Technically he's right. There is only one thing that can absolutely be proven. Cogito ergo sum. I exist. You might not though...
Not true: mathematical theorems are true (capable of absolute proof) within their own axioms, and mathematics requires a priori axioms. As Wittgenstein might say, this means they convey no information, but simply recapitulate their axioms in increasingly complex forms.
The same condition does not apply to experience, thus leaving room for the skepticism that puzzled the mathematically-inclined Descartes. Yet the "cogito" has a notorious problem, along the same vein as Wittgenstein's analysis of mathematical truth: "I exist" is necessarily true in grammar, because of the assumptions made by "I." It conveys no information in language, and is a phenomenological report, no more provably true or false as a condition of existence than numerous competing phenomenological or grammatical analyses that posit the non-existence of a "I" (Buddhism is a ready example.)
The cogito sure does "make sense," though, and this is because experience suggests it.
riiight. i know what im talking about because i received all the info in one of those extra "big lectures" you receive at that age.
A much better source of information than the same scientific studies used by insurers and freely available on the Internet, I suppose. Who doesn't remember childhood lecturing better than presently accessible information?
i'm far from out of arguments btw
Wrong. You're far from out of disagreements. You've been out of arguments for some time now.
you have yet to refute anything i've said
You have yet to understand anything I've said, or even read the science related to it, preferring to substitute heated rhetoric for the empiricism of actuarial practice and cognitive psych.
im going to go get back to my life
I doubt it, since you've already threatened me once with the loss of your glowing conversation, yet are still here. I'll make it easy for you by ignoring the "Reply" button for the rest of today.
I would too if I didn't meet so many of these folks. I used to be one of these folks, but got better somewhere between 17 and 18, probably as a result of having more mature passengers point out the assholish nature of my driving.
That's so ludicrous I am literally laughing right now.
Dude, it's gotten so bad I need a cigarette. Y'all have fun with this one.
And before anyone calls me a hypocrite, I'd like to point out that I don't even smoke while driving. That's almost (not quite, but almost) like dialing or eating while driving.
in fact controlling roudy(spelling?) kids often involves not only hands, but turning the whole body
Which I would classify as dangerous driving, since it implies that your children aren't properly restrained.
oh wait they wont do any of that, theyre just attacking what young people do as usual..
Actually, middle-aged people are just as likely to do this sort of idiotic thing. Heck, who do you think was buying cellphones back when you were in grade school and they cost a thousand bucks?
Maybe the reason people get more angered by cellphone conversers than parents is that the reason for their distraction is considered far less compelling. The concept that anyone might "need" to talk on the phone while driving instead of waiting until they arrive at their destination, barring an actual emergency involving doctors or police, is pretty shallow.
first off.. my mother works in a very senior position in the insurance industry.
she's certified for several regions and knows auto inside and out. unless you work there you are not qualified to be telling me what im saying is wrong.
Of course, this is the first time you've seen fit to mention this fact, and you can't even claim to have asked her about the rate of repeat at-fault offenders during the course of this "conversation." It's not like you get credit for everything your mother might know in the course of her job. And really, I think you're being full of shit. Every idiot on/. claims to have a relative in a relevant occupation as soon as they run out of arguments, forgetting that an appeal to non-present authority is even sillier than the regular fallacy of appeal to authority.
so now im an immature driver because i claim im a good driver
Not at all. It's because you claim that you are a good driver while admitting that you engage in behaviors that make you a bad driver, all the while blaming other "stupid drivers" for at-fault accidents. As I would include "understanding one's own limitations" among the signs of maturity, I consider you immature.
maybe it's their inability to allocate their attention span properly rather than the fact they have a phone
Your're blithely ignoring the fact that dividing your attention across multiple things is causally responsible for reduced available attention for any one of those things.
correlation != causation
You'd have a point if the correlative studies about driving distractions weren't supported by controlled experiments showing the causes of limited attention (and not just in the context of driving, for that matter.)
did they try those same tests with other objects? how about fussing children? car stereos? gps navigation units?
