However, I am inclined to view the convenience of cell phones much more harshly, because cell phone use is not an essential part of the driving process. If you want the privilege of using public roads and putting others at risk, you should take the responsibility of devoting your full attention to driving well. I would be glad to see cell phones outlawed on the road entirely.
People who were raised watching cop shows on TV might disagree. The police always had cool two way radios which they used while driving. I think police today should lead the way by banning their own drivers from using communication equipment while driving, then advertise the fact.
One popular use case I see when cycle commuting is where somebody is meeting up with somebody else and they don't know exactly where. So they get in touch by phone and one gives the other instructions like look out for this landmark, do a left turn etc. It leads to drivers keeping their attention inside he vehicle instead of outside. Aircraft pilots resolve this issue by dividing tasks. I sometimes do that if my wife is in the car. She gets directions and I concentrate on not hitting things, etc.
I live in California, where it now looks like an army of cyborgs has invaded. Everyone walks around with one of those damn bluetooth headsets on since it became law to use a hands-free device while driving. Wouldn't you think that some RESEARCH and TESTING had taken place before enacting this law?
A guy I work with who rides a motorbike to work took his headset apart and integrated it with his helmet. Very cool but when I am on my bicycle my phone lives in my backpack.
What I've always wondered is if the increased distraction a cell phone brings vs. a passenger has something to do with the brain activity of talking on a cell vs. in person.
Passengers generally know it is in their interest not to distract the driver. The person on the other end of the phone conversation is not at risk so they talk about anything at all.
Actually, Adam's conclusion is the most important. The phone is not as dangerous as the intoxication -- because you can put down the phone.
So maybe drivers need to be taught how to refocus their attention when necessary. You know, instead of being told that tehy should expect everything to be perfect all the time with no distractions.
But also the person on the other end of the line has to cooperate. If my wife calls me when I am driving she will realise immediately what is going on when I say call you back later and hang up. If my stupid fucking sister calls me for help with her internet connection she knows straight away that nothing in the universe is as important as her getting on to facebook so she keeps nattering away.
And yeah I hang up on her but a lot of people (my mum included) won't.
I eventually grew tired of it just filling up my log files so I switched to a non-standard port and haven't seen an attempt since.
I keep ssh open on the standard port because I block offending hosts in pf. It is much easier to detect attacks on ssh, but I get attacked on other ports as well, such as pop3 and smtp.
I would rather know who the enemy is, than be completely blind.
If anybody is interested I would be happy to post my current list of blocked hosts.
Same here. I wrote a script which gets called from syslogd. It gets lines from authlog and parses certain lines for the IP address. Each host gets one chance to fail, then goes into a file which pf treats as a list of IP addresses to block. I allow 10000 hosts in the pre-block list and 1000 in the blocked list.
I work in air traffic control where we pass a lot of messages by UDP and frequently saturate our networks in the process. I get asked similar questions by new developers who have been in other industries developing various GUI applications. One thing they need to understand is that we pass a lot more data around than most applications. This works okay in C when you have a statically allocated buffer for the message. You populate it and pass a pointer to the middleware and off it goes. In OO you normally create an object and this means doing a malloc at the C level for every message.
At that point the application falls apart. It just can't allocate memory fast enough to keep up.
Methodologies like MVC are fine when applied to the right problems. I work in air traffic control which is both distributed and real time. I see a lot of developers coming in from other fields and trying to match our application to one of another design pattern.
Yeah 32000 years from now that is really going to confuse the people trying to work out where the human race came from.
I hate to break it to you, but in 32000 years, nobody is going to care where a bunch of damn dirty apes who barely even made it to their own moon came from.
Um maybe, but I interpreted tomhudsons post as a Harry Harrison reference. Modern humans are at least 100000 years old, so I wouldn't be surprised if we are still around in this form in another 100000 years.
I have athralgia which prevents me from using a mouse.
I had to google that. Have you tried using a mouse with the left hand rather than the right? I changed over when I had a lot of pain in my right hand. I know that your problem may not be RSI related its just that I find the left handed configuration to be more balanced, which reduces the stress on the right hand.
But you can go to far where your views are considered to radical to be possible. Thus becoming a buch of crazy nuts and go back to your way of doing things, As they will be mad at you no matter what.
Interesting that your sig seems to support radical positions taken by RMS.
Yeah I had a think about that after I posted. Lets say that a typical flight from A to B takes one hour and the train takes two hours. The flight time includes extra land transport and mucking around at the airport.
Travelling for work takes two hours out of the day by air and four hours by train. An employer will always pay for a flight because the four hours you are certain to lose by taking the train is too much of the day. If the flight takes longer than expected then thats just bad luck. The company pays for a hotel room and you finish the job the next day.
In a way air transport wins by promising more with less reliability.
Another poster pointed out the time you can save by going directly from one CBD to another by train. You can't directly compare rail with air transport because they scale in totally different ways. With rail the stations are cheap and the track is expensive. For air transport the reverse is true.
