The Mormons really get a bad rap. Of the Mormons I have known were just like anyone else, other than the fact that they actually took their religion seriously. I think that is what gets them the most flak. Here in the US, the number of people that actually believe in their religion, and are willing to live by it is very small. For the most part, religion in the US is used as either a herd to join so people can feel like they are on the winning team, or as a political tool to steer that herd.
The last encounter I had with Mormons, I was digging a 4' deep trench in my front yard to bury the water main, and irrigation pipes. They stopped and offered to help. When I told them that I was finishing up for the day, they wanted to know when I would be working on it again so they could come and help. While they may have been hoping to preach at me. They were at the very least willing to put their backs where their mouths were.
Part of your post doesn't disagree with me. I did note that things requiring full concentration will impact other things that require full concentration. The issue is that most things don't, and lumping the vast majority of things into that category makes people wrong or dishonest. Driving for example. People keep going on about how everyone should pay 100% attention to it. Well the fact is that people don't become good drivers until most of the task is automatic. If you are using your speedometer for anything more than the occasion check to see if your subconscious internal speedometer is correct, then you are spending too much time looking at your dash, and not enough time looking at the road. Driving is loaded with those kinds of examples. That is why driving is doomed to always be dangerous. It is physically impossible for a human to pay attention to everything that 'common wisdom' says you are supposed to be paying attention to. Most of driving is knowing where the road is, staying aware of anything out of the ordinary, and letting your body do the rest on autopilot. This is why the research in this field is pretty much doomed to be flawed. You can't get the right answer until know the write question.
Completely off topic: Until I can consistently go into a men's room and not have to stand in piss to stand at the urinal, I refuse to agree that anyone can talk while properly taking a piss. The urine on the floor proves that a penis is to be too difficult for most men to use properly. The number of men that are bright enough to use their penis correctly seems to be in the minority.
If you have not figured out that multi-tasking is a common word, you really need to get out of your cave. I would say out of your basement, but even basement dwellers are social enough to hear the 'multi-tasking' frequently enough to recognize it as common.
You should also look up the words proper, elitist and slang, as you seem to be confused by their definitions.
Your machine was broken. It is possible that your company put your ID file on a network share and your network was broken also. At that time, I was working on an Athlon 1.2 ghz with 512 MB of ram, and while I cannot tell you how many seconds it took to load, I can guarantee that it was not even close to a minute. I would be very surprised if it was even 10 seconds.
In any case. Your wrong. 2 seconds on what is considered modest hardware by todays standards.
First, I have yet to meet a human that does not massively multitask all of the time. Even while sleeping, your body and brain are doing lots of different tasks at the same time.
Second, There is a reason that people would call other people dumb by saying "He can't walk and chew gum at the same time." long before 'Multitask' became a common word.
While a task that takes all of your though to accomplish might take a hit if your doing two of them, the majority of tasks that people preform in a day do not take even a small fraction of our mental capabilities. Such as... walking and chewing gum. By saying that multi-tasking makes you worse at what you are doing, you are also saying at the very least, you cannot walk as well if you are chewing gum.
I don't know about you, but I really can walk and chew gum at the same time.
"I thought the studies I saw suggested that talking on the phone is a bit worse than talking with passengers."
The studies you saw were specifically designed to find that cell phones are dangerous.
"At least the adult passengers can see the circumstances and have a chance to shut up if the situation is tight. Someone on the other end of the line isn't going to get that."
Not only are many passengers not adults, you cannot just hang up on an adult passenger if you need to.
"Also, an adult riding with you might notice things the driver misses."
I have met very few people that drive better with a back seat driver. In fact, any benefit to having someone telling you how to drive when there is an emergency is likely going to be offset by the drawbacks of having someone telling you how to drive in an emergency. Although, I have never seen any studies to determine that, much less legitimate ones.
"But talking can be a distraction, no matter who it is or where they are."
While that may be true, we have accepted that we are going to allow distractions in a car. The fact that cars allowed to be build with the driver in the same compartment as the passenger confirms this. Complaining about cell phones is simple peoples way of saying that their shade of gray is better than other people's shade of gray.
Really, if half the people that complain about cell phones in cars would put as much effort into complaining about cars not driving themselves, we could actually see some progress in that area, and then we could actually see some real progress in making cars safer.
