As cell phone use has increased, vehicle-related fatalities have gone down both in raw numbers and more importantly in per miles driven. Driving is *safer* than ever, not more dangerous. Those are facts supported by data from NHTSA. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/...
You can not say that it is "certainly not because people now use cell phones." The data could be interpreted to support the opposite conclusion but is in fact inconclusive.
Remember red-light cameras? One of the arguments is that they are good because even though there are more rear-end collisions at intersections with cameras, there are fewer side-impact collisions. This is acceptable because side-impact collisions are more dangerous. So total accidents is up, fatalities down. And that is a good thing when discussing life safety issues. Money is replaceable, people are not.
If cell phone use causes more actual accidents--remember we don't know, only that it increases the odds--but results in fewer fatalities then it would be *against* public policy to prohibit their use while driving.
Anything in a head line is being used by someone to advance their agenda, usually for power or profit. That's about the only reliably truth there is or ever was.
At the end of the day the public education campaign should be about how dangerous driving is no matter who you are, what you are doing, what type of vehicle you are in, etc. It's about convenience versus security and personal accountability. A little understanding of how to critically evaluate data and statistics would do a world of good. I'm always dumbfounded by how many people confidently drive as if two stripes of yellow paint will actually stop an opposing vehicle....
As for calls to move out of a floodplain, in general I agree. Assuming the consumer has perfect knowledge then this is a fair criticism. But flood policy in the US is not intended to prevent development within identified floodplains. In fact, if we did not want any development within the floodplain then there would be no NFIP, banks would do their own independent evaluation of risk exposure for a property, and real-estate disclosure forms would cover more than just the 100-year floodplain. But instead homeowners are not properly advised of the complexities of home ownership and the system is intentionally designed to keep it this way. I believe that people should be held accountable for their own decisions but this is premised on perfect access to information and sufficient educational opportunities. There are many forces that work against this, though, so how harsh to be on people that make poor decisions, or good decisions that later get trumped by Nature, is a tough call.
But the fact remains that the NFIP is a program designed to enable development within the floodplain in addition to an insurance model that theoretically paid for itself. (Of course it was noted years ago that the NFIP funds were nowhere near sufficient to adequately pay for the exposure covered by the policies it issued. Florida as an insurer of last resort was/is in the same boat; ultimately we the people back the policies.)
I think we all know that what is "right" and what is political reality are two different things. As an engineer & government official who has worked in this field for over 10 years I find much of it frustrating. It's all about balance, and in general I've found that a member of the public's thoughts on the subject tend to align with which side of that cut-off line they are on.
"PC LOAD LETTER"
Office Space made it famous, but I've hated that damn thing a long time.
And Paradox floored me by sending a terse and of course unhelpful message to waste a full sheet of paper, "Nothing to report." Thanks for that information; a blank page would have been as helpful and less wasteful.
Logic, history, facts, and opinions may be taught, but thought comes from experience and reflection.
The teaching of history, facts, and opinions is an exercise in critical thinking. History is experience and reflection, not a list of dates. Facts are not constant; perhaps more accurately, things presented as fact are, in fact, not. And opinions? An opinion can be presented, but I would think by definition you'd have to present at least two opinions for any given item. And thus begins the critical thinking.
I was fortunate enough to be given formal instruction in critical thinking starting in the 4th grade. For years afterward, I frustrated teachers that had to field my questions. But in all that time, I can only think of one that did not appreciate having that type of student in class. But again, 15 years after graduating HS I've come to learn that not everyone receives the educational opportunities I did. That is wrong; it should be the baseline.
The lack of critical thinking skills is spread throughout the generations. The polarization of society--the obsession with absolutes and extremes--is the evidence that I observe. I see it applied in all areas: politics, religon, laws, marketing, etc.
Just a thought, but perhaps people are downloading it as a torrent and then using it to pump their stats so they appear to be a better sharer than they really are. Why? Again, just a thought, but maybe some torrent programs or sites require a certain "score." It's safe to share an open source program. Or maybe they are altruistic and just want to decrease loads on the server; I do this to an extent with OpenOffice.