I am surprised that you would consider landing a 172 at an airport used by heavy jets at all. Small airports are much more convenient, and the landing charges are lower. I doubt the hassle of dealing with air side security at a major airport is worth the trouble. You didn't mention separation standards for a light wake turbulence aircraft following a medium or heavy aircraft. That can put a lot of delay into the system as well.
The mega hubs exist for the same reason as shopping centres and cities. It is good for business to be close to other businesses. Passengers want to be able to transit to other airlines.
But economics work against large airports as well. They provide employment and encourage population growth. New people move in and complain about the noise. Building a new airport opens up new arrival and departure trajectories and pushes down house prices. Eventually the whole airport has to move and that can get very expensive.
One advantage of rail is that you can go directly into a city centre at 200 km/h. I think the best place to use aircraft is for the long haul.
What exactly does it make it "not like the RCS system on a spacecraft", other than the choice of the monopropellant?
The Apollo RCS uses Nitrogen Tetroxide and Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine. This mixture burns on contact so no ignition system is needed. Both components are very dangerous to handle.
There is a certain minimal altitude below which the parachute is quite useless.
Hang glider pilots carry ballistic parachutes which eject themselves from a container and open at the end of a tether. That way you only fall far enough to inflate the canopy. A parachute like that could work from 100 feet or so.
The rocket here seems pretty reliable but I would worry about a control system failure.
Can't a parachute be strapped on the front or something? This guy made it across without being harmed, but I would hardly refer to such an activity as safe. No redundancy = not safe.
I noticed that he stayed fairly close to the bridge. Maybe he planned to turn right as an alternative to doing a Homer.
"hydrogen peroxide, huh? Does that react with something or what?"
Catalytic decomposition, I would guess. Simple and reliable, like the hydrazine RCS thrusters on spacecrafts.
RCS exhaust is lethal to unprotected humans. At normal shuttle landing sites huge fans are used to blow gas away from the orbiter before any seals are cracked. At emergency landing sites ground crews are briefed to keep clear of the spacecraft.
Eric Scott is still alive so this is not like the RCS system on a spacecraft.
Slashdot Mirror
Better yet, let's just outlaw all reckless driving, then we could punish people who do it no matter what the reason. Oh wait, we've already done that.
Most reckless drivers are not caught. Even when they do get reported to the police there is almost never enough evidence to do anything about it.
However, I am inclined to view the convenience of cell phones much more harshly, because cell phone use is not an essential part of the driving process. If you want the privilege of using public roads and putting others at risk, you should take the responsibility of devoting your full attention to driving well. I would be glad to see cell phones outlawed on the road entirely.
People who were raised watching cop shows on TV might disagree. The police always had cool two way radios which they used while driving. I think police today should lead the way by banning their own drivers from using communication equipment while driving, then advertise the fact.
One popular use case I see when cycle commuting is where somebody is meeting up with somebody else and they don't know exactly where. So they get in touch by phone and one gives the other instructions like look out for this landmark, do a left turn etc. It leads to drivers keeping their attention inside he vehicle instead of outside. Aircraft pilots resolve this issue by dividing tasks. I sometimes do that if my wife is in the car. She gets directions and I concentrate on not hitting things, etc.
I live in California, where it now looks like an army of cyborgs has invaded. Everyone walks around with one of those damn bluetooth headsets on since it became law to use a hands-free device while driving. Wouldn't you think that some RESEARCH and TESTING had taken place before enacting this law?
A guy I work with who rides a motorbike to work took his headset apart and integrated it with his helmet. Very cool but when I am on my bicycle my phone lives in my backpack.
What I've always wondered is if the increased distraction a cell phone brings vs. a passenger has something to do with the brain activity of talking on a cell vs. in person.
Passengers generally know it is in their interest not to distract the driver. The person on the other end of the phone conversation is not at risk so they talk about anything at all.
Actually, Adam's conclusion is the most important. The phone is not as dangerous as the intoxication -- because you can put down the phone.
So maybe drivers need to be taught how to refocus their attention when necessary. You know, instead of being told that tehy should expect everything to be perfect all the time with no distractions.
But also the person on the other end of the line has to cooperate. If my wife calls me when I am driving she will realise immediately what is going on when I say call you back later and hang up. If my stupid fucking sister calls me for help with her internet connection she knows straight away that nothing in the universe is as important as her getting on to facebook so she keeps nattering away.
And yeah I hang up on her but a lot of people (my mum included) won't.
There should be a memory efficient alternative, maybe I'll have to write that.
Mine uses 53 lines of ksh.
I eventually grew tired of it just filling up my log files so I switched to a non-standard port and haven't seen an attempt since.
I keep ssh open on the standard port because I block offending hosts in pf. It is much easier to detect attacks on ssh, but I get attacked on other ports as well, such as pop3 and smtp.
I would rather know who the enemy is, than be completely blind.
If anybody is interested I would be happy to post my current list of blocked hosts.
That's a DDoS, and would kick your one-man-and-a-dog site off the net. For a while, at least. And there would be nothing you could do about it.