Here is a little quiz. What do all of these dangerous activities have in common:
Driving while talking on a cell phone
Driving while reading a newspaper
Driving while putting on makeup
Driving while eating
Driving while arguing with your wife
Driving while checking to make sure your infant is quite due to sleeping instead of chocking
Driving while stupid
Driving while sleeping
Driving with 100% of your attention on driving
That's right. Driving. How many of those activities are dangerous if your remove the driving part? That's right none. Well, I guess arguing with your wife, or being stupid MIGHT be dangerous without driving, but you get my point. Why do you think that the same people who complain about cell phones in cars, don't complain about cars not driving themselves? That's right. Because they believe that their activity that endangers themselves and others is OK, while any activities that might be dangerous that they don't take part in is not.
I am running 7.03 on XP. I would guess that your biggest problem is that you are running on Linux. The Notes Client has only recently returned to the *nix platform, and I would not be surprised if there were many things that they find they could do better. IBM does not even support the application on one of the platforms you are running, as the article points out. I am not talking about running memory resident or even cached.
As for clicking on calendar entries, if creating a new entry, it is well under a second, and places the cursor in the first field, ready for me to type. I cannot even come close to moving from my mouse to my keyboard as fast as the entry gets opened for use.
Of course, you are also comparing a groupware application to an email application. The difference between opening MS paint, and Photoshop or GIMP is dramatically bigger than the difference between Notes and Evolution. For example, how fast can you access your Evolution based files via a web browser? And what does Evolution do when you have given your secretary access to send email on your behalf? Does it keep track of what was sent from your mail file by your secretary vs. what was sent directly by you? Does it allow you to let your secretary see only the emails that you have chosen to let her see? What about the same in your calendar? What does Evolution do when you and your secretary edit the same draft email at the same time from different computers?
An actual Groupware application should be able to handle multiple people editing the same document at the same time, whether they are currently connected to the server or not.
"The default install of Notes has never run that fast on any computer ever built and you know it. Don't bullshit us. It takes more than 2 seconds to show the splash screen. Hell, Outlook is craploads faster than Notes and it can't do that in anywhere close to 2 seconds."
You are wrong. If it takes two seconds to show the splash screen, you are either running on a seriously underpowered machine, or something is broken on your machine. Heck, I just tested connecting to one of my clients' servers by running Notes in an emulated environment while connecting to the server using VPN over the internet, and it only took 6 seconds to bring up the welcome screen (Email/Calender/Todo).
1) Notes 7.0.3 on an AMD X2 5600+. It was $150 at Fry's for the motherboard with built in video + the processor. It has 4 Gig of ram that I got for $99, although since I am running XP, it sees only 3.25 GB of ram.
2) I have stripped nothing out. The only configuration I do is make sure that double right click is turned on, as that is extremely useful, and set the home page to show the Email/Calendar/Todo.
3) No helper application.
Really, how long is it taking your Notes client to load, because if you don't believe a 2 second load time, you need to start looking at what is being done on your system.
So, you advocate that there should be no passengers in motor vehicles? If only more people could understand that talking to someone next to you is just as bad (actually worse because you are naturally drawn to look at the person you are talking too) as talking to people a hundred miles away. At least there are two of us that don't see cell phones as evil magic delivered by the dark lord.
"Notes takes a long time to start and do any little operation"
Your machine or network is severely broken. It takes less than 2 seconds to open my Notes client, connect to the server, and display a view containing 4100 documents that are stored on the server.
It is possible that you are lying, but I'll assume it is just that you have done something seriously wrong to your machine and just don't realize it.
As much as I appreciate your goal, you have the wrong answer. If they do that, you can bet that alcohol is going to cost huge amounts of money as well. Your not going to be able to pour beer in the tank after all. And, there is no way that people will be able to produce enough at home (if that would even be legal) to supply the fuel necessary for their car.
If we are going to have the government mandate a solution, lets just solve the problem once and for all. Have them mandate that the entire car must run off of electricity, and require a standard plug for supplying that electricity. Then any company that can make a generator can sell you a power source. You want alcohol? Just drop in an alcohol burning generator. You want batteries? Just plug in a battery pack. You want gasoline? Just plug in a gasoline generator. You want batteries for the 99% of driving that you do just around town, but want to be able to run on standard gasoline when you take that cross country trip? No problem. Put in the battery pack for day to day, and swap it to gas when you take your trip.
I am really hoping that the Volt works out, as this looks like it is the vehicle that is closest today to what a car should be.
I know you are not the only one saying this, but really... At some point you are trusting third parties with your data. Just because you physically own the computer doesn't mean that your data is even close to being secure. We are specifically talking about pictures here. Even if you trust Microsoft, who has shown that they believe copyright is only to be used to their benefit, you also have to trust the phone manufacturers, as well as trust the employees of every driver producer you install drivers from.
While there are ways to reduce your exposure, there is no black and white answer to who you should trust and who you shouldn't. Only shades of gray.
