Your comment relies on people making informed and reasonable judgements on what is and is not dangerous. If you are going to assume that people do that, then the whole conversation is moot.
1) I don't know where you buy these vibration free cars, but they are not widely available. Perhaps you could share that alien technology, and solve all sorts of the worlds problems.
2) controlled impact experiments are not going to tell you how much more likely it is for someone to get into an accident when driving with their child. So, no. They don't count. They are exactly the opposite of what I said.
I would love a clean, comfortable, convenient, safe, efficient, reliable form of public transportation that can get me from where I am to where I need/want to be. Unfortunately, that does not exist, and there are no plans on the drawing board that come even close to offering that. The private automobile is the best balance of transportation available right now with auto driving cars, the only improvement visible in the future.
That is really the answer. Two problems are that this conversation isn't really about safety. It is about Neo-Luddites who have a beef with the technology. The car is just the place that they can feel self righteous in complaining about it.
The other issue is the huge number of people who will not want auto driving cars because the 'like to drive.' This group sees no hypocrisy in complaining about someone using a cell phone while zipping around in an inherently dangerous manner by being the driver of the car.
And there are two types of people who drive with children in their car. Those who realize that their driving ability is impared, and those who don't realize that their driving ability is impaired.
Because cell phones were popularized post 1975 which seems to be the approximate year that Neo-Luddites have chosen to declare new technology as evil. This isn't helped by the fact that early mobile phones were a status symbol for particularly self absorbed demographics, and a lot of people can't get over the fact that that particular stereo type is long dead.
Driving your kid to Chuck E Cheese is no more valid of a risk than calling your wife on the way home from work. The people that consider driving with their kid to be an acceptable risk, but complain about cell phones are simply hypocrites that think their shade of gray is better than everyone else's shade of gray.
Also, claiming that passengers will sit quietly if there is a danger in the road is ridiculous. As a rule passengers are not even aware of the danger before it is too late. They are also likely to make gasping noises when there is no danger that startles the driver, and has them taking their eyes off the road in front of them so that they can find the non-existent danger that they don't see.
However, if the other side of the conversation is riding in the car with you, at least they can say 'Hey! Look out for that elephant in the road!'. Hopefully before you hit it. They can also help you with keeping the radio sorted out, navigation and collecting that cassette that was dropped. In aviation terms, it called cockpit load management - and it really works.
This never happens in a car. What does happen is that people perform the natural act of looking at the person they are talking too. They dig in their purse for a napkin because their kid spilled a drink in the back seat. They watch their kids in the rear view mirror as they yell at them for being too rowdy. They get in fights. They try to hold hands. They do all sorts of things that distract the driver, not just attention wise, but physically as well. What doesn't happen is that the passenger acting as a copilot.
No, the difference is that the normal human reaction when talking to a live person is to look at them. Passengers in the car are MORE dangerous. Not less.
There is nothing racist in the quote you make. It is simply an example of a third world country. So, it is likely because you are retarded and unable to read that you are a racist.
The premise put forth was that the quality software is only produced by groups with large commercial backing. The emulators clearly show that this isn't the case. What your argument is more of an indicator of is that if an open source project is of high quality, commercial backing will come. (Barring any legal fears)
I'm not going to claim that the situation is completely clear, but if you look at both of the videos you linked to, Neither of them have any visible label to indicate where the product gets shipped to. This is a pretty good indication that they did not arrive just in that brown box, as none of the carriers will ship packages without a destination label.
Having kids in cars kills people in exactly the same way. So do car stereos. If you have either of those in your car you are clearly a hypocritical murderer.
The thing is that drivers are distracted whether they have a cell phone or not. The studies done on these kids of things are almost always done with an agenda. A good example of this is with children and particularly babies in the back seat. All of the studies point out that in the event of an accident, children and babies are less likly to be injured if they are in the back seat. Not once did I see any of those studies look at the number of accidents that happened with the child in the back seat as compared to the same number of miles driven with the child in the front seat.
