Very simple solution, use special license plates. Some states have "whiskey plates" which are colored distinctly and allow an officer to pull over the car without probably cause in order to check to make sure there's no alcohol in the car.
That's America for you. Rather than require that people learn how to operate a car we prefer to simply lower the speed limit to absurdly slow speeds that no one obeys anyway (thus making things more dangerous), then put in stop lights and crosswalks that have flashing signs when people get killed, spend millions redesigning intersections to make them idiot proof, and then writing off the rest of the death and damage as "accidents".
The fact that you think you're able to do this makes me think that you're actually completely unqualified in every manner. Seriously, distracted drivers that cause problems obviously aren't capable of monitoring their own behavior because if they were then they wouldn't cause the problems in the first place. No driver talking on a cell phone accidentally goes 25 over the speed limit and runs through stop signs AND realizes that they're doing it. If they were capable of realizing that they were doing this then they would slow down and not run stop signs.
It's as simple as this: You cannot, by definition, evaluate your own distracted driving performance.
You're clearly a troll, but let me explain for anyone with similar thoughts. "Wearing a condom and not screwing a ho" is a fancy way of saying "don't have sex with people that you don't know are clean (i.e. STD test) and always practice safe sex". Furthermore, we can generalize this to apply to ALL STDs, curable and otherwise.
First, the elderly driver with delayed reaction times has absolutly nothing to do with the cruise control, I literally have NO idea why you mentioned it.
Second, no one said that mechanical control was infallible, just that it's less fallible than software control. Obviously any solution is going to have problems, but on average mechanical control is safer than software control.
Even if there isn't a walk/don't walk then the pedestrians have to obey the traffic signals like everyone had to in the days before walk/don't walk signs.
Three strikes is a poor solution. Look, all of these activities are going to happen regardless of how many restrictions we put on them. Make it illegal to talk on a phone? People use handsfree sets and speakerphone that cops can't see. Make it illegal to text? People hold the phone in their lap. The list goes on.
These distractions aren't the issue. Even without cell phones people still manage to cause accidents and kill people. The solution isn't to wait until these idiots kill someone and then take their license away for a few years before they're allowed to kill someone else.
The solution is to completely change the entire way things are done in this country with respect to licensing. Have you seen the driver's test for most states in the USA? It generally consists of 10 multiple choice questions that you can answer without having any knowledge of how to drive safely and a practical test where the DMV employee rides along with you over a route of less than half a mile. Driver's education classes are not mandatory and there are no driving schools that teach REAL driving that are run by the government.
The solution to all this is to REQUIRE everyone who wants a license to take an extremely in-depth class related to driving. Both book work and practical work. These classes need to cover things like recovering from slides, how to drive on ice (if you live in a state in which it snows), how to avoid an accident, how to drive in extreme conditions. I don't mean that you should be able to execute a flawless drift around a track, but you need to be able to quickly bring the car to a dead stop in the rain if a kid runs out in front of you.
Just the other day I was talking with someone who said that he was angry his car didn't have anti-lock brakes because it was snowing. I asked him why on earth he wanted anti-lock brakes in the snow. I told him that it's much better to simply use "threshold braking" (where you brake as hard as possible without locking the brakes). (BTW you aren't supposed to pump the brakes because you can't possibly do it more than 3 times a second and it provides much less braking force than threshold braking). ABS generally works but even if you have it you still just brake as hard as you can without locking the brakes up. He got all pompous and told me that "well, you generally aren't thinking that well in an emergency situation so you just floor the brakes". I informed him that he was a fucking idiot and shouldn't be driving if he didn't know how to handle emergency situations.
This is a common attitude among the US population. Everyone thinks it's their god-given right to throw a 2 ton block of steel and aluminum all over the place at speeds often in excess of 50 miles an hour with no more training than "here's the gas, there's the brake". Without REQUIRING proper training to operate a car we can't possibly hope to stop the huge number of deaths caused by so-called "accidents". "accident" is usually a term for "ignorant driver(s) caused death and property damage but no one is being charged with anything". Even in situations without ANY distractions (no cell phone, no radio) the amount of damage and death caused is still way higher than it should be. There will always be true accidents where no action could have prevented a situation, but we need to try to eliminate these bullshit "accidents" where it's really just idiots not being able to operate a vehicle properly.