Just look at the number of people that trust private information to Google or their ISP. It is no less reasonable for most people to trust MySpace than it is to trust Google with their data.
My response is that if you think this is a perfect example of drunk driving deaths, you confirm that you have no interest in the truth.
Your statement that this is a perfect example of drunk driving deaths means that you believe people who drink and drive must think it is funny when people die, and that it is OK to kill people if they are hippies or gay. The level of dishonesty or lack of understanding you show is astounding.
Combine that with the fact that the video supplies is:
1) Woman was drunk
2) Bicyclist hit by car driven by woman
3) Bicyclist dies
4) Woman laughs nervously at jokes made about bicyclist's death
5) Woman had a previous DUI on her record
The pieces that are relevent to the argument are:
1) Woman was drunk
2) Bicyclist hit by car driven by woman
3) Bicyclist dies
Some pieces that are missing to make a legitimate HONEST evaluation of the situation:
1) What was the path of the car
2) What was the path of the bicyclist
3) What were the road conditions
4) What were the light conditions
5) Was it foggy?
Basically your clip shows exactly why you are being dishonest. You don't know what the CAUSE of the accident was. You only know that the driver was drunk, and you want to come to the conclusion that alcohol HAS to be the reason for the accident if the drive has it in their system. May be it was, maybe it wasn't. Either way, it is dishonest to say that you can make that determination based on the video you presented. In fact it is a little disgusting that you would hope the woman laughing at the death would help in your dishonest argument.
Bicyclist hit with not alcohol involvement. If the accident in your example played out EXACTLY the same as the one in mine, you would user yours as proof that alcohol caused the accident.
Besides, you still have not come up with a single primary source other than the police for alcohol related accidents, even though you said there were others. So, basically what it boils down to is that you have a social/political agenda, and you feel the ends justifies the means in achieving it. So, you will lie, deceive, exagerate, and use whatever other tools you need to try to convince people that your social/political agenda is correct.
Exactly. I gave my son Pac-Man before he could walk. One of the first things he would do when he learned how to walk was take and plug the Pac-Man game into the TV. By the time he was 1.5, he could beat his mom at it. A few months after he turned one, I gave him a PC with Ubuntu, and gCompris on it. 5 minutes showing him how to use the mouse, and I let him go. Withing a week he was able to turn on, load and play the games he wanted. At his second birthday, I felt it was time to do his own OS install, so I formated his drive and he installed Ubuntu himself. (More a testament to the ease of installing Ubuntu than his genius).
He is 3.5 now, and over the 2.5 years he has played any game he shows an interest in. That includes chess, Xeno-Tactics, and House of the Dead (So, maybe we disagree on that part) in the Arcade. The kid happens to love zombies. Not the cutesy cartoon network ones, but the flesh dripping, brain eating kind. That one was a surprise since neither his mom nor I are into horror movies.
I often joke in the "it's funny because it's true" kind of way that to raise smart kids, you need lots of TV, lots of video games, and lots of unsupervised time on the internet. Before he was born, friends and family thought I was crazy with my wild ideas on kids, but Conan is still the first child I have ever met that could read at two, diagram a sentence at 3, and came to his own conclusion that putting your real name into an online game is a bad idea at 3.
I have always felt sorry for people that thought this. Given that for some of us imagination is limitless, the amount of information that a book or TV could possible impart is such an tiny fraction of what you could imagine, that it is pointless to say that one requires more imagination than the other.
Besides, while books encourage the conversion of verbal description into images in the mind, TV/Movies encourage the conversion of images into verbal descriptions.
You have touched on the key to a kinder capitalism. I know you didn't say it, but the whole, "responsibility to the shareholders at any cost" idea is part of the problem. The biggest problem is that people and the courts have determined that "responsible to the shareholders" means "make as much money as possible", and means only that. There is no reason that it could not mean "will not use your money to rape the poor", or "will not use your money to commit crimes". Of course, perhaps, the law needs to be changed so that we don't have an entity with the rights of a human, yet no morals what so ever.
Right off the bat, if we made the fines against corporations large enough to cause serious losses, CEOs would be required under the current system to stop committing crimes.
Your response is exactly what I am talking about. You WANT art to be something more, but even in your post, you contradict yourself. Why? because you don't want to accept that people you don't like have produced art. You say that Britney Spears and Marla Olmstead are not an "artist" because they are like a child who likes to paint, but in your next sentence, you say that art is a process. Well, there is no doubt that the child that likes to paint IS going through a creative process.
What has happened is that a group of people have found a feeling of importance by claiming to know what is 'really' art. They all go around patting each other on the back for agreeing with each other, and telling each other that those that disagree just don't understand 'real' art. They are like a kid sitting in a grade school class who raise their hand in response to a poll by the teacher because they assume that if everyone else is raising their hands, that must be the right answer.
