Well, it's not called "ripping people off," it's called investing. Record companies put up a huge amount of capital to produce records, market bands, and finance tours. Because there's a great deal of risk involved in promoting musicians, the recording industry demands a very high rate of return. Yes, the musicians create the content, but without financial backing, you never would have heard of Metallica. Remember the Golden Rule, that whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Agreed. I've always argued if you're dumb enough to enter into that bad of a contract then you deserve everything that you get (or don't get).
*But* I will say record industry contracts seem top be a HELL of a lot worse than any other artistic/content type of contract. Book authors don't give away anywhere near as many rights as a musician. Book publishers also front money and marketing to authors, and the author has to pay back it back with their revenue, but the author retains the copyright on their material. Not so with the record industry. Work for Hire is the norm there, and it reeks. Book publishers take on just as much risk in terms of recouping costs as the record industry, but they don't demand ownership.
But like I said, if you're dumb enough to agree to both pay for the recording and marketing of your record and still give up ownership, you deserve to be shit on.
It always amazed me why China connected to the public internet anyways if they are going to censor everything except the stuff _they_ want their citizens to see.
As the article said you can learn a lot more by allowing certain access to forbidden content. Its easier to find enemys of the state if a) they can find those forbidden sites, and b) you can track them. Think of it as a honeypot for the politically undesirable. IMO even worse than just cutting everyone off.
You're right about channel lineups, and I think that the Yahoo channel listings wouldn't be that hard.
I have Watson for OS X (an awesome, awsome program) that, among other things, does just that. Enter your Zip code and cable system and Watson will spit out nicely formatted TV channel guides.
If the Watson guys can do it I assume it shouldn't be all that hard to parse it into a format you could use in conjunction with a PC based PVR.
Personally I think it's bullshit that you claim Microsoft does not have a right to improve the OS in ways which are beneficial to programmers and consumers, by componentizing HTML rendering into an engine that can be utilized by anyone.
Um, did I not say in the parent post that I wasn't arguing whether MS could or could not intergrate whatever they wanted to into the OS? What I said was bullshit, and I stand behind, is their insistance that it is somehow impossible to remove the functionality from the OS without breaking everything. This is bullshit. You do *not* need a browser intergrated into the OS to update software. Nor for the help. I argue that one of the reasons for making so many OS functions dependent on their browser was to boost its useage. Lite98 proved in court that they were liars about how badly the OS would be crippled when removing IE, and their doctored video tape didn't help matters either.
Again, MS were their own worst enemy when it came to such things.
First, I never said they integrated it into the kernel, just that its close (i.e. in the OS)
Secondly, they're claiming that taking it out is impossible (or will cause irreprable damage), and that's the bullshit arguement. I never claimed that how MS tied the browser was good or bad, just that their arguement about being able to remove it was bullshit. That's been the problem (IMO) with MS over the entire antitrust case. Regardless of whether they've done anything legally/morally/ethically wrong with their business practices, they have come across as a bunch of lying bafoons in court, which has done more damage to them than anything else. A good example of how not to act like MS in court has been Intel and their antitrust investigation.
The "IE is an integral part of the OS" arguement has always made me chuckle. Its true only because Microsoft has designed it that way, which doesn't necessarily make it right.
The most damning evidence that a browswer doesn't have to be so close to the kernel (in the kernel???) is IE for Macintosh. Its a damn fine browser that is nothing more than a standalone app. Sure, Microsoft bitches that IE is needed for product updates and help, but that is -- again -- only by MS design. Apple, Debian, Mandrake, et al have all shown that updating can also be a stand alone application. And Gnome and (I assume) KDE have shown you can have HTML help with a regular app browser.
The contention that IE is neccessary for the OS to run properly is true, but only because MS specifically designed it that way. I've always found the arguement "hey, we're guilty but we can't seperate IE from the OS because its too deeply tied together" the same as Firestone saying "hey, we know we produced crap tires, but we shouldn't have to change the way we made 'em because that would require retooling the tire production line."
I've always thought Farscape and Blake's 7 were both similar in character makeup and plot arc (which is a good thing.. they're both awesome SciFi). My vote has to go to Rygel because he's such an unapologetic self centered sonofabitch, and he reminds me a lot of Avon. A refreshing change from the normal "lets help humanity (alienity???), be a nice guy/girl/amorphous blob" type of central character in your average SciFi claptrap.
Maybe I am just missing the point of the whole thing, and this is not a flame or a troll. This is genuine interest. What would compell someone to run Linux instead of MacOS X on such an elegant (and expensive) machine?
Ok... the normal "this is not a troll" disclaimer...
But, I'm always amazed at the "why do people do..." questions. Its as if they expect the world to think the exact same way they do.
"Why do KDE developers duplicate what Gnome is doing?"
"Why do Gnome developers duplicate what KDE is doing?"
"Why don't Linux users just switch to BSD?"
So on and so forth...