I thought the original topic was about automatic enforcement of behaviors which have been forbidden by laws.
There are automatic red-light cameras. They are fantastic for generating revenue. They are lousy for physically stopping a vehicle from running a red light. Some data shows they are not even a deterrent. It's not about safety, it's about money.
If laws were about safety, and not money, then there would be RFID chips in the road, a receiver in your car, and a regulator on your engine. Instead of paying for a war in Iraq, under the premise of "saving lives and keeping us safe," the money would be spent on paying for a system that actually saved, and not cost, lives. But if everyone actually obeyed every traffic law, local governments would go bankrupt. The local governments costs don't increase when people drive unsafe, so they won't directly gain by having safer roads less accidents. But insurance companies will. And I imagine a lot of other local industries would be impacted, too numerous to list.
My point is that I hope you look both ways before driving through a green light. No law or selective enforcement of the law is going to keep you safe. In fact, perhaps these laws are lulling you into a false sense of security.
But why single out talking on cell phones? Where is the system to detect an intense conversation with a passenger, changing the radio station, fumbling with the A/C controls in a rental car, a crying baby in the back seat....
We've accepted that driving is hazardous. Everybody on the road knows it. News flash, there are irresponsible or distracted drivers out there; look out! A driver should be able to safely speed away from someone that is doing something that is stupid. A driver should be able to call the police when they drive by someone who is in trouble. Driving will always by a highly variable and highly hazardous situation that one voluntarily puts themselves in. That little yellow line isn't going to stop someone from drifting over onto your side of the road. You have to pay attention constantly. It shouldn't matter what other people are doing; assume everyone is drunk, distracted, or whatever and adjust your driving accordingly. Stop worrying about them and make sure you are doing what is necessary to stay safe. You only have control of your own situation. A thousand laws won't give you control over someone else.
No doubt. In my state, the shoulders of the road are for emergency stopping only. I don't see how a cop parking there to troll for speeders counts as an emergency. Not only is s/he putting her only life at risk for a a hundred bucks or so, but also the traveling public that s/he is supposedly trying to protect. High speed vehicles and stopped vehicles on shoulders are a bad combo. And while sometimes there is data behind the targeted enforcement areas, too often it is arbitrary. What is it, speeders prefer zipping by clumps of bushes and overpasses?
I wonder if this is why I can't listen to more than 3 tracks from Helmet's Meantime album (1992). I enjoy it in small doses, but start to finish has always been impossible w/o developing a headache.
But can you move the "replay message" option (keypad 4) away from "delete message' (keypad 7) which is also next to "return this call" (keypad 8)? I've fat-fingered that mistake too many times.
If the mouse is one of the most inefficient input devices, I'm not sure how low to place touch pads. Learning to use the keyboard for navigation can save a lot of aggravation.
Of course the sad reality is that the number of people killed per year is not important when rallying public support, but how many people killed in short duration per incident. I do not doubt at all that the pollution from coal contributes to the premature death of people--over time. Coal pollution also has the benefit of being able to hide amongst a plethora of background pollutants. If someone shows up dead from radiation the culprit is unlikely hard to find; but the cause of dieing from COPD is a little harder to pinpoint.
As Schreiner said, "The rare and spectacular always seems more dangerous than the common and pedestrian, and we end up with a lot of security theater because of it." People react the same way to things that can kill them. Think about how many people drive each day; if they really took their life seriously and understood probabilities the roads would be a little less crowded.
I read this and can't help but think of how long before these companies are run by organized crime. Maybe they already are. And then it would be ironic to see one crime family trying to enforce it's patents on another crime family that is busy violating them. ( a random reference ) Gangsters getting the cops to do their wetwork.