Just because neither of us like Brittney Spears does not mean that she doesn't produce 'art'.
I want the reporting to be accurate. Calling an accident "alcohol related" when the accident is caused by a sober person, or the alcohol was not a factor in the accident, is faked data. That is why they call it "alcohol RELATED" because they want to dishonestly beef up the numbers.
"No one is faking data."
"But you have shown no real evidence that data is faked.
Please do that."
Just look at the forms that the police use to report accidents. They report accidents as "alcohol related" when alcohol was not a factor in the crash. That is by definition faked data. Really. Go look at the forms.
"Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc."
Yeah, actually it is. That is exactly why so many people that are into "Art" sound like such pompous asses. It is also why people have such a hard time defining what is "Art". They are obsessed with trying to make it more than it is. They want the stuff THEY like to look at to be art, and the stuff that they don't like to look at to not be art.
They only thing I would add to your definition is that it is something that someone intentionally made.
The problem with the Boomers is that they are histories most selfish generation. They leached off of their parents until there kids got old enough to leach off of their kids. They can be counted on voting whatever way is going to get them them most. Right or wrong be damned.
People will not carpool. Carpooling is a lost cause. Why would someone spend 20 minutes picking up other people before even heading to work when it only takes 20 minutes to get there in the first place. Until we decide to make employment ghettos where you are assigned housing based on your employer (which is something I hope never happens), carpooling is a lost cause. Not to mention all of the other negative effects caused by attempt to push the issue.
What we end up with is cars sitting in traffic, spewing exhaust into the environment while freeway lanes sit empty. This leads to people having even less time to spend with their families. Just this morning I was talking with my wife about kids being raised by the system instead of their parents, in that when parents work the very common 8-5, the kids often end up with ~50 a week of waking time in the care of the system, and only ~48 hours a week of waking time in the care of their parents. Moving more time from the parents to the system due to artificially created traffic congestion helps exacerbate a problem that is admittedly primarily from a different cause.
I am happy to see that low emission vehicles get to use the diamond lane, so we may see an end to artificial congestion. People WILL buy low emission vehicles, even though they will not, and often cannot carpool.
"Actuaries don't single sourced, they get multiple sources, they correlate, cross check then triple check."
And where exactly is there a second primary source for the correlation between alcohol and car accidents? I know of police reports which we know are faked, and no one is debating that they are faked.
"And what is the problem with that? Alcohol and driving don't mix."
You even support the use of faked data in the debate. Amazing.
"But that is precisely why they have breath meters."
This is not what an honest person would say. The breath meters only detect alcohol. They in no way indicate whether the alcohol was even a small factor in the CAUSE of the accident. To state otherwise is simply dishonest.
"And if the blood alcohol level reaches a certain level, it is clearly an issue."
That is the statement of a prohibitionist. I could just as easily say that at a certain level, your hand moving at my face is clearly an issue, but that does not mean that you should be arrested if your hand moves towards my face from across the country. It is the willingness of the prohibitionists to use known faked data in their crusade to rid the world of alcohol that prevents us from having an honest discussion.
"But the real question is, why are you defending such drivers?"
Really? You are really asking why I want the truth? You really need it explained to you why I don't want public policy made based on known faked data? The real question is why do you accept and encourage known faked data in public policy. Are you afraid that if the real numbers were recorded, you might find that the evil alcohol is not as bad as it is made out to be? Maybe your worried that they would find that more accidents are caused by people digging in the seats for a CD, or talking to passenger, and car wrecks could not be used as a scare tactic in the prohibitionist movement?
Point blank. Do you support the use of faked data in the drinking and driving discussion?
Wow, you don't get it. You speak to that actuary. Ask them where they get the data. When they tell you the police, go check out the forms that the police fill out. You seem to be unaware of the old adage "Garbage In, Garbage Out". The people who are tasked with collecting the data are faking data. As far as I know, there is no one that is debating the fact that the police will mark any accident with a driver who has perceivably had alcohol as "alcohol related". Even if you are stopped at a red light, and the other driver (with no alcohol in his system) swerves across 4 lanes of traffic sideways across the road, plowing through several pedestrians and a raised island to hit the side of your car, the police will still report the accident as alcohol related if they find alcohol on the victim drivers breath.
You are using a known faked source of data to try to prove your point. Do you deny that the police will mark an accident as alcohol related, even if the alcohol is in no way the CAUSE of the accident? Do you deny that the actuary that you suggest I speak to will then use that report in their calculations?
