Cars have clearly become more complex over the same period, and so there is no simple correlation between increased complexity and increased frequency of death.
And farther down in my post, I state the following: At any rate, I wasn't trying to argue the point, so much as show you by how far you missed it so you could take another shot at disproving it.
That may or may not imply that I don't necessarily agree with the point I was trying to clarify.
Does it hold when you include higher speeds, higher density of vehicles on the road, etc.? Does it hold when you compare vehicles before seatbelts and airbags were mandatory? Besides, the question isn't really about whether Model Ts were safer in their time... I'd wager a modern car with air bags and seatbelts is safer than most cars made prior to such requirements, including the Model T, would be today.
Higher speeds are possible due to advances which, you guessed it, increased the complexity of the device. As for the higher density of vehicles on the road, I think I covered that with the part you quoted. The vehicle death rate has increased since seatbelts and aribags were made mandatory; people feel safer, so they're more prone to do stupider shit. You go ahead and wager all you want, but you're wrong; insurance companies make their living off collecting the statistics to prove it.
At any rate, I wasn't trying to argue the point, so much as show you by how far you missed it so you could take another shot at disproving it.
More people die from accidents in today's cars than accidents in Model Ts. Do a bit of math to compensate for the differences in population and rate of vehicle ownership and it still holds true. GP was implying something, not stating it as fact; and even at that, you misinterpreted what was being implied.
Further, your counterexample, which I assume was intended to demonstrate how ridiculous GP's statement was, actually serves to illustrate the point he was trying to make. You were comparing cars to planes, which are much more complex but kill many fewer people; what's interesting about that choice of comparison is that GP had already made it when he explained that the reason for this is the long pre-flight check and strong implication that even the tiniest of "non-problems" means that plane isn't flying on that day. This is necessary due to the complexity of the system. Of course, it's necessary to inspect a car's mechanical condition before driving it, as well; though very few people ever do.
If I need to run to the store for a gallon of milk, I have plenty of time to walk around the car and make sure all my lug nuts are at least present and nothing is dragging on the ground, at a minimum. If I need to put a bullet in my assailant's arm before he's able to put two in my chest, I don't have time to check that the batteries are inserted correctly, the power switch is on, and the NVRAM holding my fingerprint ID hasn't been cleared; I'm already lucky I wasn't shot while inserting the magazine, pulling the slide back, disengaging the trigger safety, and taking aim.
Framed like that, I now support the gun ban, but only if it also means forcing criminals to, at all times (except, obviously, during periods of incarceration), be in legal custody of no fewer than two children between the ages of two and five, and keeping track of them to ensure that they're actually looking after said children.
Think about it, there is a severe shortage of foster parents right now; this would solve that. At the same time, either the crims are too busy with the kids to do what they do, the kids would shoot them, or they'd get locked up for violating the "actually looking after the children" provision.
Shit. I'll stop joking around now, this is actually starting to sound like a good idea...
There's no reason to think it was not hacked. There's, likewise, just as much reason not to change the password. Standard practice in the security community is to assume that everything has been compromised and act accordingly; this is because a good hack will be all but undetectable.
Of course, it's the latter group, and people like them, who developed the titles the former group bought into. Without the former, the latter wouldn't have jobs.
I've learned, at this point in my life, that the fact that not everyone shares my point of view is a good thing; if everyone saw things my way, they'd all write their own code, instead of paying me to do so.
You can put 10.6.8 on that, you know. I'm running a G4 PowerBook as a dev server at the moment, but right up until I set that up, it ran 10.6.8 so I could run Coda outside of work; once I fully migrated away from Coda, it was no longer necessary.
You know, you make a good point, It's too bad we don't have unpopulated and unfarmable desert areas that we can dig out and build massive holding tanks in. It's not like we have the technology to create a network of cross-country underground pipelines; and even if we did, it's not like we have the technology to pump anything through them. There's no way we could ever pump oceanic waters into storage in otherwise unused and unusable inland regions.
And doing so, even if it were possible, would have no added benefit. The evaporation of that water wouldn't cool the climate in those areas, that water couldn't be desalinized to provide potable water for drinking and agriculture, and even if it could, it's not like we'd have any use or all that salt, right? We totally couldn't turn inhabitable desert land into habitable land, possibly even farm land, while at the same time maintaining ocean levels. That could never happen.