When my son was born, I specifically went out an bought a pickup truck without a back seat. They were the only vehicles that could be purchased where you could turn off the passenger air bags. I have yet to see a parent, and that includes me, that doesn't check on their infant when the child is crying. They are even MORE likely to check on the infant when they are NOT crying. I also have yet to see any human that can safely drive while facing backwards in their car. Those with the Rube Goldberg mirror systems are even worse as they stare intently at the front mirror trying to focus across to small giggling mirrors to see if the baby is OK.
Point being, before deciding to be an anti-social ass by trying to break other peoples things, you should consider whether you are helping the situation, or making it worse.
Besides the fact that bored drivers (although more PC) are just as bad as distracted drivers, I can't take any calls for reduction in distracted driving seriously until they ban the car stereo.
ADHD and ADD are not the result of kids playing video games 10 hours a day. It is a result of redefining an age old condition known as "ant in your pants".
More seriously, consider the kind of attention children are expected to give. They are in classes from 5 to 8 hours a day and they are expected to sit still and be quite almost the entire time. This goes on 5 days a week. They are then sent home with the assignment to spend even more time quietly paying attention to more work yet. Children are not really built for this, and they never have been. It wasn't that long ago that the children who couldn't handle it just stopped going to school. In today's society, we drug them.
I haven't noticed children drawn towards different toys and behavior base on gender. I HAVE noticed parents instilling gender rolls into their children from before they are even born. This includes those parents that insist that they don't do this. A majority of the parents that claim their children are not being herded towards gender roles are not even with their children for huge portions of the time. They send their child off to day care, and then school. In those environments, it is the other kids parents who guide your child towards their gender roles proxied through their own children.
I am not going to say that there isn't a biological component, but we will likely never be able to legitimately evaluate it due the heavy influence of culture, and our (correct) unwillingness to perform the kinds of experiments that could remove cultural influences from children.
I agree with you for the most part, but would refine it.
We home school, so it might be my years might be off a bit, but I think you might have your ages off on math. Addition and subtraction should be K-3rd. 3rd-5th would be covering the multiplication and division.
Besides the diminishing returns on math, our lower levels of math are taught REALLY badly. Just look at the symbols . School children are tough that these are related but separate symbols. They are taught a parable about small animals eating large animals, and a 5 minute explanation turns into months of memorization.
I recently witnessed a 3 grader that could whip out the answer in a fraction of a second for any addition between 0 and 12. The moment she was asked what 13 +0 was, she was completely lost. Apparently, her school taught her to memorize all of her math, and never bothered to teach her how to actually do the math. This works fine for simple addition, and is somewhat usable in basic multiplication and division. The higher up in math you go, the worse rote memorization works.
It states that females are biologically equal to males in maths abilities, but superior to men in language ability.
Which is also cultural. Although, I have serious doubts that women actually are better with language, and it isn't just the claim is a cultural artifact.
People seem to be oblivious that when the question of abilities is posed over whether it is nature or nurture, the answer is... Yes.
Our culture, and I would assume every single other culture on the planet, is so steeped in cultural gender roles that it is extremely difficult, and very possibly impossible to sort out which is which. It gets even tougher when you consider that often genetics will influence segments of culture that are generally considered unrelated. Just consider that 5000 years ago, a human that is 9 months pregnant wasn't going to chase down a caribou for food, and what cultural effects that would have on the people faced with it. The infirmities of pregnancies alone can be linked to men being siphoned to math and women being siphoned to language, even if their individuals genetics would otherwise push them in the opposite directions.
If what you said was the case, I would have to take back my comments, and agree whole heartedly. So, I did a search on "Kindle Fire Unboxing", and found that, no, they do not print the product name on the shipping box. It is printed on the product packaging just like every other product. Here is what it looks like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OUO2zsxaMM
I could only find one boxing video that showed the product shipped with labels put directly on the product packaging instead of the product packaging being put in a regular shipping box. This leads me to believe that the reviewer was, as it appeared, looking for an excuse to complain, and ended up saying really stupid things in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
Claiming that getting to vote means your not getting abused is like saying that wearing a short skirt means you asked for it. Hint. it doesn't.
Your comment relies on people making informed and reasonable judgements on what is and is not dangerous. If you are going to assume that people do that, then the whole conversation is moot.
