I noticed thta in a lot of these comments, people say that you have to go at a very high speed (near or at light speed) to get far enough away fast enough to see into the past. And that's only a couple of days into the past.
Wouldn't it then be logical that our galaxy, to be able to see near the beginning of the universe in space-time, had to be traveling at way above light speed to get to where it is today? If no, then we shouldn't technically be able to see that far into the past.
You forget that all of this plate tectonics and such did not apply to the event of the Great Flood; God was doing this stuff, and, by far, God has more power over the Earth than comparitively flimsy plate tectonics. And what makes you think that He has to leave evidence for you and your little geologist friends to find?
Looks like you wasted a good twenty minutes typing up all of that crap. Oh well.
Hmm... I see what you are saying, and I agree. Fewer, smarter laws encompass both of our ideas in a sort of a comprimise -- not that this was a conflict or anything, but I agree.
Well, you might as well get rid of the risk entirely-- and I think that the big arrows are not distractions, but guidelines on the road.
And don't even say MAPQUEST.com is a guideline on the road. Maps are useful, but the passenger should hold them and give the directions to the driver via voice. If the driver thinks it's necessary to read the map him/herself, he/she should pull over into a gas station or other such outlet, as the situation may indicate.
What I mean is that visual distractions are detrimetal to driving saftey. Audio distractions, such as the radio, can trigger visual distraction (leaning down to read the display, or something of the sort.) In essence, laptops in the front seat are a purely visual distraction. You cannot 'hear' somebody's code or their web-surfing. If you want to know more about it, you must look; with the radio, all you have to do is listen, and you can keep your eyes on the road.
FINALLY! Somebody who thinks like I do. The best part of all of this IM crap is that now, they've got voice messaging through your AOL browser.
Wouldn't it have been nice if we had had that before, back in the eighties... No idea how we survived without voice messaging over the internet. If only we could have had that sophisticated kind of technology; we could have called it a phone... a nice telephone.
Yeah pretty much anything that's packaged with Windows is a $*%@# to remove. They're trying to create dependency on Microsoft products. Those bastards.
We all know that focusing on something else, whether it be cell phone, computer, or radio, takes attention from the primary task; driving the car. Cell phones require double duty distraction (so far as no hands-free systems go); operating the phone and communicating through it.
A second point is that the risk of using a cell phone, perhaps a factor of 4, is less than other risks we consider acceptable, like driving at night, or driving in bad weather, or driving unecessary distances.
Back to what I said above. a distraction is a distraction, and most people don't stop to think of 'risk factor' numbers as you've presented here. Instead, they think more along the lines of, "I wonder if I got my mobile food processor in the mail today; I'll call home and find out." This descision is made without regard to the environment; driving in the dark, bad weather, et cetera. Using a cell phone in these circumstances compounds the possibility of crashing.
The wisest idea would be just to wait until you arrive at your destination to use your phone, computer, whatever. Focus on one thing at a time; worry about secondary things when they become primary, when they don't put yourself or somebody else at risk.
You have an excellent point here, but also remember that it is human nature to be curious about what somebody else is doing... just that one little screen-look can be devastating. Besides, can't that web surfing wait until you're at your destination anyway? I'm sure there's nothing all too urgent about your bids on ebay when compared with the safety of said driver, passenger, and potential victim.
Hehehe... saying you invented the internet is like saying you invented e-commerce. Or writing. Or eating, for that matter.
Stuff like that just comes together; it's a logical advance in the art of communication that no one person can come up with. Naturally, somebody here's going to bring up the telephone, but that's a different story entirely.
I think everybody should ban MS, because it rots. Inflexible, very static so far as modularity goes, and I think it's sometimes too user-friendly -- what with all those @%!* help windows showing up all the time of their own voilition.
I laugh simply because Apple is the leader. Did anybody else notice that as soon as Apple let their colored ('flavored', sorry) iMac's off the line, every hardware company rushed to make more colored gadgets! Ha ha!
You see, I've always loved Apple and Macintosh. Ever since the beginning, and I still do; and I still hate Windows just as much as I did then. Now Macintosh is a whole lot faster and more modular than before-- what could be better?
Slashdot Mirror
I noticed thta in a lot of these comments, people say that you have to go at a very high speed (near or at light speed) to get far enough away fast enough to see into the past. And that's only a couple of days into the past.
Wouldn't it then be logical that our galaxy, to be able to see near the beginning of the universe in space-time, had to be traveling at way above light speed to get to where it is today? If no, then we shouldn't technically be able to see that far into the past.