Even worse are those who DEMAND that folks stop doing the things they enjoy and start working on the things that the poster thinks is important:
"All the Gnome developers should stop and help the KDE team..."
Doesn't anyone realize that people work on what they want to work on, regardless of what the f**k others think....
"People who port Linux to the Dreamcast are wasting time that could be better spent doing other things..."
You're absolutly correct about benchmarking and how they can be skewed by configuration, but you're dead wrong when you say
Vendors are perfectly in their right to oversee benchmarking their products in a comparative fashion to insure equality (even though in some cases that fact still gets lost in the shuffle).
if by that you mean they should have the legal authority to deny any benchmark that they don't approve of. That is akin to passing a law that states "you may only print the truth, and I get to decide what that truth is."
A company *does* have the right to set up its own benchmarking study to counter anyone else's that they feel is unfair. As a potential customer I want to be able to read as much about a product as possible. We the public are not stupid, and we should not be treated as such. I (and everyone else) am quite able to decide which benchmarking studies I am going to put the most weight on. Benchmarks that have no configuration data published with them get deep sixed. Benchmarks paid for by the company in question are met with a healthy dose of scepticism. Benchmarks from people/organizations that I have deemed fair (because of past work) I'm going to put more creedence in.
This is no different that real life. I don't need any law or licensing agreement to tell me which newspaper, columnist, TV station, author, etc I should "believe in."
I'm not sure about the software (it was Wind River stuff) because, frankly, it was shit. When I first got the Verizon DSL I just installed it on the Win box to make sure it worked. The damn thing dropped all of the time. Once I switched over to a Linux Masq. box I never had a problem. Would have the line up for weeks at a time. Maybe they crippled the WinPPPoE driver to drop every so often but the line itself it fine.
Re:Well, at least I bought one of your games...
on
Loki Games Closing?
·
· Score: 1
(Offtopic)
Were you the guys that did AvP for the old Atari Jaguar? That was one of the few games that scared the living crap out of me when I first played it.
Its Microsoft's marketing/innovation plan (and this isn't a bash.. they've been sucessful with it):
Throw shit at a wall and see what sticks.
They have the money to do it, it kinda makes sense. They tried the DVR and it didn't work out the way they first saw it. They'll go back, repackage it, throw it against the wall and see if it sticks again. If not, rince; repeat.
I've got 10+ computers, four different video game systems and enough electronics to keep Enron from going under, but *nothing* gets played more than the pinball machine. There's just something about pinball that's better than any video game.
{blatent plug}
Major props to Coin-Op Warehouse where I bought my machine. All the machines in the showroom are set to free play, and you can stay after hours as long as you bring a six pack. Its a great way to kill a lunchhour if you're in NVa.
Who says that the day Saudi Arabia pisses the US off all of their F15s might respond to the "die now" signal and plummet to the ground?
From what I understand most of the Saudi airforce is run by ex-US GIs anyway. Forget sending a 'die now' signal, if we ever get into a conflict with Saudi the vast majority of their pilots and support staff will just not be there any more.
What is your point? I was pointing out that we already have a system of using taxes to support roads, and no information about where we travel is gathered. This is that system. What are you arguing with, exactly?
The earlier post by Mr_Death (that started this whole thread) had advocated a tax on SUVs (or all cars) on weight/use. I assumed (apparently incorrectly) you were advocating the same thing. I was pointing out that such a system already exist.
I was talking about insurance, not taxes, and I thought it was pretty clear.
The orig. post (by mr_death) *was* about taxes, or at least making SUV owners pay money into an SUV fund. My point was that *if* you're going to make SUV owners pay extra into an SUV wreck fund because they cause more accidents then you better do it for guys under 25 because they cause a disporportionat amount of accidents as well.
Then I pointed out that this is *exactly* what insurance companies do anyway.
Insurance is graded by a person's demographic, and young single males are charged more than others for insurance. Are you arguing that this is unfair?
Not at all.. see above.
[about accident data] What information could the police possibly have other than witness testimony?
Um, skid marks, ammount of damage to car, where the accident actually took place / position the cars were in after accident, were tail lights actually working (things you can actually determine after they've been smashed all to hell), was anyone drunk/high... there's LOTS of forensic evidence you can use to recreate an accident. Yes, all eye witnesses *would* be prefered, but you can still paint a pretty damn good picture of what happened without one. And, as I said in the last post, *if* there's death involved then the police are going to put a hell of a lot more effort into determining exactly what went on than if there's a simple fender bender. Possible negligent manslaughter tends to attract more attention. The assumption that just because one of the parties is dead in an accident the police are just going only listen to the surviving driver's statement and fluff of the investigation is laughable.
Contrary to your post, I haven't advocated a tax on SUVs. I was merely pointing out that a tax that required extensive data-gathering of the sort you suggest would be an exception to the way taxes usually work. An extra, mileage-based tax on SUVs is more feasable and less problematic than you suggest.