Sadly, though I was being sarcastic through all of that, the second paragraph is probably fairly accurate. Not for technical reasons, mind you, but because there simply would be no immediate profit involved, so we'd have no government or corporate backing to get it done. And we've proven, time and time again, that without that, there's everything we can't do.
Ruggedized tablets.... Oh, how I miss my Kalidor 2000. 16Mhz 386 CPU, 4GB of RAM, 40MB hard disk, used to store it in a bucket of water and drop-kick it across the room to dry it off before using it and it just didn't give a fuck. It was stolen and had I caught the guy who stole it, I would have used it to bludgeon him to death, then typed out my police statement on it while waiting for them to arrive.
That's an i3, probably single core, with likely a 1366x768 display and a battery that probably weighs half as much as the entire Surface tablet. You didn't say, but I'm guessing 2 years ago it shipped with 2GB of RAM. I'll assume you have wifi but not bluetooth, a roughly 2.5" diagonal touch pad, no digitizer, no multi-touch, no ambient light sensor, no accelerometer, no gyroscope, no compass, and one or no camera.
You're comparing that to a dual core i5 at a higher clock speed and a 1080p display, twice the RAM (also at a higher clock speed), all of which means more power draw, but also a more powerful system. When you factor in the bluetooth, 10.6" multi-tough touchpad (e.g. the screen) and digitizer, additional sensors, and the one or two extra cameras, you can't possibly realistically expect the smaller and lighter battery to last as long.
Think about it. For what this device is and all it brings to the table, 4hr is excellent battery life. Do I wish it was better? Yes. But it's still pretty damned good.
Running full-on x86 desktop apps on a tablet is nothing new, you're right. Microsoft was doing this a decade ago, and they're still the only ones doing it.
Does it need to? I'm trying to discern your point.
If you're trying to say that Bluetooth will go the way of the do-do, like IrDA did, I think you're missing something. You see, IrDA never took off, despite it being an awesome technology (I had a printer, a laptop, and a couple of PDAs that used it and I loved it, but I was in the minority), while Bluetooth has become a widely-used standard. Bluetooth is not going anywhere because, unlike IrDA, people actually use it.
Your first car's AM radio played any AM station that was in range. Car #3's AM/FM could do the same for any AM/FM station in range. Your aftermarket stereo and car #4's stereo could both play any audio cassette on the market and, likely, any AM/FM station in range. Your current car can play and audio CD on the market, accept any line-level (or volume-adjusted headphone-level) audio input, and pair with likely the majority of bluetooth audio sources, while sill offering the ability to play any AM/FM station that happens to be in range. These things are standards and they work across a large number of standardized devices.
Onboard computers are not, in any way, standardized, and many of them are designed to work with whatever the popular device of the day is. Sure, you still get FM radio, maybe AM, probably an AUX jack, if you're lucky you also have a CD player so when you can't find your AUX cable (or your phone is dead) there's nothing good playing on the radio, and you realize that USB port only works with last year's model of *fancy device*, which you didn't (and now can't) buy, you can still listen to something. Built-in bluetooth? The Hyundai Veloster is the only car I've seen that has factory bluetooth that will actually pair with a phone and start playing music without being tricked into doing so (and it remembered my phone and started playing when I went back for the second test drive!). Even that, I wouldn't rely on and the interface was clunky as hell with way too much going on on the screen, making it difficult (and unsafe at any speed) to use, when a simple back, next, and play/pause button would suffice, possibly with a button allowing me to browse my music collection. But no, we can't have standards or simple interfaces in today's vehicles, because there's no money in that!
When you are no more, you have died. When IBM is no more, IBM has died. We're nottalking about the people who work forthe company, we're talking about the business itself; once IBM is gone, IBM is gone, it's not coming back. That's death.
You mean bullets and shrapnel that can kill people just like losing your traditional customer base because you're forced to re-purpose the resources you use to create the products they buy from you can kill your business?
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that GP go die in a fire?
Cars have clearly become more complex over the same period, and so there is no simple correlation between increased complexity and increased frequency of death.
And farther down in my post, I state the following: At any rate, I wasn't trying to argue the point, so much as show you by how far you missed it so you could take another shot at disproving it.
That may or may not imply that I don't necessarily agree with the point I was trying to clarify.