Interesting. Reminds of a college math professor who gave no partial credit. His reason: the Challenger disaster. He claimed that someone miscoded the field for temperature range. Apparently there was a certain temperature range within which the Challenger could launch. Zero should have been out of it, but it wasn't coded properly...and null equaled zero. So when someone didn't put in a temperature, the Challenger launched when it shouldn't have and a couple minutes later it was over.
I dunno if that is accurate or not, but that was his story. A visiting prof from Russia or the Ukraine./shrug
most people shouldn't be accessing anything questionable
Wow. That just begs one to define "most people" and "anything questionable." Who is to make this determination? One certainly can not trust the government to do so. Where would the line be drawn? Just wait for the knock on the door asking why you are so interested in reports of illicit campaign contributions, or perhaps you read too much about abuse of prisoners by the military? A government that will conduct immoral studies on its people has proven itself to have no limits. It can not be trusted.
Will the fines work in reverse? Say, when MS issues a patch that actually damages some of the software on your computer? Windowsupate is no panacea.
Mistakes happen. Patches & AV software, etc. are not foolproof. Patches & anti-virus software aren't going to stop anything without an aware user. It's all about education.
I agree, not an exploit. It behaves as expected. Now, whether or not you want to blame the user for not checking the program settings is another issue. I would think to be an exploit, it has to be a behavior that is not expected (based on options presented by the program) or an option that doesn't do what it says it does.
In my experience, moving files between OO.o and Office is about the same experience as moving between different versions of Office. Even in Office 97, sending a document created in Word 97 did not appear the same on another computer with Word 97 if the same print driver was not installed. There's a lot to be desired (i.e., there a lot of buggy things) in Office. But perhaps b/c so many people are familiar with them and accept them they are hardly noticed. And I think that is the biggest problem with moving to OO.o; different bugs.
At least with OO.o you can control your version and not have a forced upgrade (license dependent) that breaks your workflow or compatability with existing files. How many time has MS done that now?
I'd rather have one knowledgeable user running this setup than a 100 clueless folks blindly installing AV & anti-spyware software. Software is a backup to the first line of defense, which is knowledge.
...can be found in the ACE-MRL journal papers available at 141.212.44.81/NewFiles/journals(03-04).html (Tempting as it is, no hotlink done intentionally to help avoid the slashdotting.)
I recommend starting with 03-04 "On Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC) - A Review of the Material and its Applications" as it includes a nice photo of a bent column.
Slashdot Mirror
As cell phone use has increased, vehicle-related fatalities have gone down both in raw numbers and more importantly in per miles driven. Driving is *safer* than ever, not more dangerous. Those are facts supported by data from NHTSA. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/...
You can not say that it is "certainly not because people now use cell phones." The data could be interpreted to support the opposite conclusion but is in fact inconclusive.
Remember red-light cameras? One of the arguments is that they are good because even though there are more rear-end collisions at intersections with cameras, there are fewer side-impact collisions. This is acceptable because side-impact collisions are more dangerous. So total accidents is up, fatalities down. And that is a good thing when discussing life safety issues. Money is replaceable, people are not.
If cell phone use causes more actual accidents--remember we don't know, only that it increases the odds--but results in fewer fatalities then it would be *against* public policy to prohibit their use while driving.
Anything in a head line is being used by someone to advance their agenda, usually for power or profit. That's about the only reliably truth there is or ever was.
At the end of the day the public education campaign should be about how dangerous driving is no matter who you are, what you are doing, what type of vehicle you are in, etc. It's about convenience versus security and personal accountability. A little understanding of how to critically evaluate data and statistics would do a world of good. I'm always dumbfounded by how many people confidently drive as if two stripes of yellow paint will actually stop an opposing vehicle....
Hrm. The "collection of watching info" setting wasn't there in version 5.x of the software but it's there now after an update to 6.00.01.