I disabled the fucking "ding ding ding" that reminded me my seatbelt wasn't fastened. I always wear my seatbelt but the fucking thing would come on the second I start the engine. I always start the engine first THEN put on my seatbelt THEN put the fucker into gear. Thank god it's a '98, the fix turned out to be simply undoing the connector between the floor and the seat. I suspect it's more of a pain in the ass to do on newer cars.
On the other hand, Ubisoft's servers crashed the first day the game was released. This meant that the game was 0% playable whereas the pirated versions were roughly 5%-30% playable, in any case, a marked improvement over the legal option.
Parent is moderated funny but it should really be modded insightful. Gamers have proven again and again that they don't have the will to boycott a game due to DRM/pricing scheme/etc. If EA or ubisoft tried their piss-poor DRM scheme with business-type software then they'd be out of business in a second.
ProE (a popular design software) costs somewhere around $20k per license. Generally companies that use it will buy some number of licenses that are all managed by a licensing server. When these licensing servers go down 80% of work stops. Thus, they generally tend to be pretty fucking reliable. If the software now required a constant internet connection and a dependency on servers operated by the manufacturer, then the manufacturer would quickly find themselves without customers and out of business. There are two reasons for this: 1) Companies actually have the stones to boycott software companies if they want to. 2) The money lost from paying people who can't do work when the servers go down combined with the deadlines missed would make it financially stupid NOT to drop the software.
The only reason these companies get away with making and operating this new bullshit DRM is because most gamers are too stupid to figure out how not to spend their parents' money on the new shiny game the second it gets released.
H2S is particularly deadly in that it can knock out your sense of smell in a single whiff. After that, you're completely fucked if you don't vacate immediately.
"that way if it tastes like crap and you don't know if you ought to start shouting, your mate will make that decision for you."
If you don't know whether or not it's crap then how on earth can you say that drinking a $1000+ wine is something that you should pay for EVER? It's not a memorable experience if you have to be TOLD that it's a memorable experience. If you can't recognize the difference between a $20 and $1000 wine by yourself then there isn't any damn point in buying the $1000 bottle.
Because Google ain't crunching data sets on fucking mobile phones. They're optimizing their servers and the applications that run on those servers because Google is so damn big that a fraction of a percent increase in efficiency translates into huge amounts of money saved through less wasted CPU time. Mobile phones aren't a part of google.
If you phone runs a little less efficient then no one gives a damn. They want to make their phones easy to program for, which generally conflicts with efficiency.
Are you serious? This is GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK we're talking about. Whether you fill it out in person or online there's ALWAYS a trail. Of course the government is keeping track of who is licensing their cars, pets, and so forth. That's the ENTIRE POINT OF A BLOODY LICENSE!
I can believe a 90% hit rate. I can predict the future, and so can you, with 90% accuracy. See, if you don't claim to be able to predict EVERYTHING then you can easily "predict" obvious things.
I predict that tomorrow someone will die in the world. I predict that tomorrow at least one person will spend $100 on a TV somewhere in the US. I predict that tomorrow the temperature will be higher than 32 deg F in California.
Tomorrow look up these details and see how many I get right. I CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE!!
This guy claims to be able to predict "only certain things" which really means he's predicting things obvious even if it's not obvious that they're obvious. For example, he claims to be able to predict foreign policy. Did he predict foreign policy, or did he just watch the news and make some predictions based off of what all the political analysts are saying?
From TFA "These [predictions] include whether or not North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong II, would dismantle his nation's nuclear arsenal" How stupid do you have to be to believe that he "predicted" this? Everyone and their fucking aunt is watching the news, everyone is reporting on it, the government is doing fucking insane amounts of research and analysis as to what foreign leaders' views are regarding nuclear weapons. It's not that hard to make a guess as to what's going to happen when you have that much information available to you.
Of course denials are up from Bush times. What this DOESN'T include is the "denials out of total number of requests". Obama encouraged people to throw fuckloads of FOIA requests at the government. Then Obama issued a directive to default allow requests rather than default deny. It makes sense that the percentage of requests denied will drop, while total number of requests denied will increase.