1) I don't know where you buy these vibration free cars, but they are not widely available. Perhaps you could share that alien technology, and solve all sorts of the worlds problems.
2) controlled impact experiments are not going to tell you how much more likely it is for someone to get into an accident when driving with their child. So, no. They don't count. They are exactly the opposite of what I said.
I would love a clean, comfortable, convenient, safe, efficient, reliable form of public transportation that can get me from where I am to where I need/want to be. Unfortunately, that does not exist, and there are no plans on the drawing board that come even close to offering that. The private automobile is the best balance of transportation available right now with auto driving cars, the only improvement visible in the future.
That is really the answer. Two problems are that this conversation isn't really about safety. It is about Neo-Luddites who have a beef with the technology. The car is just the place that they can feel self righteous in complaining about it.
The other issue is the huge number of people who will not want auto driving cars because the 'like to drive.' This group sees no hypocrisy in complaining about someone using a cell phone while zipping around in an inherently dangerous manner by being the driver of the car.
And there are two types of people who drive with children in their car. Those who realize that their driving ability is impared, and those who don't realize that their driving ability is impaired.
Because cell phones were popularized post 1975 which seems to be the approximate year that Neo-Luddites have chosen to declare new technology as evil. This isn't helped by the fact that early mobile phones were a status symbol for particularly self absorbed demographics, and a lot of people can't get over the fact that that particular stereo type is long dead.
Point taken. We should have a law that only people diagnosed with Autism can have passengers. We must think of the children after all.
Driving your kid to Chuck E Cheese is no more valid of a risk than calling your wife on the way home from work. The people that consider driving with their kid to be an acceptable risk, but complain about cell phones are simply hypocrites that think their shade of gray is better than everyone else's shade of gray.
Also, claiming that passengers will sit quietly if there is a danger in the road is ridiculous. As a rule passengers are not even aware of the danger before it is too late. They are also likely to make gasping noises when there is no danger that startles the driver, and has them taking their eyes off the road in front of them so that they can find the non-existent danger that they don't see.
However, if the other side of the conversation is riding in the car with you, at least they can say 'Hey! Look out for that elephant in the road!'. Hopefully before you hit it. They can also help you with keeping the radio sorted out, navigation and collecting that cassette that was dropped. In aviation terms, it called cockpit load management - and it really works.
This never happens in a car. What does happen is that people perform the natural act of looking at the person they are talking too. They dig in their purse for a napkin because their kid spilled a drink in the back seat. They watch their kids in the rear view mirror as they yell at them for being too rowdy. They get in fights. They try to hold hands. They do all sorts of things that distract the driver, not just attention wise, but physically as well. What doesn't happen is that the passenger acting as a copilot.
No, the difference is that the normal human reaction when talking to a live person is to look at them. Passengers in the car are MORE dangerous. Not less.
There is nothing racist in the quote you make. It is simply an example of a third world country. So, it is likely because you are retarded and unable to read that you are a racist.
The premise put forth was that the quality software is only produced by groups with large commercial backing. The emulators clearly show that this isn't the case. What your argument is more of an indicator of is that if an open source project is of high quality, commercial backing will come. (Barring any legal fears)
Those are two totally different things.
I'm not going to claim that the situation is completely clear, but if you look at both of the videos you linked to, Neither of them have any visible label to indicate where the product gets shipped to. This is a pretty good indication that they did not arrive just in that brown box, as none of the carriers will ship packages without a destination label.
Having kids in cars kills people in exactly the same way. So do car stereos. If you have either of those in your car you are clearly a hypocritical murderer.
Correct. When talking to a passenger, one has a much greater tendency to turn to face the person.
The thing is that drivers are distracted whether they have a cell phone or not. The studies done on these kids of things are almost always done with an agenda. A good example of this is with children and particularly babies in the back seat. All of the studies point out that in the event of an accident, children and babies are less likly to be injured if they are in the back seat. Not once did I see any of those studies look at the number of accidents that happened with the child in the back seat as compared to the same number of miles driven with the child in the front seat.