You forget that all of this plate tectonics and such did not apply to the event of the Great Flood; God was doing this stuff, and, by far, God has more power over the Earth than comparitively flimsy plate tectonics. And what makes you think that He has to leave evidence for you and your little geologist friends to find? Looks like you wasted a good twenty minutes typing up all of that crap. Oh well.
And I have one word for you. (Well, link if you want to get technical.) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-241.htm Read it. You're welcome.
Hmm... I see what you are saying, and I agree. Fewer, smarter laws encompass both of our ideas in a sort of a comprimise -- not that this was a conflict or anything, but I agree.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Well, you might as well get rid of the risk entirely-- and I think that the big arrows are not distractions, but guidelines on the road. And don't even say MAPQUEST.com is a guideline on the road. Maps are useful, but the passenger should hold them and give the directions to the driver via voice. If the driver thinks it's necessary to read the map him/herself, he/she should pull over into a gas station or other such outlet, as the situation may indicate.
What I mean is that visual distractions are detrimetal to driving saftey. Audio distractions, such as the radio, can trigger visual distraction (leaning down to read the display, or something of the sort.) In essence, laptops in the front seat are a purely visual distraction. You cannot 'hear' somebody's code or their web-surfing. If you want to know more about it, you must look; with the radio, all you have to do is listen, and you can keep your eyes on the road.
You know what I mean.
FINALLY! Somebody who thinks like I do. The best part of all of this IM crap is that now, they've got voice messaging through your AOL browser.
Wouldn't it have been nice if we had had that before, back in the eighties... No idea how we survived without voice messaging over the internet. If only we could have had that sophisticated kind of technology; we could have called it a phone... a nice telephone.
Talk about reinventing DIRT!
Yeah pretty much anything that's packaged with Windows is a $*%@# to remove. They're trying to create dependency on Microsoft products. Those bastards.
Well, let's see, if after it downloads itself, it sends copies of the virus to others, I'd say not.
It probably has a trigger set up somewhere; like, for instance, on connect to internet.
We all know that focusing on something else, whether it be cell phone, computer, or radio, takes attention from the primary task; driving the car. Cell phones require double duty distraction (so far as no hands-free systems go); operating the phone and communicating through it.
A second point is that the risk of using a cell phone, perhaps a factor of 4, is less than other risks we consider acceptable, like driving at night, or driving in bad weather, or driving unecessary distances.
Back to what I said above. a distraction is a distraction, and most people don't stop to think of 'risk factor' numbers as you've presented here. Instead, they think more along the lines of, "I wonder if I got my mobile food processor in the mail today; I'll call home and find out." This descision is made without regard to the environment; driving in the dark, bad weather, et cetera. Using a cell phone in these circumstances compounds the possibility of crashing.
The wisest idea would be just to wait until you arrive at your destination to use your phone, computer, whatever. Focus on one thing at a time; worry about secondary things when they become primary, when they don't put yourself or somebody else at risk.
You have an excellent point here, but also remember that it is human nature to be curious about what somebody else is doing... just that one little screen-look can be devastating. Besides, can't that web surfing wait until you're at your destination anyway? I'm sure there's nothing all too urgent about your bids on ebay when compared with the safety of said driver, passenger, and potential victim.
I just assume get the directions before you leave the house, print them off, and have your wife read them off to you.
That's easier anyway.
Hehehe... saying you invented the internet is like saying you invented e-commerce. Or writing. Or eating, for that matter.
Stuff like that just comes together; it's a logical advance in the art of communication that no one person can come up with. Naturally, somebody here's going to bring up the telephone, but that's a different story entirely.
I now have the sudden urge to go and buy a crap-load of laptop batteries.
Is this a good thing?
Hmm... That doesn't say a lot for the MS tech suppport group.
I think everybody should ban MS, because it rots. Inflexible, very static so far as modularity goes, and I think it's sometimes too user-friendly -- what with all those @%!* help windows showing up all the time of their own voilition.
Well, I figure if it's going to destroy the laptop, it might as well do it with style.
I laugh simply because Apple is the leader. Did anybody else notice that as soon as Apple let their colored ('flavored', sorry) iMac's off the line, every hardware company rushed to make more colored gadgets! Ha ha!
That shows you who's really in charge.
You see, I've always loved Apple and Macintosh. Ever since the beginning, and I still do; and I still hate Windows just as much as I did then. Now Macintosh is a whole lot faster and more modular than before-- what could be better?
I don't know what you're talking about ... it didn't happen to me and worked out just fine.
Have you ever said anything and wanted to take it back? So have I. Just stop by Ebay and pick up a neuralyzer and zap away!!
The only problem with this is that our memories are not supposed to be wiped; if they were, we'd be able to do it natrually.
I'm sure this 'memory wiping' would have some longer-term effects than we see, though; something unpredictable... I dunno, we'll see.