It does, actually. I said "but realistically, they're reducing by half (your link gives a range, I'm within it) the catestrophic head injuries in the fractional-percent of bike accidents bad enough where there would have been catestrophic head injuries." Using data from the link:
85,000,000 cyclists in the US
540,000 bicycle injuries severe enough for ER visits
(540,000 * 100) / 85,000,000 = 0.64% - that's all accidents serious enough for an ER visit. This is already a fraction of a percent, head injuries are necessarily less, head injuries involving cars less again (the link also points out that the number of "accidents" is much higher, but those not serious enough to warrant medical treatment often go unreported. First, well - duh. Second, this is true of all accidents, not just bicycle accidents)
67,000 (of the 540,000) with head injuries: (67,000 * 100) / 85,000,000 = 0.078%
27,000 with head injuries severe enough to be admitted: (27,000 * 100) / 85,000,000 = 0.032%
This number, three-hundredths of a percent, is what you're reducing by half. <mode=devil's advocate>Bathtubs are this dangerous. Should we push for hockey pads and life preservers to be required while scrubbing up?
bike helmets often mean the difference between an accident causing brain injury and not, then wear the damn helmet. Idiots like you who should know better are the reason it has to be made a law instead of being common sense.
What's this common sense? Look, when I was a kid, not only were bike helmets not proscribed by law, they weren't even available. Didn't exist. Period. Imagine, a world full of kids on bikes, and not a helmet to be found. I promise it was true. All of us launching ourselves through ditches long before X-Games, flying over sweet jumps long before Napoleon Dynomite. (and I guess our parents were all idiots who didn't love us)
There were dozens of us. We all wiped out multiple times. Every. Single. One. Guess what? Not a single one of us bonked our noggins retarded. Not a single one of us died.
Just saying.
I'm not calling to abolish bike helmets. They're probably a good idea somewhere in the "better safe than sorry" category, but realistically, they're reducing by half the catestrophic head injuries in the fractional-percent of bike accidents bad enough where there would have been catestrophic head injuries. You call this "often". Meh.
What I'm saying is, if you think bike helmets make that much difference, you're as much a delusional as I am an idiot.
It's not illegal AFAIK to give said articles to children, but rather they cannot purchase such things themselves -- I think this is the case in the UK at least.
But do we need a law to say so, if the stores selling the games are already doing this voluntarily?
The movie industry does this, for instance. There is no law that says persons under 18 cannot buy a ticket for themselves to an R rated movie, the studios and the theaters do this of their own accord specifically so such laws are not passed. In fact, the entire rating system is voluntary, there is no legal compulsion to have a movie rated. There is a financial motivation, as theaters typically won't screen unrated movies, but no legal requirement as such.
Just the same, almost all game shops have store policies not to sell "mature" games to minors. If it's good enough for the movie theaters, why is there a need for laws on video games?
Nope, not a bit. Playboy apparently is pornography to most people under the "I know it when I see it" rule. I, as a child, with a few of my friends, flipped through several issues liberated from somebody's father. We even managed to scrounge up... a Hustler.
Ack! No! Children! Pornography! Oh, the humanity! Surely this will scar us for life!
Only it didn't. We're all fine, I promise. No lifelong trauma. No irreperable harm. Could it be that such things won't destroy us all? We were satisfying our curiosity. As thousands of boys, both before and after us, have done. And will continue to do. Because that curiosity is human nature.
I'm not suggesting you buy your child a subscription - let 'em steal their own copy. It's part of the process. But ferCrhistsake, quit getting so bunged up about it.
They are not aware of, or interested in, intercourse perhaps, but they do tend to be quite interested in the difference between girls and boys, particularly the ones with siblings. And that, my friend, is still a form of sexual interest, even if not exactly what you mean by "interested in sex".
To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.
Hurrah! I've been saying for years that the obsession with nerf-coating the world was a Bad Thing. The best way for the masses to learn due caution is for a few to serve as a negative example, not to round every corner and pad every edge.
This is true psychologically, too. Sex and violence is part of the human creature. Pretending it's not "for the children", the children who will eventually inherit this mess, does a disservice to us all for exactly the reason stated - they will be unequipped when it's their turn. Nevermind the bozos making these stupid laws - find me one among them who didn't flip through a playboy and play cops and robbers as a child him/herself. These things are desirable, perhaps even required, for a well-balanced adult to form. We all grew up watching GIJoe shoot at everybody and Sam Malone hit on everything in a skirt. We had monkeybars on asphalt, BB guns, steel sliding boards with exposed bolts and pinch points. We never had those ridiculous bike helmets and elbow pads. There were scuffed elbows and scraped knees, maybe even a broken arm or two, but seriously, how many of the kids you went to school with were maimed or killed on the playground?