It would seem that FEMA has clarified a distinction of "man-made" vs. "man-controlled" floods.
http://www.yankton.net/articles/2011/06/17/community/doc4dface08e4c1f621282576.txt
As for calls to move out of a floodplain, in general I agree. Assuming the consumer has perfect knowledge then this is a fair criticism. But flood policy in the US is not intended to prevent development within identified floodplains. In fact, if we did not want any development within the floodplain then there would be no NFIP, banks would do their own independent evaluation of risk exposure for a property, and real-estate disclosure forms would cover more than just the 100-year floodplain. But instead homeowners are not properly advised of the complexities of home ownership and the system is intentionally designed to keep it this way. I believe that people should be held accountable for their own decisions but this is premised on perfect access to information and sufficient educational opportunities. There are many forces that work against this, though, so how harsh to be on people that make poor decisions, or good decisions that later get trumped by Nature, is a tough call.
But the fact remains that the NFIP is a program designed to enable development within the floodplain in addition to an insurance model that theoretically paid for itself. (Of course it was noted years ago that the NFIP funds were nowhere near sufficient to adequately pay for the exposure covered by the policies it issued. Florida as an insurer of last resort was/is in the same boat; ultimately we the people back the policies.)
I think we all know that what is "right" and what is political reality are two different things. As an engineer & government official who has worked in this field for over 10 years I find much of it frustrating. It's all about balance, and in general I've found that a member of the public's thoughts on the subject tend to align with which side of that cut-off line they are on.
"PC LOAD LETTER" Office Space made it famous, but I've hated that damn thing a long time. And Paradox floored me by sending a terse and of course unhelpful message to waste a full sheet of paper, "Nothing to report." Thanks for that information; a blank page would have been as helpful and less wasteful.
It's not about a particular tool being the solution. Nothing ever is. It's about culture and education.
The teaching of history, facts, and opinions is an exercise in critical thinking. History is experience and reflection, not a list of dates. Facts are not constant; perhaps more accurately, things presented as fact are, in fact, not. And opinions? An opinion can be presented, but I would think by definition you'd have to present at least two opinions for any given item. And thus begins the critical thinking.
I was fortunate enough to be given formal instruction in critical thinking starting in the 4th grade. For years afterward, I frustrated teachers that had to field my questions. But in all that time, I can only think of one that did not appreciate having that type of student in class. But again, 15 years after graduating HS I've come to learn that not everyone receives the educational opportunities I did. That is wrong; it should be the baseline.
The lack of critical thinking skills is spread throughout the generations. The polarization of society--the obsession with absolutes and extremes--is the evidence that I observe. I see it applied in all areas: politics, religon, laws, marketing, etc.
Just a thought, but perhaps people are downloading it as a torrent and then using it to pump their stats so they appear to be a better sharer than they really are. Why? Again, just a thought, but maybe some torrent programs or sites require a certain "score." It's safe to share an open source program. Or maybe they are altruistic and just want to decrease loads on the server; I do this to an extent with OpenOffice.
There are automatic red-light cameras. They are fantastic for generating revenue. They are lousy for physically stopping a vehicle from running a red light. Some data shows they are not even a deterrent. It's not about safety, it's about money.
If laws were about safety, and not money, then there would be RFID chips in the road, a receiver in your car, and a regulator on your engine. Instead of paying for a war in Iraq, under the premise of "saving lives and keeping us safe," the money would be spent on paying for a system that actually saved, and not cost, lives. But if everyone actually obeyed every traffic law, local governments would go bankrupt. The local governments costs don't increase when people drive unsafe, so they won't directly gain by having safer roads less accidents. But insurance companies will. And I imagine a lot of other local industries would be impacted, too numerous to list.
My point is that I hope you look both ways before driving through a green light. No law or selective enforcement of the law is going to keep you safe. In fact, perhaps these laws are lulling you into a false sense of security.