Does it hold when you include higher speeds, higher density of vehicles on the road, etc.? Does it hold when you compare vehicles before seatbelts and airbags were mandatory? Besides, the question isn't really about whether Model Ts were safer in their time... I'd wager a modern car with air bags and seatbelts is safer than most cars made prior to such requirements, including the Model T, would be today.
Higher speeds are possible due to advances which, you guessed it, increased the complexity of the device. As for the higher density of vehicles on the road, I think I covered that with the part you quoted. The vehicle death rate has increased since seatbelts and aribags were made mandatory; people feel safer, so they're more prone to do stupider shit. You go ahead and wager all you want, but you're wrong; insurance companies make their living off collecting the statistics to prove it.
At any rate, I wasn't trying to argue the point, so much as show you by how far you missed it so you could take another shot at disproving it.
One of the places they'll look is under your bed; a lot of people "hide" valuables there.
More people die from accidents in today's cars than accidents in Model Ts. Do a bit of math to compensate for the differences in population and rate of vehicle ownership and it still holds true. GP was implying something, not stating it as fact; and even at that, you misinterpreted what was being implied.
Further, your counterexample, which I assume was intended to demonstrate how ridiculous GP's statement was, actually serves to illustrate the point he was trying to make. You were comparing cars to planes, which are much more complex but kill many fewer people; what's interesting about that choice of comparison is that GP had already made it when he explained that the reason for this is the long pre-flight check and strong implication that even the tiniest of "non-problems" means that plane isn't flying on that day. This is necessary due to the complexity of the system. Of course, it's necessary to inspect a car's mechanical condition before driving it, as well; though very few people ever do.
If I need to run to the store for a gallon of milk, I have plenty of time to walk around the car and make sure all my lug nuts are at least present and nothing is dragging on the ground, at a minimum. If I need to put a bullet in my assailant's arm before he's able to put two in my chest, I don't have time to check that the batteries are inserted correctly, the power switch is on, and the NVRAM holding my fingerprint ID hasn't been cleared; I'm already lucky I wasn't shot while inserting the magazine, pulling the slide back, disengaging the trigger safety, and taking aim.
Framed like that, I now support the gun ban, but only if it also means forcing criminals to, at all times (except, obviously, during periods of incarceration), be in legal custody of no fewer than two children between the ages of two and five, and keeping track of them to ensure that they're actually looking after said children.
Think about it, there is a severe shortage of foster parents right now; this would solve that. At the same time, either the crims are too busy with the kids to do what they do, the kids would shoot them, or they'd get locked up for violating the "actually looking after the children" provision.
Shit. I'll stop joking around now, this is actually starting to sound like a good idea...
There's no reason to think it was not hacked. There's, likewise, just as much reason not to change the password. Standard practice in the security community is to assume that everything has been compromised and act accordingly; this is because a good hack will be all but undetectable.
Of course, it's the latter group, and people like them, who developed the titles the former group bought into. Without the former, the latter wouldn't have jobs.
I've learned, at this point in my life, that the fact that not everyone shares my point of view is a good thing; if everyone saw things my way, they'd all write their own code, instead of paying me to do so.
Ahh, yes, you are correct. 10.5 is still not 10.4, though. 10.6.8 is what my wife runs (not natively, she has a MacBook Pro).
Looks like you need to try a different keyboard driver. Your current one seems to be introducing typos.
You can put 10.6.8 on that, you know. I'm running a G4 PowerBook as a dev server at the moment, but right up until I set that up, it ran 10.6.8 so I could run Coda outside of work; once I fully migrated away from Coda, it was no longer necessary.
You know, you make a good point, It's too bad we don't have unpopulated and unfarmable desert areas that we can dig out and build massive holding tanks in. It's not like we have the technology to create a network of cross-country underground pipelines; and even if we did, it's not like we have the technology to pump anything through them. There's no way we could ever pump oceanic waters into storage in otherwise unused and unusable inland regions.
And doing so, even if it were possible, would have no added benefit. The evaporation of that water wouldn't cool the climate in those areas, that water couldn't be desalinized to provide potable water for drinking and agriculture, and even if it could, it's not like we'd have any use or all that salt, right? We totally couldn't turn inhabitable desert land into habitable land, possibly even farm land, while at the same time maintaining ocean levels. That could never happen.