So go, kids, run and play! Climb trees. Jump from the swingsets. Play dodgeball. Play doctor. Explore the world around you, it belongs to you, too, after all.
Off with their helmets! Lawn darts for everybody! Hip, Hip, Hurrah!
IANAL, yours, mine or otherwise. My language is meant for communication with other human beings, not to be taken as courtroom legalese. I understand that nowhere in copyright law do the words "personal use" exist as such.
I also wish to state that most of my direct exposure to copyright law has been in educational settings, and for educational purposes. I understand that educational use gets some additional sway in what is acceptable. Nonetheless, a quick Google search brings me this:
Like I said, quick Google search, but I've seen this elsewhere. I have no desire to dig through the actual statutes to cite chapter and verse where this comes from in the Act, but I trust it's there.
where they heard of your product still leaves as a guess how many aren't reporting, or how many are lying.
Nevermind the poorly thought out attempts. Like giving a list that does not include how I found you, and without an "other" box. And then making a choice there mandatory, so I have to lie just to register my product.
Or companies, like cisco (for instance, true story) asking where I heard about them. Fuck me, I don't know. Where did you first learn about McDonald's? At some point, your name is ubiquitous knowledge to your target customers, and this question becomes pointeless. Please stop asking.
This is old-school copyright infringement. Nothing to see here, move along. You cannot reproduce copyrighted material in its entirety and distribute it to hundreds of people.
<mode=Devil's advocate> True enough, the law says you can't take an article and photocopy it for your internal newsletter. You can, however, leave the original in the breakroom for everybody to read. Or clip the article from the magazine and attach it to a circulation list (read it, check off your name and pass it on).
You can even make a single photocopy for your own personal use. So, say in the first example, there was also a copier in the breakroom and everybody made their own copy for personal use, is that a violation?
What if, instead of dead trees and a photocopier, it's an online article and I distribute the link in email?</mode>
Really, though, what's the gripe? Isn't the whole point of writing an article that people read it?
As we've become more hygenic, the immune system, strong as ever, goes looking for soft targets to beat up. It becomes hypersensitive,
So, essentially, what you're saying is that the more germs an immune system has to practice on, the less likely it is to sweat the small stuff. Or, the less "sickly" the owner is likely to feel or appear.
Sounds like a good enough argument against neurotic overcleanliness to me.
Spock, Sr: It's 106 parsecs to Rigel 7, we got a full tank of antimatter, half a crystal of dilithium, it's dark, and we're wearing pointy ears.
Spock, Jr: Hit it.
Oh, that's no problem. I just don't carry it with me on drug deals or hit jobs;-)
Honestly, though, and flippancy aside, I don't see any evidence that it does this. True, it still may, but here's the deal - if you're really that paranoid, you shouldn't be carrying a cell phone. At all. Ever. Period. Even without GPS, you think your provider's system doesn't know what antenna you're hitting? And where that antenna is?
Nevermind all of the recent reports about the ability to use your phone's microphone to eavesdrop on ambient conversations, even when you're not on a call.
The simple fact is, I *do* have a paranoid streak in me. There's a part of me that believes that "they" can get to me anywhere, anytime, if "they" have such a reason, even if I'm not carrying any sort of technology. So why refuse to carry the technology? I might as well enjoy the fun toys.
It's the same reason I won't cower in fear about the possibility of terrorist attacks. Sure, at any time, I might be carbombed, carjacked, shot, stabbed, flown into with an airplane, anthraxed, WTF-evered. Even without terrorism, I might be in a car accident, industrial accident, fall down the stairs, slip in the shower and break my neck, brush my teeth with chinese toothpaste...
Any of thousands of horrible things might happen to me on any given day, from any number of sources. What, I'm supposed to lock myself in a cabin in the mountains and go Kaczynski? I don't know. You can do what you wish. I choose to go about my life.