Yes, and the data indicates that while anything other than paying 100% attention to the road is more dangerous, activities involving the hands (such as eating or dialing) are the worst distractors.
Perhaps you should try reading the science before you cast aspersions on it. For example, the time between your replies precludes the possibility that you actually read that PDF file in another of my responses.
this means young drivers have a 30% chance of an at fault accident per year until they reach the age of 24.
this is additive (like multiple coin flips) as multiple years go by, and means you will inevitably have one before you reach 24.
Wrong yet again. As any insurance agent can tell you, the same people are usually involved in at-fault accidents - hence sharp (typically 40%+) rate increases for those provably unsafe drivers. Also, this probability drops sharply with age - it's lower at 18, 19, 20, etc. Your interpretation of these statistics is way off.
This is reflected in the fact that every single person i have ever known or met has had one.
Every single one? Damn, you must have some interesting conversations with everyone you know or have met. Let's see...out of my 8 closest friends and 4 family members, only 2 have had at-fault accidents, and one of those happened while the driver in question was 80 years old. Perhaps you're in the habit of hanging out with other immature drivers and generalizing their experiences across the entire population?
i want you to drive without your car stereo, your gps, and if you have anything besides basic seats (for example theyre heated or have a massage feature) that should be removed too.
additionally.. any lights that blink that are not related to the core functionality of the car or the safety of the user, such as the clock, should be removed. then i'll accept you trying to take away my phone.
Gee, too bad that actual science regarding driver distraction doesn't agree with what you say about heated seats and clocks. Not only that, but nobody's trying to take away your phone, just prohibit your use of it in a manner that is provably unsafe (regardless of your misunderstanding of statistics).
All this, of course, just makes the quote about "rhetoric" in your sig even more ironically funny with regards to your behavior in these comments.
For me, the early signs of stupid people are people who are on the phone or eating.
this is called prejudice.. can we say prejudice? gooood. next thing youll say is "for me, early signs of criminals are their skin color"
Oh, and you're wrong yet again. Prejudice against genetic traits is quite different from "prejudice" against chosen behaviors proven to be directly causally related to accidents and injury (otherwise known as "stupid" behaviors.)
actually.. it's quite above average for someone so early on in their time driving.
Wrong again. Most people aren't involved in at-fault accidents at any point in their driving history. People are more likely to be involved in one at your age, but most young male drivers (70%, surprisingly) manage to avoid them altogether. [Big ol' PDF.]
In the parlance of accident studies, you would fall into the "cognitive error" attribution category, as your ungrounded perceptions of your own driving ability are likely to be the cause of any at-fault accidents in which you are involved.
I can drive perfectly well while using a phone or eating because i know how to read the early signs of stupid people and PUT DOWN THE PHONE OR FOOD when i see them.
I'm clear of at fault accidents for over 5 years, and i've only been driving for 8.
These statements contradict each other. By your own admission, you're not only imperfect, you're actually substandard.
why should i be given fines and increased insurance because other people cant handle it.
And unsurprisingly narcissistic, to boot. Thank you for playing.
For example, Wright wants his upcoming simulation game, Spore, to help kids think more about how their actions today can have a long-term effect on the world. With the evolution game, kids can learn about global warming, he said, by pumping carbon dioxide into the virtual atmosphere and then watching the planet burn up in minutes.
Wasn't SimEarth supposed to accomplish this back in 1990?
In other news, Will Wright is anticipating a flourishing of urban planning with the release of SimCity 5, a solution to the problem of childhood obesity with SimFat's release, and a growth of grandiose sales pitches with SimSoftwareDesigner.
it also helps if you design the code based on security from the beginning instead of attempting to bolt-on security like it's another feature when it definitely isn't.
Or "letting the market handle it" by allowing your company's incompetence to effectively subsidize a third-party industry possessing only marginally more competence.
if 2 supposed "network security" people got hit, do the ISPs really have any hope whatsoever in trying to educate their users to avoid phishing?