Slashdot Mirror
The Mormons really get a bad rap. Of the Mormons I have known were just like anyone else, other than the fact that they actually took their religion seriously. I think that is what gets them the most flak. Here in the US, the number of people that actually believe in their religion, and are willing to live by it is very small. For the most part, religion in the US is used as either a herd to join so people can feel like they are on the winning team, or as a political tool to steer that herd.
The last encounter I had with Mormons, I was digging a 4' deep trench in my front yard to bury the water main, and irrigation pipes. They stopped and offered to help. When I told them that I was finishing up for the day, they wanted to know when I would be working on it again so they could come and help. While they may have been hoping to preach at me. They were at the very least willing to put their backs where their mouths were.
Part of your post doesn't disagree with me. I did note that things requiring full concentration will impact other things that require full concentration. The issue is that most things don't, and lumping the vast majority of things into that category makes people wrong or dishonest. Driving for example. People keep going on about how everyone should pay 100% attention to it. Well the fact is that people don't become good drivers until most of the task is automatic. If you are using your speedometer for anything more than the occasion check to see if your subconscious internal speedometer is correct, then you are spending too much time looking at your dash, and not enough time looking at the road. Driving is loaded with those kinds of examples. That is why driving is doomed to always be dangerous. It is physically impossible for a human to pay attention to everything that 'common wisdom' says you are supposed to be paying attention to. Most of driving is knowing where the road is, staying aware of anything out of the ordinary, and letting your body do the rest on autopilot. This is why the research in this field is pretty much doomed to be flawed. You can't get the right answer until know the write question.
Completely off topic: Until I can consistently go into a men's room and not have to stand in piss to stand at the urinal, I refuse to agree that anyone can talk while properly taking a piss. The urine on the floor proves that a penis is to be too difficult for most men to use properly. The number of men that are bright enough to use their penis correctly seems to be in the minority.
If you have not figured out that multi-tasking is a common word, you really need to get out of your cave. I would say out of your basement, but even basement dwellers are social enough to hear the 'multi-tasking' frequently enough to recognize it as common.
You should also look up the words proper, elitist and slang, as you seem to be confused by their definitions.
Your machine was broken. It is possible that your company put your ID file on a network share and your network was broken also. At that time, I was working on an Athlon 1.2 ghz with 512 MB of ram, and while I cannot tell you how many seconds it took to load, I can guarantee that it was not even close to a minute. I would be very surprised if it was even 10 seconds.
In any case. Your wrong. 2 seconds on what is considered modest hardware by todays standards.
First, I have yet to meet a human that does not massively multitask all of the time. Even while sleeping, your body and brain are doing lots of different tasks at the same time.
Second, There is a reason that people would call other people dumb by saying "He can't walk and chew gum at the same time." long before 'Multitask' became a common word.
While a task that takes all of your though to accomplish might take a hit if your doing two of them, the majority of tasks that people preform in a day do not take even a small fraction of our mental capabilities. Such as... walking and chewing gum. By saying that multi-tasking makes you worse at what you are doing, you are also saying at the very least, you cannot walk as well if you are chewing gum.
I don't know about you, but I really can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The studies you saw were specifically designed to find that cell phones are dangerous.
"At least the adult passengers can see the circumstances and have a chance to shut up if the situation is tight. Someone on the other end of the line isn't going to get that."
Not only are many passengers not adults, you cannot just hang up on an adult passenger if you need to.
"Also, an adult riding with you might notice things the driver misses."
I have met very few people that drive better with a back seat driver. In fact, any benefit to having someone telling you how to drive when there is an emergency is likely going to be offset by the drawbacks of having someone telling you how to drive in an emergency. Although, I have never seen any studies to determine that, much less legitimate ones.
"But talking can be a distraction, no matter who it is or where they are."
While that may be true, we have accepted that we are going to allow distractions in a car. The fact that cars allowed to be build with the driver in the same compartment as the passenger confirms this. Complaining about cell phones is simple peoples way of saying that their shade of gray is better than other people's shade of gray.
Really, if half the people that complain about cell phones in cars would put as much effort into complaining about cars not driving themselves, we could actually see some progress in that area, and then we could actually see some real progress in making cars safer.
Here is a little quiz. What do all of these dangerous activities have in common:
That's right. Driving. How many of those activities are dangerous if your remove the driving part? That's right none. Well, I guess arguing with your wife, or being stupid MIGHT be dangerous without driving, but you get my point. Why do you think that the same people who complain about cell phones in cars, don't complain about cars not driving themselves? That's right. Because they believe that their activity that endangers themselves and others is OK, while any activities that might be dangerous that they don't take part in is not.