Which, again, was my point. A system of taxation already existed, but the poster was advocating more taxation (either because he forgot that gas was already taxed or just feels like taxing the crap out of anyone who drives). If taxing gas wasn't enough to cover the wear and tear as he implied my point was what other way do you determine such things?
Actually, I'm showing that if you're driving an SUV, you're more likely to survive an accident
The stats you orig. posted say this...
- because the other vehicle most likely will suffer much more than yours.
but not this... at least not in that post. You said that " the people in the car are about 30 times more likely to die than the people in the SUV"
If the accidents involving SUVs are more deadly, you'll end up with more total deaths even if the number of accidents stays the same. This may actually be happening; traffic deaths have recently started to rise for the first time in decades.
Again, that's exactly was I said in the parent post! To say that SUVs are more dangerous you have to a) show that SUVs are in more accidents (external factors notwithstanding) or b) an accident involving an SUV and a smaller car causes a disproportionately large amount of injuries. The statement 'someone in an SUV is 30 times as likely to survive an accident' proves neither. Now, you do finally point out that one study concluded that 2000 deaths would be attributed to SUVs and SUVs only, which leads me to....
Who's side are you on here, anyway? At least in that post you said something that made some sense:
I was trying to make a point that even if b) is true I still don't think its a reason to villify/tax/ban SUVs. Lets get rid of all SUVs and then look at accident rates. All of the sudden the next largest vehicle is going to be the bad machine on the block with damming statistic about how when they plow into smaller cars a disproportionate amount of deaths happen. So ban them as well, then the next largest becomes the statistical killer... and so on and so on.. and the next thing you know we're all driving Fiat Cinqucentos.
And why isn't there a big push to get sub compact cars off the road? An SUV, a large car, hell even a midsize/economy car is likely to mangle you if you crash in a VW rabbit or a Geo. Isn't it just as irresponsable to drive around in a tin can of a car than it is to drive around in a big ass tank of a car?
I personally think that SUV's are an obvious danger to drivers of ligher vehicles. More to the point, all heavier vehicles are inherently more dangerous to others than lighter vehicles in exactly the same circumstances (baring special cases, e.g., matching bumper heights).
First, "you personally think" which is one of the points I've been saying. What someone personally thinks is fine for the way they conduct their lives, but does not necc. good policy make. As I said before there's tonnes of stuff that I personally think, but that dosesn't mean they should be made law.
As for SUVs being dangerous simply because they're bigger than lighter cars, the same can be said about midsized cars and compact cars, or compact cars vs. cyclists, or cyclists and pedestrians, or tractor-trailers vs anything else on the road that moves... so why the fuss about SUVs only?
The entire category of vehicle would never have been created if some scoundrel hadn't decided that this was a good enough loophole to pass through.
Speculation. You could argue (and I would agree) that they would probably have been more expensive since they would have had to conform to stricter guidelines, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have sold. Last time I checked SUVs were pretty expensive to beging with. People seem to have no problem dropping a big wad on 'em.
Your denials require a lot more evidence that the prior assertions, because what he is asserting is what one would expect from the known characteristics of the situation and basic models of how massive bodies move in space-time.
Wow.. at what point did I ever argue against gravity/physics... uh yeah, never. I never said that SUVs that have more mass didn't crash with more force. What I did argue was that the that was given was to statistics that show that people in SUVs survive crashes at a higher rate than those in smaller cars. That *is not* the same thing as saying SUVs cause more accidents (which is what the poster was implying.. maybe if you weren't playing with pendulums and plumb weights and actually used some logic you might have noticed that). No statistics were shown that a) controling for external factors SUVs cause more accidents than non SUVs or that b) controling for external factors accidents involving one SUV and non SUVs result in a higher death rate. Do such statistics exist? The previous poster surly didn't provide them (funny how he's not held to the same standard of evidence as I). I have a hunch that there isn't for a) and some for b)... lets assume that b) is true and go back to my previous arguement. I would also then think that a crash involving a Lincon Town Car and a Fiat would result in the person in the Fiat dying more often than two Fiats crashing (or two Town cars crashing). Or an accident with a Fiat and a cyclist. If everyone's so hell bent about size/saftey why the witchhunt after SUVs and not *all* autos?
A real-world tax like this would be based on mileage, the proceeds divided among the local road-maintaining agencies according to some precalculated formula. It would not be perfectly accurate. Taxes like these are not.
I know, maybe we should put a tax on gasoline. You know, the heavier the auto and the farther you drive the more taxes you pay. Wow, why didn't anyone think of tha.... oh, never mind.. they have.
A person who dies instantly does so quite cheaply, whereas a crippling injury or a long, lingering death in the hospital is more expensive.
But you still may be liable, therefor have to dish out a lot of cash (or your insurance company does). Back to the arguement though, statistics show that single males under the age of 25 cause more accidents as well. Should we tax them above and beyond the norm? What about folks who live in citys and suburbs where accidents happen at a higher rate than those out in the country? Do we tax them as well? If you want to tax in order to promote safty why go *only* after SUVs?