Sadly, though I was being sarcastic through all of that, the second paragraph is probably fairly accurate. Not for technical reasons, mind you, but because there simply would be no immediate profit involved, so we'd have no government or corporate backing to get it done. And we've proven, time and time again, that without that, there's everything we can't do.
Compare it to digitizer tablets that also function as displays and you're getting a discount *and* a full-on PC.
Ruggedized tablets.... Oh, how I miss my Kalidor 2000. 16Mhz 386 CPU, 4GB of RAM, 40MB hard disk, used to store it in a bucket of water and drop-kick it across the room to dry it off before using it and it just didn't give a fuck. It was stolen and had I caught the guy who stole it, I would have used it to bludgeon him to death, then typed out my police statement on it while waiting for them to arrive.
...at which point you're not longer carrying it around. That was a nice try, though.
That's an i3, probably single core, with likely a 1366x768 display and a battery that probably weighs half as much as the entire Surface tablet. You didn't say, but I'm guessing 2 years ago it shipped with 2GB of RAM. I'll assume you have wifi but not bluetooth, a roughly 2.5" diagonal touch pad, no digitizer, no multi-touch, no ambient light sensor, no accelerometer, no gyroscope, no compass, and one or no camera.
You're comparing that to a dual core i5 at a higher clock speed and a 1080p display, twice the RAM (also at a higher clock speed), all of which means more power draw, but also a more powerful system. When you factor in the bluetooth, 10.6" multi-tough touchpad (e.g. the screen) and digitizer, additional sensors, and the one or two extra cameras, you can't possibly realistically expect the smaller and lighter battery to last as long.
Think about it. For what this device is and all it brings to the table, 4hr is excellent battery life. Do I wish it was better? Yes. But it's still pretty damned good.
For the average consumer, yes. For the average "person who makes stuff", no.
Running full-on x86 desktop apps on a tablet is nothing new, you're right. Microsoft was doing this a decade ago, and they're still the only ones doing it.
Does it need to? I'm trying to discern your point.
If you're trying to say that Bluetooth will go the way of the do-do, like IrDA did, I think you're missing something. You see, IrDA never took off, despite it being an awesome technology (I had a printer, a laptop, and a couple of PDAs that used it and I loved it, but I was in the minority), while Bluetooth has become a widely-used standard. Bluetooth is not going anywhere because, unlike IrDA, people actually use it.
Your first car's AM radio played any AM station that was in range. Car #3's AM/FM could do the same for any AM/FM station in range. Your aftermarket stereo and car #4's stereo could both play any audio cassette on the market and, likely, any AM/FM station in range. Your current car can play and audio CD on the market, accept any line-level (or volume-adjusted headphone-level) audio input, and pair with likely the majority of bluetooth audio sources, while sill offering the ability to play any AM/FM station that happens to be in range. These things are standards and they work across a large number of standardized devices.
Onboard computers are not, in any way, standardized, and many of them are designed to work with whatever the popular device of the day is. Sure, you still get FM radio, maybe AM, probably an AUX jack, if you're lucky you also have a CD player so when you can't find your AUX cable (or your phone is dead) there's nothing good playing on the radio, and you realize that USB port only works with last year's model of *fancy device*, which you didn't (and now can't) buy, you can still listen to something. Built-in bluetooth? The Hyundai Veloster is the only car I've seen that has factory bluetooth that will actually pair with a phone and start playing music without being tricked into doing so (and it remembered my phone and started playing when I went back for the second test drive!). Even that, I wouldn't rely on and the interface was clunky as hell with way too much going on on the screen, making it difficult (and unsafe at any speed) to use, when a simple back, next, and play/pause button would suffice, possibly with a button allowing me to browse my music collection. But no, we can't have standards or simple interfaces in today's vehicles, because there's no money in that!
When you are no more, you have died. When IBM is no more, IBM has died. We're nottalking about the people who work forthe company, we're talking about the business itself; once IBM is gone, IBM is gone, it's not coming back. That's death.
You mean bullets and shrapnel that can kill people just like losing your traditional customer base because you're forced to re-purpose the resources you use to create the products they buy from you can kill your business?
I was going for a funny mod, not a reply :)
So, then, one would be correct to say that Apple did not release a Mac Mini with gigabit ethernet in 2008?
Why should Slashdot have to pull the plug on their servers because some asshole is exploiting their HTTPd?