The conclusion presented in the article is like saying "modern medicine doesn't help people". I mean, look at how many people died 5000 years ago. Now look at how many die today. They fail to take into account the total population.
We aren't fucking talking about some bullshit like censoring the internet or requiring GPS monitoring bracelets on children. We're talking about saving a life. The two are completely different and if you can't see that then you have no place to argue.
Being an organ donor saves lives. And donating an organ isn't like donating to some relief fund where you're not entirely sure EXACTLY how much good your $20 actually did. You donate a heart and you've saved a life, full stop. You donate a liver, a kidney, etc, you've saved a life (or prolonged one substantially).
Once you're dead it's not like you're harming your body by allowing someone else to cut into it and use your organs to save lives.
They don't. The anon. coward is talking nonsense. Doctors have NO incentive to harvest your organs.
In fact, they'd have an incentive to keep you alive. After all, the more drugs they give you, the more time you spend in the hospital, the more care you receive, the more you (or insurance) pay. It's pretty hard to bill a dead guy. Even if they don't make any more money, their percentages (% of people saved vs. died) would suffer if they let a patient slip, which would make them look like a poor doctor.
Saving YOUR life takes precedence. Why is it OK to receive an organ but not to give one? That organ must have been removed in order to be given and then received. If it's a sin to give an organ then it would follow that receiving an organ is benefiting from a sin and thus is a sin in and of itself.
What's the problem with not allowing them to talk on cell phones? If you're a professional driver ANYWHERE you're generally not allowed to talk on a cell phone because it's fucking reckless.
"No because the courts (specifically the Supreme Court) are part of the U.S. government, and threfore biased in favor of more U.S. Government power, not less"
Oh jesus fucking christ. This is getting absurd. THE PEOPLE elect the president who appoints the judges. THE PEOPLE are not biased in favor of more US government power and therefore this bias doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to have your cell phone visible on the OUTside of the vehicle? What? Won't strapping the cell to the roof make it a little hard to use it?
Very simple solution, use special license plates. Some states have "whiskey plates" which are colored distinctly and allow an officer to pull over the car without probably cause in order to check to make sure there's no alcohol in the car.
That's America for you. Rather than require that people learn how to operate a car we prefer to simply lower the speed limit to absurdly slow speeds that no one obeys anyway (thus making things more dangerous), then put in stop lights and crosswalks that have flashing signs when people get killed, spend millions redesigning intersections to make them idiot proof, and then writing off the rest of the death and damage as "accidents".
I like this country less and less every day.
Perhaps he was dictating.
The fact that you think you're able to do this makes me think that you're actually completely unqualified in every manner. Seriously, distracted drivers that cause problems obviously aren't capable of monitoring their own behavior because if they were then they wouldn't cause the problems in the first place. No driver talking on a cell phone accidentally goes 25 over the speed limit and runs through stop signs AND realizes that they're doing it. If they were capable of realizing that they were doing this then they would slow down and not run stop signs.
It's as simple as this: You cannot, by definition, evaluate your own distracted driving performance.
You're clearly a troll, but let me explain for anyone with similar thoughts. "Wearing a condom and not screwing a ho" is a fancy way of saying "don't have sex with people that you don't know are clean (i.e. STD test) and always practice safe sex". Furthermore, we can generalize this to apply to ALL STDs, curable and otherwise.
First, the elderly driver with delayed reaction times has absolutly nothing to do with the cruise control, I literally have NO idea why you mentioned it.
Second, no one said that mechanical control was infallible, just that it's less fallible than software control. Obviously any solution is going to have problems, but on average mechanical control is safer than software control.
Even if there isn't a walk/don't walk then the pedestrians have to obey the traffic signals like everyone had to in the days before walk/don't walk signs.
Three strikes is a poor solution. Look, all of these activities are going to happen regardless of how many restrictions we put on them. Make it illegal to talk on a phone? People use handsfree sets and speakerphone that cops can't see. Make it illegal to text? People hold the phone in their lap. The list goes on.
These distractions aren't the issue. Even without cell phones people still manage to cause accidents and kill people. The solution isn't to wait until these idiots kill someone and then take their license away for a few years before they're allowed to kill someone else.