Additionally, dead people make pretty poor courtroom witnesses - it may be a lot harder to show that an accident is the other driver's fault
Or you could say that juries are going to be moved that someone IS dead. If an accident happens and death is involved you can be damn sure its going to get more attention than your average fender bender. I think the police/court will have more information on hand than simply witness testimony.
Studies have found that in fatal collisions between SUVs and ordinary cars, the people in the car are about 30 times more likely to die than the people in the SUV [suv.org].
Wow.. if I read somewhere that I'd be thirty times more likely to die in a motorcycle accident if I didn't wear a helmet I would think that's a damn good reason to wear one, wouldn't you think... Of course that's not the point your trying to make, but that may be because your arguement is bunk. You haven't shown that SUVs are the cause of more accidents, just that if your in one you're more likely to survive. Now, had you shown that SUVs cause more accidents you *might* have something.
And just in case anyone's wondering I drive a compact car. I think SUVs are a waste of money... but I think a lot of things are as well, I just don't try to change laws to keep other people from (IMO) wasting theirs.
Those that oppose this idea mainly think that only those educated few should custom build their own Kernels.
This I just do not understand. Should that attitude prevailed when it came to PCS or ISA cards pre Plug and Play days when you had to be an expert and getting interrupts set correctly or your system hung (and yes I realize problems still happen with PnP, but its still a billion times better than the old days). What an elitest attitude.
*Make it easier*
Should we get rid of the './configure && make' cycle because its too easy for those of us who don't know the ins and outs of the compile cycle?
But like I said, if you're paying for wear and tear you would have to go above and beyond since roads here are a state by state thing (actually, some are county by county as well). You'd have to track *where* you've been as well, to compensate the correct maintairner of the road.
Also, gasoline is taxed by the state, so you are taxed by how far you drive and how heavy your car is (since weight correlates with fuel economy), but of course people like mr_death conviently forget such things.
Bingo. And that's the point I was making. That's how you'd do things in the land of mr_death. There are tonnes of things on this planet that personally annoy the hell out of me / I find downright retarded. The list is looooooong and varied, and I could also come up with a justification for how the elimination of each and every one of them would improve society.
Unfortunatly there are those folks that have the very same attitude about things that I like doing. They can also come up with some justifications for why I shouldn't be able to do the things I enjoy doing, and I think they're full of shit. Its a free country folks (or it should be free as humanly possible) and with that freedom comes the realization that some people just aren't going to do the things / make the choices / like the same things we like...
Now, for the things you'd do....
1. SUV speed limit is 80% of the posted limit (limit 70 mph -> SUV limit of 56), which reduces the crash energy by 36% (one half m v squared.) Ban SUVs from the passing and HOV lanes.
Lets lower the crash energy of every vehicle while we're at it. Lets lower the speed limit to 5 MPH, and lets have a law that states all autos must be proceeded by a guy waving a red flag to warn others he coming (this was an actual law at one point). I guarentee accidents would plummet.
2. tax SUV owners on a per mile driven and per pound basis, to compensate for the increased wear on the road. Heck, tax all drivers this way.
So, you're willing to give up your privacy to allow the gov't to track everywhere you've traveled? Remember, if we're compensating for the wear and tear on a road they're going to need more than simply milage. They're going to have to know where you've gone so they know who to compensate. Of course, we could just make each and every road a toll road. That would solve the problem as well. Hope everyone has a lot of quarters lying around. Then again, we could all use speed pass... but then the gov't is tracking us again.....
3. SUV owners pay $2000/year/SUV into a SUV victims fund.
And lets make every male driver between the ages of 16-25 pay into a fund as well, considering they cause the most accidents in this country... oh, wait a minute, they already do... it's called insurance. The wonderful thing about those money grubing bastards in the insurance industry, they don't like paying out more money than they take in. The second they find statistical evidence that SUVs (and SUVs alone, they control for the usual supsects: age, gender, marital status, past history, etc...) are causing them to lose more money (due to claims) than any other vehicle you can bet your bottom dollar that rates on SUVs are going to rise (if they haven't already).
4. remove the business tax preferences to SUVs.
That's (AFAIK) because they're classified as trucks, not cars. A bit of a dodge I agree.
So are a lot of things: alcohol, smokes, red meat, coloured toilet paper, riding motorcycles without helmets, politicians, swimming after eating, not washing your hands after using the bathroom, godlessness, drugs, sex, being lazy, Starbucks, country music, not using solar panels for all your electrical needs, teenage pregnancy, Paulie Shore movies, Republicans, Democrats, and on and on and on...
Its always a free country... right up until someone else does something they don't like. Oddly enough that attititude cuts across all nations, creeds, colours, age groups, political bents, etc.
You think smokers and SUVers are morons? Fine, free country. I happen to think the same thing about people who think they're smarter than everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's not called "ripping people off," it's called investing. Record companies put up a huge amount of capital to produce records, market bands, and finance tours. Because there's a great deal of risk involved in promoting musicians, the recording industry demands a very high rate of return. Yes, the musicians create the content, but without financial backing, you never would have heard of Metallica. Remember the Golden Rule, that whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Agreed. I've always argued if you're dumb enough to enter into that bad of a contract then you deserve everything that you get (or don't get).