When my son was born, I specifically went out an bought a pickup truck without a back seat. They were the only vehicles that could be purchased where you could turn off the passenger air bags. I have yet to see a parent, and that includes me, that doesn't check on their infant when the child is crying. They are even MORE likely to check on the infant when they are NOT crying. I also have yet to see any human that can safely drive while facing backwards in their car. Those with the Rube Goldberg mirror systems are even worse as they stare intently at the front mirror trying to focus across to small giggling mirrors to see if the baby is OK.
Point being, before deciding to be an anti-social ass by trying to break other peoples things, you should consider whether you are helping the situation, or making it worse.
Besides the fact that bored drivers (although more PC) are just as bad as distracted drivers, I can't take any calls for reduction in distracted driving seriously until they ban the car stereo.
ADHD and ADD are not the result of kids playing video games 10 hours a day. It is a result of redefining an age old condition known as "ant in your pants".
More seriously, consider the kind of attention children are expected to give. They are in classes from 5 to 8 hours a day and they are expected to sit still and be quite almost the entire time. This goes on 5 days a week. They are then sent home with the assignment to spend even more time quietly paying attention to more work yet. Children are not really built for this, and they never have been. It wasn't that long ago that the children who couldn't handle it just stopped going to school. In today's society, we drug them.
I haven't noticed children drawn towards different toys and behavior base on gender. I HAVE noticed parents instilling gender rolls into their children from before they are even born. This includes those parents that insist that they don't do this. A majority of the parents that claim their children are not being herded towards gender roles are not even with their children for huge portions of the time. They send their child off to day care, and then school. In those environments, it is the other kids parents who guide your child towards their gender roles proxied through their own children.
I am not going to say that there isn't a biological component, but we will likely never be able to legitimately evaluate it due the heavy influence of culture, and our (correct) unwillingness to perform the kinds of experiments that could remove cultural influences from children.
I agree with you for the most part, but would refine it.
We home school, so it might be my years might be off a bit, but I think you might have your ages off on math. Addition and subtraction should be K-3rd. 3rd-5th would be covering the multiplication and division.
Besides the diminishing returns on math, our lower levels of math are taught REALLY badly. Just look at the symbols . School children are tough that these are related but separate symbols. They are taught a parable about small animals eating large animals, and a 5 minute explanation turns into months of memorization.
I recently witnessed a 3 grader that could whip out the answer in a fraction of a second for any addition between 0 and 12. The moment she was asked what 13 +0 was, she was completely lost. Apparently, her school taught her to memorize all of her math, and never bothered to teach her how to actually do the math. This works fine for simple addition, and is somewhat usable in basic multiplication and division. The higher up in math you go, the worse rote memorization works.
It states that females are biologically equal to males in maths abilities, but superior to men in language ability.
Which is also cultural. Although, I have serious doubts that women actually are better with language, and it isn't just the claim is a cultural artifact.
People seem to be oblivious that when the question of abilities is posed over whether it is nature or nurture, the answer is... Yes.
Our culture, and I would assume every single other culture on the planet, is so steeped in cultural gender roles that it is extremely difficult, and very possibly impossible to sort out which is which. It gets even tougher when you consider that often genetics will influence segments of culture that are generally considered unrelated. Just consider that 5000 years ago, a human that is 9 months pregnant wasn't going to chase down a caribou for food, and what cultural effects that would have on the people faced with it. The infirmities of pregnancies alone can be linked to men being siphoned to math and women being siphoned to language, even if their individuals genetics would otherwise push them in the opposite directions.
All you have done is described the kind of skirt that a kilt is.
Just because your a racist doesn't mean that Chemisor is.
If what you said was the case, I would have to take back my comments, and agree whole heartedly. So, I did a search on "Kindle Fire Unboxing", and found that, no, they do not print the product name on the shipping box. It is printed on the product packaging just like every other product. Here is what it looks like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OUO2zsxaMM
I could only find one boxing video that showed the product shipped with labels put directly on the product packaging instead of the product packaging being put in a regular shipping box. This leads me to believe that the reviewer was, as it appeared, looking for an excuse to complain, and ended up saying really stupid things in the process.
The same thing that happens when the employees move on from the company you contracted with. You just have a better chance of seeing it coming.