The solution is to completely change the entire way things are done in this country with respect to licensing. Have you seen the driver's test for most states in the USA? It generally consists of 10 multiple choice questions that you can answer without having any knowledge of how to drive safely and a practical test where the DMV employee rides along with you over a route of less than half a mile. Driver's education classes are not mandatory and there are no driving schools that teach REAL driving that are run by the government.
The solution to all this is to REQUIRE everyone who wants a license to take an extremely in-depth class related to driving. Both book work and practical work. These classes need to cover things like recovering from slides, how to drive on ice (if you live in a state in which it snows), how to avoid an accident, how to drive in extreme conditions. I don't mean that you should be able to execute a flawless drift around a track, but you need to be able to quickly bring the car to a dead stop in the rain if a kid runs out in front of you.
Just the other day I was talking with someone who said that he was angry his car didn't have anti-lock brakes because it was snowing. I asked him why on earth he wanted anti-lock brakes in the snow. I told him that it's much better to simply use "threshold braking" (where you brake as hard as possible without locking the brakes). (BTW you aren't supposed to pump the brakes because you can't possibly do it more than 3 times a second and it provides much less braking force than threshold braking). ABS generally works but even if you have it you still just brake as hard as you can without locking the brakes up. He got all pompous and told me that "well, you generally aren't thinking that well in an emergency situation so you just floor the brakes". I informed him that he was a fucking idiot and shouldn't be driving if he didn't know how to handle emergency situations.
This is a common attitude among the US population. Everyone thinks it's their god-given right to throw a 2 ton block of steel and aluminum all over the place at speeds often in excess of 50 miles an hour with no more training than "here's the gas, there's the brake". Without REQUIRING proper training to operate a car we can't possibly hope to stop the huge number of deaths caused by so-called "accidents". "accident" is usually a term for "ignorant driver(s) caused death and property damage but no one is being charged with anything". Even in situations without ANY distractions (no cell phone, no radio) the amount of damage and death caused is still way higher than it should be. There will always be true accidents where no action could have prevented a situation, but we need to try to eliminate these bullshit "accidents" where it's really just idiots not being able to operate a vehicle properly.
I disabled the fucking "ding ding ding" that reminded me my seatbelt wasn't fastened. I always wear my seatbelt but the fucking thing would come on the second I start the engine. I always start the engine first THEN put on my seatbelt THEN put the fucker into gear. Thank god it's a '98, the fix turned out to be simply undoing the connector between the floor and the seat. I suspect it's more of a pain in the ass to do on newer cars.
On the other hand, Ubisoft's servers crashed the first day the game was released. This meant that the game was 0% playable whereas the pirated versions were roughly 5%-30% playable, in any case, a marked improvement over the legal option.
Parent is moderated funny but it should really be modded insightful. Gamers have proven again and again that they don't have the will to boycott a game due to DRM/pricing scheme/etc. If EA or ubisoft tried their piss-poor DRM scheme with business-type software then they'd be out of business in a second.
ProE (a popular design software) costs somewhere around $20k per license. Generally companies that use it will buy some number of licenses that are all managed by a licensing server. When these licensing servers go down 80% of work stops. Thus, they generally tend to be pretty fucking reliable. If the software now required a constant internet connection and a dependency on servers operated by the manufacturer, then the manufacturer would quickly find themselves without customers and out of business.
There are two reasons for this:
1) Companies actually have the stones to boycott software companies if they want to.
2) The money lost from paying people who can't do work when the servers go down combined with the deadlines missed would make it financially stupid NOT to drop the software.
The only reason these companies get away with making and operating this new bullshit DRM is because most gamers are too stupid to figure out how not to spend their parents' money on the new shiny game the second it gets released.
H2S is particularly deadly in that it can knock out your sense of smell in a single whiff. After that, you're completely fucked if you don't vacate immediately.
"that way if it tastes like crap and you don't know if you ought to start shouting, your mate will make that decision for you."