*But* I will say record industry contracts seem top be a HELL of a lot worse than any other artistic/content type of contract. Book authors don't give away anywhere near as many rights as a musician. Book publishers also front money and marketing to authors, and the author has to pay back it back with their revenue, but the author retains the copyright on their material. Not so with the record industry. Work for Hire is the norm there, and it reeks. Book publishers take on just as much risk in terms of recouping costs as the record industry, but they don't demand ownership.
But like I said, if you're dumb enough to agree to both pay for the recording and marketing of your record and still give up ownership, you deserve to be shit on.
It always amazed me why China connected to the public internet anyways if they are going to censor everything except the stuff _they_ want their citizens to see.
As the article said you can learn a lot more by allowing certain access to forbidden content. Its easier to find enemys of the state if a) they can find those forbidden sites, and b) you can track them. Think of it as a honeypot for the politically undesirable. IMO even worse than just cutting everyone off.
You're right about channel lineups, and I think that the Yahoo channel listings wouldn't be that hard.
I have Watson for OS X (an awesome, awsome program) that, among other things, does just that. Enter your Zip code and cable system and Watson will spit out nicely formatted TV channel guides.
If the Watson guys can do it I assume it shouldn't be all that hard to parse it into a format you could use in conjunction with a PC based PVR.
Personally I think it's bullshit that you claim Microsoft does not have a right to improve the OS in ways which are beneficial to programmers and consumers, by componentizing HTML rendering into an engine that can be utilized by anyone.
Um, did I not say in the parent post that I wasn't arguing whether MS could or could not intergrate whatever they wanted to into the OS? What I said was bullshit, and I stand behind, is their insistance that it is somehow impossible to remove the functionality from the OS without breaking everything. This is bullshit. You do *not* need a browser intergrated into the OS to update software. Nor for the help. I argue that one of the reasons for making so many OS functions dependent on their browser was to boost its useage. Lite98 proved in court that they were liars about how badly the OS would be crippled when removing IE, and their doctored video tape didn't help matters either.
Again, MS were their own worst enemy when it came to such things.
They have claimed it is integrated into the OS.
First, I never said they integrated it into the kernel, just that its close (i.e. in the OS)
Secondly, they're claiming that taking it out is impossible (or will cause irreprable damage), and that's the bullshit arguement. I never claimed that how MS tied the browser was good or bad, just that their arguement about being able to remove it was bullshit. That's been the problem (IMO) with MS over the entire antitrust case. Regardless of whether they've done anything legally/morally/ethically wrong with their business practices, they have come across as a bunch of lying bafoons in court, which has done more damage to them than anything else. A good example of how not to act like MS in court has been Intel and their antitrust investigation.
The "IE is an integral part of the OS" arguement has always made me chuckle. Its true only because Microsoft has designed it that way, which doesn't necessarily make it right.
The most damning evidence that a browswer doesn't have to be so close to the kernel (in the kernel???) is IE for Macintosh. Its a damn fine browser that is nothing more than a standalone app. Sure, Microsoft bitches that IE is needed for product updates and help, but that is -- again -- only by MS design. Apple, Debian, Mandrake, et al have all shown that updating can also be a stand alone application. And Gnome and (I assume) KDE have shown you can have HTML help with a regular app browser.
The contention that IE is neccessary for the OS to run properly is true, but only because MS specifically designed it that way. I've always found the arguement "hey, we're guilty but we can't seperate IE from the OS because its too deeply tied together" the same as Firestone saying "hey, we know we produced crap tires, but we shouldn't have to change the way we made 'em because that would require retooling the tire production line."
I've always thought Farscape and Blake's 7 were both similar in character makeup and plot arc (which is a good thing.. they're both awesome SciFi). My vote has to go to Rygel because he's such an unapologetic self centered sonofabitch, and he reminds me a lot of Avon. A refreshing change from the normal "lets help humanity (alienity???), be a nice guy/girl/amorphous blob" type of central character in your average SciFi claptrap.
Maybe I am just missing the point of the whole thing, and this is not a flame or a troll. This is genuine interest. What would compell someone to run Linux instead of MacOS X on such an elegant (and expensive) machine?
Ok... the normal "this is not a troll" disclaimer...
But, I'm always amazed at the "why do people do..." questions. Its as if they expect the world to think the exact same way they do.
"Why do KDE developers duplicate what Gnome is doing?"
"Why do Gnome developers duplicate what KDE is doing?"
"Why don't Linux users just switch to BSD?"
So on and so forth...
Even worse are those who DEMAND that folks stop doing the things they enjoy and start working on the things that the poster thinks is important:
"All the Gnome developers should stop and help the KDE team..."
Doesn't anyone realize that people work on what they want to work on, regardless of what the f**k others think....