Since that first episode with a cameraphone, I have upgraded to a Treo 700. Best of breed, best of breed. Bah. Multifunction is a breed. I have a very nice multifunction device. Full blown palm pilot, half-decent still AND video camera in a pinch, office documents, GPS navigation, sudoku (among other games), 60-odd ebooks, PDF manuals for equipment, detailed contacts, calendar and scheduling with reminders, oh yeah - and it makes phone calls, too.
And I'm not carrying around 8 different devices and a full bookshelf worth $4000.
That is unless I use this global EMPWMD that I have just built, in my first super villian endeavor.
I hope all you nerds have print outs!
This kit from Acme is guaranteed to work in.......... wait for it....
3...2...1...
(clickity click)
(ground falls out from beneath me and I plunge into a huge southwestern style canyon. A small puff of dust rises upon my impact.
Where do those rings of stars around my head go when they are gone?[citation needed]
You also said "in a subdirectory right on the CD!" Which really does lead one to ask, what CDs are you buying, and where? None - not one - of my many hundreds of CDs have such a folder.
Feh. You've been modded insightful? Christ, how do I get in the puff-puff-pass line around here?
My friend's computer has been acting funny lately as well. The firewall reports (and stops) outbound connection attempts on unusual ports to seemingly random IP addresses at seemingly random intervals, even when the computer is completely idle otherwise. Virus scan with AVG and Norton - nothing. Spybot S&D, AdAware - nothing. Rootkit Revealer - nothing. HijackThis - nothing. ADSRevealer - nothing. Startup list viewer - nothing.
Yet, still with the random connection attempts.
The traffic is coming from lsass. No, not a virus, the real one. I've replaced it with a known good copy. STILL with the random connection attempts. I've booted into safe mode w/ networking support. Still with the random connection attempts.
Something in there is doing things it aught not, but I'll be damned if I can find it.
* No camera. I do not want something that takes crappy photos. If I want a camera I will buy a camera. Putting a camera in a phone is about as good an idea as putting a phone in a camera.
I always have my phone with me. I only have my camera with me if I know I'm going to a place/event that I will want to photograph. I said the same thing about cameraphones, right up until I had to take some pictures in a pinch of a traffic accident in which I was involved.
As it turns out, those "crappy" pictures were much more useful than the "no pictures at all" I would've been able to take without the cameraphone.
Or, as my shutterbug friend said, ANY camera you have with you is better than the snazzy rig still sitting at home.
And in that perspective, what do you know, e-paper is already cheap to make. So in the end we have just another way to make e-paper. Of course great, given patents and all, licensing, diversity on the e-paper market, competition... but.. actually nothing that matters to the average geek.
Says you. epaper currently only does grayscale. This can do full color. That makes it very interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I am an evil monkey overlord, you insensitive clod!
Well, I'm some sort of evil furry primate, anyway.
JOIN NASA!
Travel to exotic planets, meet interesting life forms, and dissect them.
It does, actually. I said "but realistically, they're reducing by half (your link gives a range, I'm within it) the catestrophic head injuries in the fractional-percent of bike accidents bad enough where there would have been catestrophic head injuries." Using data from the link:
(the link also points out that the number of "accidents" is much higher, but those not serious enough to warrant medical treatment often go unreported. First, well - duh. Second, this is true of all accidents, not just bicycle accidents)
This number, three-hundredths of a percent, is what you're reducing by half. <mode=devil's advocate>Bathtubs are this dangerous. Should we push for hockey pads and life preservers to be required while scrubbing up?
What's this common sense? Look, when I was a kid, not only were bike helmets not proscribed by law, they weren't even available. Didn't exist. Period. Imagine, a world full of kids on bikes, and not a helmet to be found. I promise it was true. All of us launching ourselves through ditches long before X-Games, flying over sweet jumps long before Napoleon Dynomite. (and I guess our parents were all idiots who didn't love us)
There were dozens of us. We all wiped out multiple times. Every. Single. One. Guess what? Not a single one of us bonked our noggins retarded. Not a single one of us died.
Just saying.
I'm not calling to abolish bike helmets. They're probably a good idea somewhere in the "better safe than sorry" category, but realistically, they're reducing by half the catestrophic head injuries in the fractional-percent of bike accidents bad enough where there would have been catestrophic head injuries. You call this "often". Meh.
What I'm saying is, if you think bike helmets make that much difference, you're as much a delusional as I am an idiot.
But do we need a law to say so, if the stores selling the games are already doing this voluntarily?