The parasite doesn't want to kill the host, because it would die too. This thing will tick away, slowly getting bigger.
Same here. I wrote a script which gets called from syslogd. It gets lines from authlog and parses certain lines for the IP address. Each host gets one chance to fail, then goes into a file which pf treats as a list of IP addresses to block. I allow 10000 hosts in the pre-block list and 1000 in the blocked list.
I work in air traffic control where we pass a lot of messages by UDP and frequently saturate our networks in the process. I get asked similar questions by new developers who have been in other industries developing various GUI applications. One thing they need to understand is that we pass a lot more data around than most applications. This works okay in C when you have a statically allocated buffer for the message. You populate it and pass a pointer to the middleware and off it goes. In OO you normally create an object and this means doing a malloc at the C level for every message.
At that point the application falls apart. It just can't allocate memory fast enough to keep up.
Methodologies like MVC are fine when applied to the right problems. I work in air traffic control which is both distributed and real time. I see a lot of developers coming in from other fields and trying to match our application to one of another design pattern.
Then they stuff up.
I thought we've only existed as our current species for ten thousand years?
About 200000 years apparently.
I hate to break it to you, but in 32000 years, nobody is going to care where a bunch of damn dirty apes who barely even made it to their own moon came from.
Um maybe, but I interpreted tomhudsons post as a Harry Harrison reference. Modern humans are at least 100000 years old, so I wouldn't be surprised if we are still around in this form in another 100000 years.
Yeah 32000 years from now that is really going to confuse the people trying to work out where the human race came from.
I have athralgia which prevents me from using a mouse.
I had to google that. Have you tried using a mouse with the left hand rather than the right? I changed over when I had a lot of pain in my right hand. I know that your problem may not be RSI related its just that I find the left handed configuration to be more balanced, which reduces the stress on the right hand.
Asimov's writing wasn't very visual and it doesn't translate well to the screen. Larry Niven on the other hand...
But you can go to far where your views are considered to radical to be possible. Thus becoming a buch of crazy nuts and go back to your way of doing things, As they will be mad at you no matter what.
Interesting that your sig seems to support radical positions taken by RMS.
Yeah I had a think about that after I posted. Lets say that a typical flight from A to B takes one hour and the train takes two hours. The flight time includes extra land transport and mucking around at the airport.
Travelling for work takes two hours out of the day by air and four hours by train. An employer will always pay for a flight because the four hours you are certain to lose by taking the train is too much of the day. If the flight takes longer than expected then thats just bad luck. The company pays for a hotel room and you finish the job the next day.
In a way air transport wins by promising more with less reliability.
Makes me wonder if we will drop the notion of frame rates and instead transmit changes from camera to monitor in as close to real time as possible.
Another poster pointed out the time you can save by going directly from one CBD to another by train. You can't directly compare rail with air transport because they scale in totally different ways. With rail the stations are cheap and the track is expensive. For air transport the reverse is true.
I am surprised that you would consider landing a 172 at an airport used by heavy jets at all. Small airports are much more convenient, and the landing charges are lower. I doubt the hassle of dealing with air side security at a major airport is worth the trouble. You didn't mention separation standards for a light wake turbulence aircraft following a medium or heavy aircraft. That can put a lot of delay into the system as well.
The mega hubs exist for the same reason as shopping centres and cities. It is good for business to be close to other businesses. Passengers want to be able to transit to other airlines.
But economics work against large airports as well. They provide employment and encourage population growth. New people move in and complain about the noise. Building a new airport opens up new arrival and departure trajectories and pushes down house prices. Eventually the whole airport has to move and that can get very expensive.
One advantage of rail is that you can go directly into a city centre at 200 km/h. I think the best place to use aircraft is for the long haul.
What exactly does it make it "not like the RCS system on a spacecraft", other than the choice of the monopropellant?
The Apollo RCS uses Nitrogen Tetroxide and Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine. This mixture burns on contact so no ignition system is needed. Both components are very dangerous to handle.
There is a certain minimal altitude below which the parachute is quite useless.
Hang glider pilots carry ballistic parachutes which eject themselves from a container and open at the end of a tether. That way you only fall far enough to inflate the canopy. A parachute like that could work from 100 feet or so.
The rocket here seems pretty reliable but I would worry about a control system failure.
Can't a parachute be strapped on the front or something? This guy made it across without being harmed, but I would hardly refer to such an activity as safe. No redundancy = not safe.
I noticed that he stayed fairly close to the bridge. Maybe he planned to turn right as an alternative to doing a Homer.
Catalytic decomposition, I would guess. Simple and reliable, like the hydrazine RCS thrusters on spacecrafts.
RCS exhaust is lethal to unprotected humans. At normal shuttle landing sites huge fans are used to blow gas away from the orbiter before any seals are cracked. At emergency landing sites ground crews are briefed to keep clear of the spacecraft.
Eric Scott is still alive so this is not like the RCS system on a spacecraft.