"People who port Linux to the Dreamcast are wasting time that could be better spent doing other things..."
You're absolutly correct about benchmarking and how they can be skewed by configuration, but you're dead wrong when you say
Vendors are perfectly in their right to oversee benchmarking their products in a comparative fashion to insure equality (even though in some cases that fact still gets lost in the shuffle).
if by that you mean they should have the legal authority to deny any benchmark that they don't approve of. That is akin to passing a law that states "you may only print the truth, and I get to decide what that truth is."
A company *does* have the right to set up its own benchmarking study to counter anyone else's that they feel is unfair. As a potential customer I want to be able to read as much about a product as possible. We the public are not stupid, and we should not be treated as such. I (and everyone else) am quite able to decide which benchmarking studies I am going to put the most weight on. Benchmarks that have no configuration data published with them get deep sixed. Benchmarks paid for by the company in question are met with a healthy dose of scepticism. Benchmarks from people/organizations that I have deemed fair (because of past work) I'm going to put more creedence in.
This is no different that real life. I don't need any law or licensing agreement to tell me which newspaper, columnist, TV station, author, etc I should "believe in."
I'm not sure about the software (it was Wind River stuff) because, frankly, it was shit. When I first got the Verizon DSL I just installed it on the Win box to make sure it worked. The damn thing dropped all of the time. Once I switched over to a Linux Masq. box I never had a problem. Would have the line up for weeks at a time. Maybe they crippled the WinPPPoE driver to drop every so often but the line itself it fine.
(Offtopic)
Were you the guys that did AvP for the old Atari Jaguar? That was one of the few games that scared the living crap out of me when I first played it.
Its Microsoft's marketing/innovation plan (and this isn't a bash.. they've been sucessful with it):
Throw shit at a wall and see what sticks.
They have the money to do it, it kinda makes sense. They tried the DVR and it didn't work out the way they first saw it. They'll go back, repackage it, throw it against the wall and see if it sticks again. If not, rince; repeat.
I've got 10+ computers, four different video game systems and enough electronics to keep Enron from going under, but *nothing* gets played more than the pinball machine. There's just something about pinball that's better than any video game.
{blatent plug}
Major props to Coin-Op Warehouse where I bought my machine. All the machines in the showroom are set to free play, and you can stay after hours as long as you bring a six pack. Its a great way to kill a lunchhour if you're in NVa.
Especially when your people are starving and your culture is non-existent.
Ahhh... I love the smell of cultural elitism in the morning...
Who says that the day Saudi Arabia pisses the US off all of their F15s might respond to the "die now" signal and plummet to the ground?
From what I understand most of the Saudi airforce is run by ex-US GIs anyway. Forget sending a 'die now' signal, if we ever get into a conflict with Saudi the vast majority of their pilots and support staff will just not be there any more.
What is your point? I was pointing out that we already have a system of using taxes to support roads, and no information about where we travel is gathered. This is that system. What are you arguing with, exactly?
The earlier post by Mr_Death (that started this whole thread) had advocated a tax on SUVs (or all cars) on weight/use. I assumed (apparently incorrectly) you were advocating the same thing. I was pointing out that such a system already exist.
I was talking about insurance, not taxes, and I thought it was pretty clear.
The orig. post (by mr_death) *was* about taxes, or at least making SUV owners pay money into an SUV fund. My point was that *if* you're going to make SUV owners pay extra into an SUV wreck fund because they cause more accidents then you better do it for guys under 25 because they cause a disporportionat amount of accidents as well.
Then I pointed out that this is *exactly* what insurance companies do anyway.
Insurance is graded by a person's demographic, and young single males are charged more than others for insurance. Are you arguing that this is unfair?
Not at all.. see above.
[about accident data] What information could the police possibly have other than witness testimony?
Um, skid marks, ammount of damage to car, where the accident actually took place / position the cars were in after accident, were tail lights actually working (things you can actually determine after they've been smashed all to hell), was anyone drunk/high... there's LOTS of forensic evidence you can use to recreate an accident. Yes, all eye witnesses *would* be prefered, but you can still paint a pretty damn good picture of what happened without one. And, as I said in the last post, *if* there's death involved then the police are going to put a hell of a lot more effort into determining exactly what went on than if there's a simple fender bender. Possible negligent manslaughter tends to attract more attention. The assumption that just because one of the parties is dead in an accident the police are just going only listen to the surviving driver's statement and fluff of the investigation is laughable.
Contrary to your post, I haven't advocated a tax on SUVs. I was merely pointing out that a tax that required extensive data-gathering of the sort you suggest would be an exception to the way taxes usually work. An extra, mileage-based tax on SUVs is more feasable and less problematic than you suggest.
Which, again, was my point. A system of taxation already existed, but the poster was advocating more taxation (either because he forgot that gas was already taxed or just feels like taxing the crap out of anyone who drives). If taxing gas wasn't enough to cover the wear and tear as he implied my point was what other way do you determine such things?