I am running 7.03 on XP. I would guess that your biggest problem is that you are running on Linux. The Notes Client has only recently returned to the *nix platform, and I would not be surprised if there were many things that they find they could do better. IBM does not even support the application on one of the platforms you are running, as the article points out. I am not talking about running memory resident or even cached.
As for clicking on calendar entries, if creating a new entry, it is well under a second, and places the cursor in the first field, ready for me to type. I cannot even come close to moving from my mouse to my keyboard as fast as the entry gets opened for use.
Of course, you are also comparing a groupware application to an email application. The difference between opening MS paint, and Photoshop or GIMP is dramatically bigger than the difference between Notes and Evolution. For example, how fast can you access your Evolution based files via a web browser? And what does Evolution do when you have given your secretary access to send email on your behalf? Does it keep track of what was sent from your mail file by your secretary vs. what was sent directly by you? Does it allow you to let your secretary see only the emails that you have chosen to let her see? What about the same in your calendar? What does Evolution do when you and your secretary edit the same draft email at the same time from different computers?
An actual Groupware application should be able to handle multiple people editing the same document at the same time, whether they are currently connected to the server or not.
"The default install of Notes has never run that fast on any computer ever built and you know it. Don't bullshit us. It takes more than 2 seconds to show the splash screen. Hell, Outlook is craploads faster than Notes and it can't do that in anywhere close to 2 seconds."
You are wrong. If it takes two seconds to show the splash screen, you are either running on a seriously underpowered machine, or something is broken on your machine. Heck, I just tested connecting to one of my clients' servers by running Notes in an emulated environment while connecting to the server using VPN over the internet, and it only took 6 seconds to bring up the welcome screen (Email/Calender/Todo). 1) Notes 7.0.3 on an AMD X2 5600+. It was $150 at Fry's for the motherboard with built in video + the processor. It has 4 Gig of ram that I got for $99, although since I am running XP, it sees only 3.25 GB of ram.
2) I have stripped nothing out. The only configuration I do is make sure that double right click is turned on, as that is extremely useful, and set the home page to show the Email/Calendar/Todo.
3) No helper application.
Really, how long is it taking your Notes client to load, because if you don't believe a 2 second load time, you need to start looking at what is being done on your system.
So, you advocate that there should be no passengers in motor vehicles? If only more people could understand that talking to someone next to you is just as bad (actually worse because you are naturally drawn to look at the person you are talking too) as talking to people a hundred miles away. At least there are two of us that don't see cell phones as evil magic delivered by the dark lord.
"Notes takes a long time to start and do any little operation"
Your machine or network is severely broken. It takes less than 2 seconds to open my Notes client, connect to the server, and display a view containing 4100 documents that are stored on the server.
It is possible that you are lying, but I'll assume it is just that you have done something seriously wrong to your machine and just don't realize it.
As much as I appreciate your goal, you have the wrong answer. If they do that, you can bet that alcohol is going to cost huge amounts of money as well. Your not going to be able to pour beer in the tank after all. And, there is no way that people will be able to produce enough at home (if that would even be legal) to supply the fuel necessary for their car.
If we are going to have the government mandate a solution, lets just solve the problem once and for all. Have them mandate that the entire car must run off of electricity, and require a standard plug for supplying that electricity. Then any company that can make a generator can sell you a power source. You want alcohol? Just drop in an alcohol burning generator. You want batteries? Just plug in a battery pack. You want gasoline? Just plug in a gasoline generator. You want batteries for the 99% of driving that you do just around town, but want to be able to run on standard gasoline when you take that cross country trip? No problem. Put in the battery pack for day to day, and swap it to gas when you take your trip.
I am really hoping that the Volt works out, as this looks like it is the vehicle that is closest today to what a car should be.
I know you are not the only one saying this, but really... At some point you are trusting third parties with your data. Just because you physically own the computer doesn't mean that your data is even close to being secure. We are specifically talking about pictures here. Even if you trust Microsoft, who has shown that they believe copyright is only to be used to their benefit, you also have to trust the phone manufacturers, as well as trust the employees of every driver producer you install drivers from.
While there are ways to reduce your exposure, there is no black and white answer to who you should trust and who you shouldn't. Only shades of gray.
Just look at the number of people that trust private information to Google or their ISP. It is no less reasonable for most people to trust MySpace than it is to trust Google with their data.
My response is that if you think this is a perfect example of drunk driving deaths, you confirm that you have no interest in the truth.
Your statement that this is a perfect example of drunk driving deaths means that you believe people who drink and drive must think it is funny when people die, and that it is OK to kill people if they are hippies or gay. The level of dishonesty or lack of understanding you show is astounding.
