --- like "what will it cost to build the damns and move the towns if the water rises 2 meters" and then add them up.
If you meant in general, then I completely agree that you cannot say that avoiding is better than adapting.
So, how do you like paying $50 per 12oz can of soda?
I'd buy beer instead. But only if the bottle was properly measured in a sane unit, such as centiliters :P
But "profound" thinning isn't sensationalism? Is there a scale of hyperbolic adjectives that maps to physical volumes or thicknesses? If there isn't then "profound" is an invitation to make an assumption unsupported by the facts.
Perhaps, I am not a native speaker. Profound means "deep" doesn't it? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profound writes
Descending far below the surface; opening or reaching to a great depth; deep.
but also notes a number of other meanings. Anyway, I just thought they meant that the ice was thinning far inland.
Oh, the global cooling myth, how quaint! Haven't heard that one for a while. I see you have gotten the one where decades and 100 of decades are mixed up. The trick is to count the zeros! ;)
Seriously, how can anyone be surprised that the outlook 10000 years ahead is different from 100?
There is also a different global cool myth, which claims that the scientist agreed that such was in store for us around 1970. Hope I didn't steal your thunder ;)
(And that's a big assumption given the major cooling trend we have been in for the last 10 years.)
Oh please. Take a look at the graph and tell me what cooling trend you see? I know that 1998 was exceptionally warm, but one years does not make a trend.
They have never been able to accurately predict what the weather will be tomorrow. It is arrogant for Al Gore (who incidentally also invented the Internet) to claim he knows what the effect will be decades from now. The largest cause of CO2 emissions is natural activity. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere
3 myths in one go? Not bad. First link on google for climate myths gives 3 rebuttals: Chaotic systems are not predictable, CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas and finally CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
And that's proved by.... ?
Go check the numbers yourself, it's not like it's a secret. In these parts (DK), it's mostly more damms or relocation of some towns, new sewers (that's an amazing expensive part), irrigation for the farmers and such items. On the plus side, the heating bill might get slightly smaller (but probably not as much as the cooling bill will get higher) and we might be able to grow a bit more crops, provided enough irrigation. You don't have to be that bright to see that the expenses outweigh the benefits. Perhaps a few places will really net benefit.. Siberia, Greenland, Canada? But for most of the population it will mean a lot of extra taxes.
Because the costs of adjustments to the new climate exceeds the costs of avoiding it by a huge margin.
That would be sensationalism. So far, it is measured in cm; by the turn of the century (90 years from now) it is projected to be a few meters,
In Windows, you know to run setup (the word makes sense) to install.
Huh? What would make sense would be if you run install to install. Running setup to install makes no sense at all.
..why there are so many BSD variants while the linux kernel only has one? Is it more difficult to get patches in, or is the different BSD variants more like distributions with a (more or less) shared kernel? Or is it that the BSD kernel lends itself more easily to more radical experiments? I see from wikipedia that DragonFly dabbles in microkernel'ism.
Perhaps you did not use it at it's specified voltage (e.g used a light dimmer)? Or more likely, you changed it more often but forgot --- a very human thing, especially if you knew you were wasting them by always having them on. Or maybe they do indeed keep longer when never turned off or on.
As for coming home, I prefer a motion sensor :)
And with the usage cycle they're talking about, a $0.90 incandescent bulb should last at least 2 years.
Not likely. 2*365*5.5h=4015h. As I recall, incandescent bulbs last about 800-1000h.
I'd wager that pirated software 16 days before release hurts a lot more than 2.
Anyway, I am simply passing on what I've heard from people developing games.
I seem to recall that some titles did exactly that. But I'm guessing that most companies, when pressed for resources, chooses to use them for something else rather than removing DRM.
I don't mine the intentions of DRM. I'm all for game developers getting payed for what they make. The reality, though, is that the drm gets cracked and the game gets pirated anyway. So the end result is that the game costs more to make in order to put the DRM in, the user experience is often worse from having to deal with said DRM, and the pirates still do what they do. So nobody wins.
At some point (and it may have arguably already happened with some games) the consumer will be able to a get better game by NOT paying for it, simply because they will be able to find a cracked version that doesn't treat them like a criminal. (ie phoning home regularly for security, getting pissy about being reinstalled, etc.)
I am told that DRM often holds up for 14 days, and that the devs thinks that this is worth it, since a huge amount of the sale is in those 14 days.
But yeah, DRM sucks. For games, I still think the best solution is to put some of the game on a server. For music films and such, I don't think there is a good solution.
GPS can: a) be hacked/spoofed b) run out of batteries c) have data errors
a) and c) goes for the hardcopies as well. For b), the GPS can be plugged into your car.