Actually, I'm showing that if you're driving an SUV, you're more likely to survive an accident
The stats you orig. posted say this...
- because the other vehicle most likely will suffer much more than yours.
but not this... at least not in that post. You said that " the people in the car are about 30 times more likely to die than the people in the SUV"
If the accidents involving SUVs are more deadly, you'll end up with more total deaths even if the number of accidents stays the same. This may actually be happening; traffic deaths have recently started to rise for the first time in decades.
Again, that's exactly was I said in the parent post! To say that SUVs are more dangerous you have to a) show that SUVs are in more accidents (external factors notwithstanding) or b) an accident involving an SUV and a smaller car causes a disproportionately large amount of injuries. The statement 'someone in an SUV is 30 times as likely to survive an accident' proves neither. Now, you do finally point out that one study concluded that 2000 deaths would be attributed to SUVs and SUVs only, which leads me to....
Who's side are you on here, anyway? At least in that post you said something that made some sense:
I was trying to make a point that even if b) is true I still don't think its a reason to villify/tax/ban SUVs. Lets get rid of all SUVs and then look at accident rates. All of the sudden the next largest vehicle is going to be the bad machine on the block with damming statistic about how when they plow into smaller cars a disproportionate amount of deaths happen. So ban them as well, then the next largest becomes the statistical killer... and so on and so on.. and the next thing you know we're all driving Fiat Cinqucentos.
And why isn't there a big push to get sub compact cars off the road? An SUV, a large car, hell even a midsize/economy car is likely to mangle you if you crash in a VW rabbit or a Geo. Isn't it just as irresponsable to drive around in a tin can of a car than it is to drive around in a big ass tank of a car?
I personally think that SUV's are an obvious danger to drivers of ligher vehicles. More to the point, all heavier vehicles are inherently more dangerous to others than lighter vehicles in exactly the same circumstances (baring special cases, e.g., matching bumper heights).
First, "you personally think" which is one of the points I've been saying. What someone personally thinks is fine for the way they conduct their lives, but does not necc. good policy make. As I said before there's tonnes of stuff that I personally think, but that dosesn't mean they should be made law.
As for SUVs being dangerous simply because they're bigger than lighter cars, the same can be said about midsized cars and compact cars, or compact cars vs. cyclists, or cyclists and pedestrians, or tractor-trailers vs anything else on the road that moves... so why the fuss about SUVs only?
The entire category of vehicle would never have been created if some scoundrel hadn't decided that this was a good enough loophole to pass through.
Speculation. You could argue (and I would agree) that they would probably have been more expensive since they would have had to conform to stricter guidelines, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have sold. Last time I checked SUVs were pretty expensive to beging with. People seem to have no problem dropping a big wad on 'em.
Your denials require a lot more evidence that the prior assertions, because what he is asserting is what one would expect from the known characteristics of the situation and basic models of how massive bodies move in space-time.
Wow.. at what point did I ever argue against gravity/physics... uh yeah, never. I never said that SUVs that have more mass didn't crash with more force. What I did argue was that the that was given was to statistics that show that people in SUVs survive crashes at a higher rate than those in smaller cars. That *is not* the same thing as saying SUVs cause more accidents (which is what the poster was implying.. maybe if you weren't playing with pendulums and plumb weights and actually used some logic you might have noticed that). No statistics were shown that a) controling for external factors SUVs cause more accidents than non SUVs or that b) controling for external factors accidents involving one SUV and non SUVs result in a higher death rate. Do such statistics exist? The previous poster surly didn't provide them (funny how he's not held to the same standard of evidence as I). I have a hunch that there isn't for a) and some for b)... lets assume that b) is true and go back to my previous arguement. I would also then think that a crash involving a Lincon Town Car and a Fiat would result in the person in the Fiat dying more often than two Fiats crashing (or two Town cars crashing). Or an accident with a Fiat and a cyclist. If everyone's so hell bent about size/saftey why the witchhunt after SUVs and not *all* autos?
A real-world tax like this would be based on mileage, the proceeds divided among the local road-maintaining agencies according to some precalculated formula. It would not be perfectly accurate. Taxes like these are not.
I know, maybe we should put a tax on gasoline. You know, the heavier the auto and the farther you drive the more taxes you pay. Wow, why didn't anyone think of tha.... oh, never mind.. they have.
A person who dies instantly does so quite cheaply, whereas a crippling injury or a long, lingering death in the hospital is more expensive.
But you still may be liable, therefor have to dish out a lot of cash (or your insurance company does). Back to the arguement though, statistics show that single males under the age of 25 cause more accidents as well. Should we tax them above and beyond the norm? What about folks who live in citys and suburbs where accidents happen at a higher rate than those out in the country? Do we tax them as well? If you want to tax in order to promote safty why go *only* after SUVs?
Additionally, dead people make pretty poor courtroom witnesses - it may be a lot harder to show that an accident is the other driver's fault
Or you could say that juries are going to be moved that someone IS dead. If an accident happens and death is involved you can be damn sure its going to get more attention than your average fender bender. I think the police/court will have more information on hand than simply witness testimony.