But why single out talking on cell phones? Where is the system to detect an intense conversation with a passenger, changing the radio station, fumbling with the A/C controls in a rental car, a crying baby in the back seat.... We've accepted that driving is hazardous. Everybody on the road knows it. News flash, there are irresponsible or distracted drivers out there; look out! A driver should be able to safely speed away from someone that is doing something that is stupid. A driver should be able to call the police when they drive by someone who is in trouble. Driving will always by a highly variable and highly hazardous situation that one voluntarily puts themselves in. That little yellow line isn't going to stop someone from drifting over onto your side of the road. You have to pay attention constantly. It shouldn't matter what other people are doing; assume everyone is drunk, distracted, or whatever and adjust your driving accordingly. Stop worrying about them and make sure you are doing what is necessary to stay safe. You only have control of your own situation. A thousand laws won't give you control over someone else.
No doubt. In my state, the shoulders of the road are for emergency stopping only. I don't see how a cop parking there to troll for speeders counts as an emergency. Not only is s/he putting her only life at risk for a a hundred bucks or so, but also the traveling public that s/he is supposedly trying to protect. High speed vehicles and stopped vehicles on shoulders are a bad combo. And while sometimes there is data behind the targeted enforcement areas, too often it is arbitrary. What is it, speeders prefer zipping by clumps of bushes and overpasses?
I wonder if this is why I can't listen to more than 3 tracks from Helmet's Meantime album (1992). I enjoy it in small doses, but start to finish has always been impossible w/o developing a headache.
But can you move the "replay message" option (keypad 4) away from "delete message' (keypad 7) which is also next to "return this call" (keypad 8)? I've fat-fingered that mistake too many times.
If the mouse is one of the most inefficient input devices, I'm not sure how low to place touch pads. Learning to use the keyboard for navigation can save a lot of aggravation.
I read this story in Time or Newsweek back in the early 90s. I'm glad to see that progress has been made. Not.
Just dust off your Y2K Survival Kit and you will be fine.
As Schreiner said, "The rare and spectacular always seems more dangerous than the common and pedestrian, and we end up with a lot of security theater because of it." People react the same way to things that can kill them. Think about how many people drive each day; if they really took their life seriously and understood probabilities the roads would be a little less crowded.
I read this and can't help but think of how long before these companies are run by organized crime. Maybe they already are. And then it would be ironic to see one crime family trying to enforce it's patents on another crime family that is busy violating them. ( a random reference ) Gangsters getting the cops to do their wetwork.
Interesting. Reminds of a college math professor who gave no partial credit. His reason: the Challenger disaster. He claimed that someone miscoded the field for temperature range. Apparently there was a certain temperature range within which the Challenger could launch. Zero should have been out of it, but it wasn't coded properly...and null equaled zero. So when someone didn't put in a temperature, the Challenger launched when it shouldn't have and a couple minutes later it was over. I dunno if that is accurate or not, but that was his story. A visiting prof from Russia or the Ukraine. /shrug
Wow. That just begs one to define "most people" and "anything questionable." Who is to make this determination? One certainly can not trust the government to do so. Where would the line be drawn? Just wait for the knock on the door asking why you are so interested in reports of illicit campaign contributions, or perhaps you read too much about abuse of prisoners by the military? A government that will conduct immoral studies on its people has proven itself to have no limits. It can not be trusted.
Mistakes happen. Patches & AV software, etc. are not foolproof. Patches & anti-virus software aren't going to stop anything without an aware user. It's all about education.
I agree, not an exploit. It behaves as expected. Now, whether or not you want to blame the user for not checking the program settings is another issue. I would think to be an exploit, it has to be a behavior that is not expected (based on options presented by the program) or an option that doesn't do what it says it does.
At least with OO.o you can control your version and not have a forced upgrade (license dependent) that breaks your workflow or compatability with existing files. How many time has MS done that now?
I'd rather have one knowledgeable user running this setup than a 100 clueless folks blindly installing AV & anti-spyware software. Software is a backup to the first line of defense, which is knowledge.
(Tempting as it is, no hotlink done intentionally to help avoid the slashdotting.)
I recommend starting with 03-04 "On Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC) - A Review of the Material and its Applications" as it includes a nice photo of a bent column.
I can't seem to figure out how to mod the article as Troll. Anyone?