The movie industry does this, for instance. There is no law that says persons under 18 cannot buy a ticket for themselves to an R rated movie, the studios and the theaters do this of their own accord specifically so such laws are not passed. In fact, the entire rating system is voluntary, there is no legal compulsion to have a movie rated. There is a financial motivation, as theaters typically won't screen unrated movies, but no legal requirement as such.
Just the same, almost all game shops have store policies not to sell "mature" games to minors. If it's good enough for the movie theaters, why is there a need for laws on video games?
Nope, not a bit. Playboy apparently is pornography to most people under the "I know it when I see it" rule. I, as a child, with a few of my friends, flipped through several issues liberated from somebody's father. We even managed to scrounge up... a Hustler.
Ack! No! Children! Pornography! Oh, the humanity! Surely this will scar us for life!
Only it didn't. We're all fine, I promise. No lifelong trauma. No irreperable harm. Could it be that such things won't destroy us all? We were satisfying our curiosity. As thousands of boys, both before and after us, have done. And will continue to do. Because that curiosity is human nature.
I'm not suggesting you buy your child a subscription - let 'em steal their own copy. It's part of the process. But ferCrhistsake, quit getting so bunged up about it.
"Dosquatch can't take your call right now, he has moved to Europe to start a winery. Please leave a message at the *beep*"
They are not aware of, or interested in, intercourse perhaps, but they do tend to be quite interested in the difference between girls and boys, particularly the ones with siblings. And that, my friend, is still a form of sexual interest, even if not exactly what you mean by "interested in sex".
Hurrah! I've been saying for years that the obsession with nerf-coating the world was a Bad Thing. The best way for the masses to learn due caution is for a few to serve as a negative example, not to round every corner and pad every edge.
This is true psychologically, too. Sex and violence is part of the human creature. Pretending it's not "for the children", the children who will eventually inherit this mess, does a disservice to us all for exactly the reason stated - they will be unequipped when it's their turn. Nevermind the bozos making these stupid laws - find me one among them who didn't flip through a playboy and play cops and robbers as a child him/herself. These things are desirable, perhaps even required, for a well-balanced adult to form. We all grew up watching GIJoe shoot at everybody and Sam Malone hit on everything in a skirt. We had monkeybars on asphalt, BB guns, steel sliding boards with exposed bolts and pinch points. We never had those ridiculous bike helmets and elbow pads. There were scuffed elbows and scraped knees, maybe even a broken arm or two, but seriously, how many of the kids you went to school with were maimed or killed on the playground?
So go, kids, run and play! Climb trees. Jump from the swingsets. Play dodgeball. Play doctor. Explore the world around you, it belongs to you, too, after all.
Off with their helmets! Lawn darts for everybody! Hip, Hip, Hurrah!
Huzzah! Thank you, sir.
IANAL, yours, mine or otherwise. My language is meant for communication with other human beings, not to be taken as courtroom legalese. I understand that nowhere in copyright law do the words "personal use" exist as such.
I also wish to state that most of my direct exposure to copyright law has been in educational settings, and for educational purposes. I understand that educational use gets some additional sway in what is acceptable. Nonetheless, a quick Google search brings me this:
paragraph 8 (by my count): Your instructor is limited under copyright law to make one copy for his personal use and to place one copy on library reserve. [...] Every student is allowed under copyright law to make one copy of a magazine article for personal use.
Like I said, quick Google search, but I've seen this elsewhere. I have no desire to dig through the actual statutes to cite chapter and verse where this comes from in the Act, but I trust it's there.
Nevermind the poorly thought out attempts. Like giving a list that does not include how I found you, and without an "other" box. And then making a choice there mandatory, so I have to lie just to register my product.
Or companies, like cisco (for instance, true story) asking where I heard about them. Fuck me, I don't know. Where did you first learn about McDonald's? At some point, your name is ubiquitous knowledge to your target customers, and this question becomes pointeless. Please stop asking.
<mode=Devil's advocate> True enough, the law says you can't take an article and photocopy it for your internal newsletter. You can, however, leave the original in the breakroom for everybody to read. Or clip the article from the magazine and attach it to a circulation list (read it, check off your name and pass it on).
You can even make a single photocopy for your own personal use. So, say in the first example, there was also a copier in the breakroom and everybody made their own copy for personal use, is that a violation?
What if, instead of dead trees and a photocopier, it's an online article and I distribute the link in email?</mode>
Really, though, what's the gripe? Isn't the whole point of writing an article that people read it?