If you don't know whether or not it's crap then how on earth can you say that drinking a $1000+ wine is something that you should pay for EVER? It's not a memorable experience if you have to be TOLD that it's a memorable experience. If you can't recognize the difference between a $20 and $1000 wine by yourself then there isn't any damn point in buying the $1000 bottle.
Because Google ain't crunching data sets on fucking mobile phones. They're optimizing their servers and the applications that run on those servers because Google is so damn big that a fraction of a percent increase in efficiency translates into huge amounts of money saved through less wasted CPU time. Mobile phones aren't a part of google.
If you phone runs a little less efficient then no one gives a damn. They want to make their phones easy to program for, which generally conflicts with efficiency.
Are you serious? This is GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK we're talking about. Whether you fill it out in person or online there's ALWAYS a trail. Of course the government is keeping track of who is licensing their cars, pets, and so forth. That's the ENTIRE POINT OF A BLOODY LICENSE!
I can believe a 90% hit rate. I can predict the future, and so can you, with 90% accuracy. See, if you don't claim to be able to predict EVERYTHING then you can easily "predict" obvious things.
I predict that tomorrow someone will die in the world.
I predict that tomorrow at least one person will spend $100 on a TV somewhere in the US.
I predict that tomorrow the temperature will be higher than 32 deg F in California.
Tomorrow look up these details and see how many I get right. I CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE!!
This guy claims to be able to predict "only certain things" which really means he's predicting things obvious even if it's not obvious that they're obvious. For example, he claims to be able to predict foreign policy. Did he predict foreign policy, or did he just watch the news and make some predictions based off of what all the political analysts are saying?
From TFA "These [predictions] include whether or not North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong II, would dismantle his nation's nuclear arsenal" How stupid do you have to be to believe that he "predicted" this? Everyone and their fucking aunt is watching the news, everyone is reporting on it, the government is doing fucking insane amounts of research and analysis as to what foreign leaders' views are regarding nuclear weapons. It's not that hard to make a guess as to what's going to happen when you have that much information available to you.
Of course denials are up from Bush times. What this DOESN'T include is the "denials out of total number of requests". Obama encouraged people to throw fuckloads of FOIA requests at the government. Then Obama issued a directive to default allow requests rather than default deny. It makes sense that the percentage of requests denied will drop, while total number of requests denied will increase.
The conclusion presented in the article is like saying "modern medicine doesn't help people". I mean, look at how many people died 5000 years ago. Now look at how many die today. They fail to take into account the total population.
Hire a lawyer and write a will. Once you're dead that should suffice to override them. Even if all you put in it is "donate my fucking organs".
We aren't fucking talking about some bullshit like censoring the internet or requiring GPS monitoring bracelets on children. We're talking about saving a life. The two are completely different and if you can't see that then you have no place to argue.
Being an organ donor saves lives. And donating an organ isn't like donating to some relief fund where you're not entirely sure EXACTLY how much good your $20 actually did. You donate a heart and you've saved a life, full stop. You donate a liver, a kidney, etc, you've saved a life (or prolonged one substantially).
Once you're dead it's not like you're harming your body by allowing someone else to cut into it and use your organs to save lives.
They don't. The anon. coward is talking nonsense. Doctors have NO incentive to harvest your organs.
In fact, they'd have an incentive to keep you alive. After all, the more drugs they give you, the more time you spend in the hospital, the more care you receive, the more you (or insurance) pay. It's pretty hard to bill a dead guy. Even if they don't make any more money, their percentages (% of people saved vs. died) would suffer if they let a patient slip, which would make them look like a poor doctor.
Saving YOUR life takes precedence. Why is it OK to receive an organ but not to give one? That organ must have been removed in order to be given and then received. If it's a sin to give an organ then it would follow that receiving an organ is benefiting from a sin and thus is a sin in and of itself.
What's the problem with not allowing them to talk on cell phones? If you're a professional driver ANYWHERE you're generally not allowed to talk on a cell phone because it's fucking reckless.
"No because the courts (specifically the Supreme Court) are part of the U.S. government, and threfore biased in favor of more U.S. Government power, not less"
Oh jesus fucking christ. This is getting absurd. THE PEOPLE elect the president who appoints the judges. THE PEOPLE are not biased in favor of more US government power and therefore this bias doesn't exist.