I bet we'll get to find out if they get successfully sued over it. I'm not saying it's a good idea, BTW. Just saying that it would be a more likely motivator of action than the parent's suggestion of public naming. Hasn't the lesson of the 21st century thus far been: "public opinion's attention span regarding corporate negligence and malfeasance is too trivial for most companies to consider it a liability?" Hell, if the government we pay for every two weeks can get away with it, I'll bet Verizon, BofA and others feel pretty safe.
Besides, there is a way that ISPs can fight phishing: aggressive takedowns the of fake sites used by phishers to extract information from those folks who don't see the problem with giving their SSN to "paypall.com" and the like. I'm not informed about their current vigor in this regard, though, and would appreciate feedback from those in the know.
*Please note: I certainly believe that primary responsibility for avoiding phishing scams belongs to the consumer. I think, however, that a clever team of lawyers could convince a jury otherwise.
I believe a lady with that name operates a tea-room in Scotland which was contested by the 'other' one. Macdonalds challenged her in court for the right to use the name but they lost as it was her real surname and there was no intent to deceieve.
And I should hope so, since the name of the company in question is McDonalds.
Check out the history of litigation between Anheuser-Busch (owners of the Budweiser trademark in the U.S.) and Budvar (who make a beer named "Budweiser," ostensibly named for the town of origin.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not true: mathematical theorems are true (capable of absolute proof) within their own axioms, and mathematics requires a priori axioms. As Wittgenstein might say, this means they convey no information, but simply recapitulate their axioms in increasingly complex forms.
The same condition does not apply to experience, thus leaving room for the skepticism that puzzled the mathematically-inclined Descartes. Yet the "cogito" has a notorious problem, along the same vein as Wittgenstein's analysis of mathematical truth: "I exist" is necessarily true in grammar, because of the assumptions made by "I." It conveys no information in language, and is a phenomenological report, no more provably true or false as a condition of existence than numerous competing phenomenological or grammatical analyses that posit the non-existence of a "I" (Buddhism is a ready example.)
The cogito sure does "make sense," though, and this is because experience suggests it.
*woosh*
Another sarcasm bullet narrowly misses a modder's noggin, and a post that made me laugh out loud gets modded Troll.
You're right, those amputees are bringing down the average. They're making the numbers look bad!
And hey, drive safe.
And before anyone calls me a hypocrite, I'd like to point out that I don't even smoke while driving. That's almost (not quite, but almost) like dialing or eating while driving.
Maybe the reason people get more angered by cellphone conversers than parents is that the reason for their distraction is considered far less compelling. The concept that anyone might "need" to talk on the phone while driving instead of waiting until they arrive at their destination, barring an actual emergency involving doctors or police, is pretty shallow.
Perhaps you should try reading the science before you cast aspersions on it. For example, the time between your replies precludes the possibility that you actually read that PDF file in another of my responses.
All this, of course, just makes the quote about "rhetoric" in your sig even more ironically funny with regards to your behavior in these comments.
In the parlance of accident studies, you would fall into the "cognitive error" attribution category, as your ungrounded perceptions of your own driving ability are likely to be the cause of any at-fault accidents in which you are involved.
Hey, it's not the mods fault that you lack the insight to figure out why your behavior is selfish and unsafe, regardless of your inflated opinions.
If we're going to nitpick, then if 51% of drivers think they're better than the average driver, that's too many.
But frankly, it's worse than that.
In other news, Will Wright is anticipating a flourishing of urban planning with the release of SimCity 5, a solution to the problem of childhood obesity with SimFat's release, and a growth of grandiose sales pitches with SimSoftwareDesigner.
Besides, there is a way that ISPs can fight phishing: aggressive takedowns the of fake sites used by phishers to extract information from those folks who don't see the problem with giving their SSN to "paypall.com" and the like. I'm not informed about their current vigor in this regard, though, and would appreciate feedback from those in the know.
*Please note: I certainly believe that primary responsibility for avoiding phishing scams belongs to the consumer. I think, however, that a clever team of lawyers could convince a jury otherwise.
Check out the history of litigation between Anheuser-Busch (owners of the Budweiser trademark in the U.S.) and Budvar (who make a beer named "Budweiser," ostensibly named for the town of origin.)