So, essentially, what you're saying is that the more germs an immune system has to practice on, the less likely it is to sweat the small stuff. Or, the less "sickly" the owner is likely to feel or appear.
Sounds like a good enough argument against neurotic overcleanliness to me.
Reflex?
"I'm from the RIAA, and I'm here to help."
This will get no useful reaction from the MS troll, but if the other guy grabs me by the throat and throws me into the cave...
I know I don't want to be there.
Spock, Sr: It's 106 parsecs to Rigel 7, we got a full tank of antimatter, half a crystal of dilithium, it's dark, and we're wearing pointy ears.
Spock, Jr: Hit it.
Oh, that's no problem. I just don't carry it with me on drug deals or hit jobs ;-)
Honestly, though, and flippancy aside, I don't see any evidence that it does this. True, it still may, but here's the deal - if you're really that paranoid, you shouldn't be carrying a cell phone. At all. Ever. Period. Even without GPS, you think your provider's system doesn't know what antenna you're hitting? And where that antenna is?
Nevermind all of the recent reports about the ability to use your phone's microphone to eavesdrop on ambient conversations, even when you're not on a call.
The simple fact is, I *do* have a paranoid streak in me. There's a part of me that believes that "they" can get to me anywhere, anytime, if "they" have such a reason, even if I'm not carrying any sort of technology. So why refuse to carry the technology? I might as well enjoy the fun toys.
It's the same reason I won't cower in fear about the possibility of terrorist attacks. Sure, at any time, I might be carbombed, carjacked, shot, stabbed, flown into with an airplane, anthraxed, WTF-evered. Even without terrorism, I might be in a car accident, industrial accident, fall down the stairs, slip in the shower and break my neck, brush my teeth with chinese toothpaste...
Any of thousands of horrible things might happen to me on any given day, from any number of sources. What, I'm supposed to lock myself in a cabin in the mountains and go Kaczynski? I don't know. You can do what you wish. I choose to go about my life.
Since that first episode with a cameraphone, I have upgraded to a Treo 700. Best of breed, best of breed. Bah. Multifunction is a breed. I have a very nice multifunction device. Full blown palm pilot, half-decent still AND video camera in a pinch, office documents, GPS navigation, sudoku (among other games), 60-odd ebooks, PDF manuals for equipment, detailed contacts, calendar and scheduling with reminders, oh yeah - and it makes phone calls, too.
And I'm not carrying around 8 different devices and a full bookshelf worth $4000.
Just saying.
I hope all you nerds have print outs!
This kit from Acme is guaranteed to work in.......
3...2...1...
(clickity click)
(ground falls out from beneath me and I plunge into a huge southwestern style canyon. A small puff of dust rises upon my impact.
Where do those rings of stars around my head go when they are gone?[citation needed]
Fixed it for ya.
You also said "in a subdirectory right on the CD!" Which really does lead one to ask, what CDs are you buying, and where? None - not one - of my many hundreds of CDs have such a folder.
Feh. You've been modded insightful? Christ, how do I get in the puff-puff-pass line around here?
My friend's computer has been acting funny lately as well. The firewall reports (and stops) outbound connection attempts on unusual ports to seemingly random IP addresses at seemingly random intervals, even when the computer is completely idle otherwise. Virus scan with AVG and Norton - nothing. Spybot S&D, AdAware - nothing. Rootkit Revealer - nothing. HijackThis - nothing. ADSRevealer - nothing. Startup list viewer - nothing.
Yet, still with the random connection attempts.
The traffic is coming from lsass. No, not a virus, the real one. I've replaced it with a known good copy. STILL with the random connection attempts. I've booted into safe mode w/ networking support. Still with the random connection attempts.
Something in there is doing things it aught not, but I'll be damned if I can find it.
How'd I miss that?? I'm not finding any products on the market using this, though. Color would probably sell me on an ebook.
I always have my phone with me. I only have my camera with me if I know I'm going to a place/event that I will want to photograph. I said the same thing about cameraphones, right up until I had to take some pictures in a pinch of a traffic accident in which I was involved.
As it turns out, those "crappy" pictures were much more useful than the "no pictures at all" I would've been able to take without the cameraphone.
Or, as my shutterbug friend said, ANY camera you have with you is better than the snazzy rig still sitting at home.
Says you. epaper currently only does grayscale. This can do full color. That makes it very interesting.
And epaper isn't all that cheap.