Studies have found that in fatal collisions between SUVs and ordinary cars, the people in the car are about 30 times more likely to die than the people in the SUV [suv.org].
Wow.. if I read somewhere that I'd be thirty times more likely to die in a motorcycle accident if I didn't wear a helmet I would think that's a damn good reason to wear one, wouldn't you think... Of course that's not the point your trying to make, but that may be because your arguement is bunk. You haven't shown that SUVs are the cause of more accidents, just that if your in one you're more likely to survive. Now, had you shown that SUVs cause more accidents you *might* have something.
And just in case anyone's wondering I drive a compact car. I think SUVs are a waste of money... but I think a lot of things are as well, I just don't try to change laws to keep other people from (IMO) wasting theirs.
Those that oppose this idea mainly think that only those educated few should custom build their own Kernels.
This I just do not understand. Should that attitude prevailed when it came to PCS or ISA cards pre Plug and Play days when you had to be an expert and getting interrupts set correctly or your system hung (and yes I realize problems still happen with PnP, but its still a billion times better than the old days). What an elitest attitude.
*Make it easier*
Should we get rid of the './configure && make' cycle because its too easy for those of us who don't know the ins and outs of the compile cycle?
(Man, am I in a snippy mood today or what!)
Don't have to tell me about the price of tax on petrol in the UK... its a friggin rip off.
...www.kernelnewbies.org is supposed to have a lot for the aspiring kernel hacker.
#2, he also forgets about the tax on gas; the more you drive and the heavier your auto, the more gas you buy (thus the more tax you pay)....
But like I said, if you're paying for wear and tear you would have to go above and beyond since roads here are a state by state thing (actually, some are county by county as well). You'd have to track *where* you've been as well, to compensate the correct maintairner of the road.
Also, gasoline is taxed by the state, so you are taxed by how far you drive and how heavy your car is (since weight correlates with fuel economy), but of course people like mr_death conviently forget such things.
Simple (at least for me)
Bingo. And that's the point I was making. That's how you'd do things in the land of mr_death. There are tonnes of things on this planet that personally annoy the hell out of me / I find downright retarded. The list is looooooong and varied, and I could also come up with a justification for how the elimination of each and every one of them would improve society.
Unfortunatly there are those folks that have the very same attitude about things that I like doing. They can also come up with some justifications for why I shouldn't be able to do the things I enjoy doing, and I think they're full of shit. Its a free country folks (or it should be free as humanly possible) and with that freedom comes the realization that some people just aren't going to do the things / make the choices / like the same things we like...
Now, for the things you'd do....
1. SUV speed limit is 80% of the posted limit (limit 70 mph -> SUV limit of 56), which reduces the crash energy by 36% (one half m v squared.) Ban SUVs from the passing and HOV lanes.
Lets lower the crash energy of every vehicle while we're at it. Lets lower the speed limit to 5 MPH, and lets have a law that states all autos must be proceeded by a guy waving a red flag to warn others he coming (this was an actual law at one point). I guarentee accidents would plummet.
2. tax SUV owners on a per mile driven and per pound basis, to compensate for the increased wear on the road. Heck, tax all drivers this way.
So, you're willing to give up your privacy to allow the gov't to track everywhere you've traveled? Remember, if we're compensating for the wear and tear on a road they're going to need more than simply milage. They're going to have to know where you've gone so they know who to compensate. Of course, we could just make each and every road a toll road. That would solve the problem as well. Hope everyone has a lot of quarters lying around. Then again, we could all use speed pass... but then the gov't is tracking us again.....
3. SUV owners pay $2000/year/SUV into a SUV victims fund.
And lets make every male driver between the ages of 16-25 pay into a fund as well, considering they cause the most accidents in this country... oh, wait a minute, they already do... it's called insurance. The wonderful thing about those money grubing bastards in the insurance industry, they don't like paying out more money than they take in. The second they find statistical evidence that SUVs (and SUVs alone, they control for the usual supsects: age, gender, marital status, past history, etc...) are causing them to lose more money (due to claims) than any other vehicle you can bet your bottom dollar that rates on SUVs are going to rise (if they haven't already).
4. remove the business tax preferences to SUVs.
That's (AFAIK) because they're classified as trucks, not cars. A bit of a dodge I agree.
So are a lot of things: alcohol, smokes, red meat, coloured toilet paper, riding motorcycles without helmets, politicians, swimming after eating, not washing your hands after using the bathroom, godlessness, drugs, sex, being lazy, Starbucks, country music, not using solar panels for all your electrical needs, teenage pregnancy, Paulie Shore movies, Republicans, Democrats, and on and on and on...
Its always a free country... right up until someone else does something they don't like. Oddly enough that attititude cuts across all nations, creeds, colours, age groups, political bents, etc.
You think smokers and SUVers are morons? Fine, free country. I happen to think the same thing about people who think they're smarter than everyone else.