Combine that with the fact that the video supplies is:
1) Woman was drunk
2) Bicyclist hit by car driven by woman
3) Bicyclist dies
4) Woman laughs nervously at jokes made about bicyclist's death
5) Woman had a previous DUI on her record
The pieces that are relevent to the argument are: 1) Woman was drunk
2) Bicyclist hit by car driven by woman
3) Bicyclist dies
Some pieces that are missing to make a legitimate HONEST evaluation of the situation:
1) What was the path of the car 2) What was the path of the bicyclist 3) What were the road conditions 4) What were the light conditions 5) Was it foggy?
Basically your clip shows exactly why you are being dishonest. You don't know what the CAUSE of the accident was. You only know that the driver was drunk, and you want to come to the conclusion that alcohol HAS to be the reason for the accident if the drive has it in their system. May be it was, maybe it wasn't. Either way, it is dishonest to say that you can make that determination based on the video you presented. In fact it is a little disgusting that you would hope the woman laughing at the death would help in your dishonest argument.
Case in point:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/241409/bicycle_rider_hit_by_a_car/
Bicyclist hit with not alcohol involvement. If the accident in your example played out EXACTLY the same as the one in mine, you would user yours as proof that alcohol caused the accident.
Besides, you still have not come up with a single primary source other than the police for alcohol related accidents, even though you said there were others. So, basically what it boils down to is that you have a social/political agenda, and you feel the ends justifies the means in achieving it. So, you will lie, deceive, exagerate, and use whatever other tools you need to try to convince people that your social/political agenda is correct.
Maybe this is the new government plan to solve the social security shortfall.
Exactly. I gave my son Pac-Man before he could walk. One of the first things he would do when he learned how to walk was take and plug the Pac-Man game into the TV. By the time he was 1.5, he could beat his mom at it. A few months after he turned one, I gave him a PC with Ubuntu, and gCompris on it. 5 minutes showing him how to use the mouse, and I let him go. Withing a week he was able to turn on, load and play the games he wanted. At his second birthday, I felt it was time to do his own OS install, so I formated his drive and he installed Ubuntu himself. (More a testament to the ease of installing Ubuntu than his genius).
He is 3.5 now, and over the 2.5 years he has played any game he shows an interest in. That includes chess, Xeno-Tactics, and House of the Dead (So, maybe we disagree on that part) in the Arcade. The kid happens to love zombies. Not the cutesy cartoon network ones, but the flesh dripping, brain eating kind. That one was a surprise since neither his mom nor I are into horror movies.
I often joke in the "it's funny because it's true" kind of way that to raise smart kids, you need lots of TV, lots of video games, and lots of unsupervised time on the internet. Before he was born, friends and family thought I was crazy with my wild ideas on kids, but Conan is still the first child I have ever met that could read at two, diagram a sentence at 3, and came to his own conclusion that putting your real name into an online game is a bad idea at 3.
"force you to use your imagination more"
I have always felt sorry for people that thought this. Given that for some of us imagination is limitless, the amount of information that a book or TV could possible impart is such an tiny fraction of what you could imagine, that it is pointless to say that one requires more imagination than the other. Besides, while books encourage the conversion of verbal description into images in the mind, TV/Movies encourage the conversion of images into verbal descriptions.
You have touched on the key to a kinder capitalism. I know you didn't say it, but the whole, "responsibility to the shareholders at any cost" idea is part of the problem. The biggest problem is that people and the courts have determined that "responsible to the shareholders" means "make as much money as possible", and means only that. There is no reason that it could not mean "will not use your money to rape the poor", or "will not use your money to commit crimes". Of course, perhaps, the law needs to be changed so that we don't have an entity with the rights of a human, yet no morals what so ever.
Right off the bat, if we made the fines against corporations large enough to cause serious losses, CEOs would be required under the current system to stop committing crimes.
Your response is exactly what I am talking about. You WANT art to be something more, but even in your post, you contradict yourself. Why? because you don't want to accept that people you don't like have produced art. You say that Britney Spears and Marla Olmstead are not an "artist" because they are like a child who likes to paint, but in your next sentence, you say that art is a process. Well, there is no doubt that the child that likes to paint IS going through a creative process.
What has happened is that a group of people have found a feeling of importance by claiming to know what is 'really' art. They all go around patting each other on the back for agreeing with each other, and telling each other that those that disagree just don't understand 'real' art. They are like a kid sitting in a grade school class who raise their hand in response to a poll by the teacher because they assume that if everyone else is raising their hands, that must be the right answer.
Just because neither of us like Brittney Spears does not mean that she doesn't produce 'art'.
"So what... u want sig sigma results?"
I want the reporting to be accurate. Calling an accident "alcohol related" when the accident is caused by a sober person, or the alcohol was not a factor in the accident, is faked data. That is why they call it "alcohol RELATED" because they want to dishonestly beef up the numbers.
"No one is faking data."
"But you have shown no real evidence that data is faked.
Please do that."
Just look at the forms that the police use to report accidents. They report accidents as "alcohol related" when alcohol was not a factor in the crash. That is by definition faked data. Really. Go look at the forms.
"Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc."
Yeah, actually it is. That is exactly why so many people that are into "Art" sound like such pompous asses. It is also why people have such a hard time defining what is "Art". They are obsessed with trying to make it more than it is. They want the stuff THEY like to look at to be art, and the stuff that they don't like to look at to not be art.
They only thing I would add to your definition is that it is something that someone intentionally made.
The problem with the Boomers is that they are histories most selfish generation. They leached off of their parents until there kids got old enough to leach off of their kids. They can be counted on voting whatever way is going to get them them most. Right or wrong be damned.
I would describe it differently. It is more an issue of claimed completeness of knowledge vs. margin of error in the information we do have.
Religion: Claimed Completeness = 70%, Margin of error = 100%
Mathematics: Claimed Completeness = 70%, margin of error = 20%
Science: Claimed Completeness = 5%, margin of error 50%
People will not carpool. Carpooling is a lost cause. Why would someone spend 20 minutes picking up other people before even heading to work when it only takes 20 minutes to get there in the first place. Until we decide to make employment ghettos where you are assigned housing based on your employer (which is something I hope never happens), carpooling is a lost cause. Not to mention all of the other negative effects caused by attempt to push the issue.
What we end up with is cars sitting in traffic, spewing exhaust into the environment while freeway lanes sit empty. This leads to people having even less time to spend with their families. Just this morning I was talking with my wife about kids being raised by the system instead of their parents, in that when parents work the very common 8-5, the kids often end up with ~50 a week of waking time in the care of the system, and only ~48 hours a week of waking time in the care of their parents. Moving more time from the parents to the system due to artificially created traffic congestion helps exacerbate a problem that is admittedly primarily from a different cause.
I am happy to see that low emission vehicles get to use the diamond lane, so we may see an end to artificial congestion. People WILL buy low emission vehicles, even though they will not, and often cannot carpool.
"Actuaries don't single sourced, they get multiple sources, they correlate, cross check then triple check."
And where exactly is there a second primary source for the correlation between alcohol and car accidents? I know of police reports which we know are faked, and no one is debating that they are faked.
"And what is the problem with that? Alcohol and driving don't mix."
You even support the use of faked data in the debate. Amazing.
"But that is precisely why they have breath meters." This is not what an honest person would say. The breath meters only detect alcohol. They in no way indicate whether the alcohol was even a small factor in the CAUSE of the accident. To state otherwise is simply dishonest.
"And if the blood alcohol level reaches a certain level, it is clearly an issue."
That is the statement of a prohibitionist. I could just as easily say that at a certain level, your hand moving at my face is clearly an issue, but that does not mean that you should be arrested if your hand moves towards my face from across the country. It is the willingness of the prohibitionists to use known faked data in their crusade to rid the world of alcohol that prevents us from having an honest discussion.
"But the real question is, why are you defending such drivers?"
Really? You are really asking why I want the truth? You really need it explained to you why I don't want public policy made based on known faked data? The real question is why do you accept and encourage known faked data in public policy. Are you afraid that if the real numbers were recorded, you might find that the evil alcohol is not as bad as it is made out to be? Maybe your worried that they would find that more accidents are caused by people digging in the seats for a CD, or talking to passenger, and car wrecks could not be used as a scare tactic in the prohibitionist movement?
Point blank. Do you support the use of faked data in the drinking and driving discussion?
Wow, you don't get it. You speak to that actuary. Ask them where they get the data. When they tell you the police, go check out the forms that the police fill out. You seem to be unaware of the old adage "Garbage In, Garbage Out". The people who are tasked with collecting the data are faking data. As far as I know, there is no one that is debating the fact that the police will mark any accident with a driver who has perceivably had alcohol as "alcohol related". Even if you are stopped at a red light, and the other driver (with no alcohol in his system) swerves across 4 lanes of traffic sideways across the road, plowing through several pedestrians and a raised island to hit the side of your car, the police will still report the accident as alcohol related if they find alcohol on the victim drivers breath.
You are using a known faked source of data to try to prove your point. Do you deny that the police will mark an accident as alcohol related, even if the alcohol is in no way the CAUSE of the accident? Do you deny that the actuary that you suggest I speak to will then use that report in their calculations?