I just use cruise control. I paid £600 to get it added to my current car when I bought it, because I know that using cruise control to go through speed cameras is a fuck of a lot safer than constantly looking away from the road to check my speed.
Wood. Flint. Compressed crushed rat skulls. Glass.
Just because you can't be arsed to properly research how to make these work in a cost effective manner doesn't mean that it can't be done. Continuing to use lead because it's cheap and easy doesn't mean it's the only option.
Increasing the demand for non-lead shot would lead to increased manufacturering and development of lower cost alternatives to the current premium offerings.
Banning lead shot is a way of achieving this.
Fishing weights were lead shot in the UK until it was banned. They're now non-lead shot and the same price. It can be done.
I hate unions. I'm a member of a professional association.
Completely with you. Professional standards, with professional practices, held to account for delivering professional output.
Start doing that repeatedly and we can start exploring territory the lawyers and doctors have already carved out: mandatory professional body accreditation, as a guarantor of the professional outputs.
Remove the barriers that cause female disadvantage. While you're at it, remove the barriers that prevent men getting equal custody of the children, that cause men to die younger and that cause men to be assaulted more often than women.
None of these requires discrimination. If a woman wants to sacrifice her home and family life to pursue her career then she too can earn more than most men.
I'm not a 'sec guy' but for home routers: - upgrade your router firmware, often - disable services you don't need - use strong passwords - disable remote admin access - read articles like this one and understand where you're vulnerable despite all of the above. Research on the extent and severity of the risks and make an informed decision on whether you should purchase a separate dedicated firewall device (or two), on whether you should use another firmware or device because your existing router is just too risky and whether you should just pay someone else to do all of this for you if you're not able to do it yourself
Telling you "there's this and that vulnerability in your gear" is a valuable service and it's not their fault that you lack the personal skills to benefit from it.
using one of those while driving is no more of a distraction than having your buddies in the car
I disagree. So do academic studies looking at mobile phone use. So do the UK authorities.
the fact of the matter is that ANYTHING that causes your brain to not be working fully on analyzing the road is dangerous. this includes music, people, bugs, kids, games, movies, signs on the side of the road, hunger, thirst, needing to go to the restroom, etc. the fact of the matter is that it is absurrd to ban one of these things while driving without banning the others.
Welcome to an analogue world. The issue isn't whether it toggles a binary switched labelled, "Distraction", the issue is that on a sliding scale from "Buddhist monk using decades of training to focus on driving" to "Steering with your arse so you can feed the kid in the backseat while watching TV", Google Glass is somewhere in-between "Reading a book" and "Watching the cricket match you're driving past" and that makes it fucking dangerous.
the fact of the matter is that it is absurrd to ban one of these things while driving without banning the others.
Again, it's not a binary world. It's absurd to treat all risks as identical.
the problem is that the government realizes they cant ban the rest of them, so they just ban the ones they can.... and this is selective prosecution, which is against the law in the US. and as i pointed out earlier, it COULD be used to make driving easier, with tools that make it safer as well
It COULD but it's far far more likely to cause death and mayhem. Personally I'm fine with people stupid enough to drive while using Google Glass exiting the gene pool but the UK authorities have clearly decided that stupid people need protecting from themselves, and that the level of risk in this specific instance justifies more than gentle encouragement to be sensible.
Then again I am white and clean shaven so I probably am safe.
I'm not so sure. With no actual evidence I have a reliable opinion that it's safe to have an excessively large comical moustache than to be clean shaven.
There is that awkward moment as you go through the 'Saddam' stage, but after that you're golden.
How is a great driver going to avoid someone crashing into him while stationary at an intersection? How is a great driver going to avoid a lorry swerving across three lanes on a motorway with no notice? How's a great driver going to avoid all the accidents that are caused by other people and can't be predicted, or all of the accidents that are.. well, accidents.
Given the incidence of drunk driving has fallen dramatically over the past couple of decades, with a corresponding reduction in the number of deaths, I'd say there's a lot of merit in his point.
So what you do is create a more general law governing activities while driving,
It already exists. It's possible to be charged with 'driving without due care and attention' and 'dangerous driving'.
The additional law on mobile phone use appeared to have three main goals: publicise the stupidity of driving while using your handheld phone, make it possible to issue on-the-spot penalties, and to legally declare mobile phone use a distraction that prevents due care and attention.
Extending the law to include Google Glass is in some ways logical, but will be pretty hard to enforce - but that latter point adds the value.
There's a very big difference between providing a HUD (near the eye, on the windscreen or wherever) that provides driving aids of various forms, and letting the population at large use a general purpose computing device that can obscure their entire vision in one eye while drawing all of their attention when they're controlling a large heavy fast moving vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
After nearly 20 years of employment $600k is not double my net worth. It's pretty fucking close though.
You want to spend half your working life making up for a couple of months of silliness?
Give me a $600k fine and I start paying it in blood. I refuse to accept indentured servitude.
'seeking swm' kind of implies she's looking for men not women
I just use cruise control. I paid £600 to get it added to my current car when I bought it, because I know that using cruise control to go through speed cameras is a fuck of a lot safer than constantly looking away from the road to check my speed.
Alcohol impairs depth perception and slows reaction times.
Only over a certain level. Admittedly that level is still below the legal limit in most jurisdictions.
Agreed - along with leadership skills.
Mentoring, leading virtual teams, leading task specific teams, leading company initiatives.. none of those require you to have direct reports.
Wood.
Flint.
Compressed crushed rat skulls.
Glass.
Just because you can't be arsed to properly research how to make these work in a cost effective manner doesn't mean that it can't be done. Continuing to use lead because it's cheap and easy doesn't mean it's the only option.
Increasing the demand for non-lead shot would lead to increased manufacturering and development of lower cost alternatives to the current premium offerings.
Banning lead shot is a way of achieving this.
Fishing weights were lead shot in the UK until it was banned. They're now non-lead shot and the same price. It can be done.
Well, it means I can still read the last bytes held in the memory of the mainframe computer I have hanging on my wall.
http://www.nzeldes.com/HOC/images/CoreMemory03.jpg
Games, regularly. Other software, less frequent.
If women are worse than men then they shouldn't expect equality. If they're equal then they don't need an advantage.
Your argument is self-defeating.
Well, here's a hint: it doesn't involve encouraging bias the other way.
If bias is bad, it's bad.
I hate unions. I'm a member of a professional association.
Completely with you. Professional standards, with professional practices, held to account for delivering professional output.
Start doing that repeatedly and we can start exploring territory the lawyers and doctors have already carved out: mandatory professional body accreditation, as a guarantor of the professional outputs.
Reading material: http://www.stevemcconnell.com/psd.htm
I think the current exchange rate is three white males per Opra.
You only get 2.5 black males, but you can get four Indians and 4.2 Chinese men (unless they're Mongolian, then you're back down to nearer 3).
Racial preference doesn't have a strong correlation to body mass so you're welcome to reintroduce that factor.
No, it's wrong.
Remove the barriers that cause female disadvantage. While you're at it, remove the barriers that prevent men getting equal custody of the children, that cause men to die younger and that cause men to be assaulted more often than women.
None of these requires discrimination. If a woman wants to sacrifice her home and family life to pursue her career then she too can earn more than most men.
I'm not a 'sec guy' but for home routers:
- upgrade your router firmware, often
- disable services you don't need
- use strong passwords
- disable remote admin access
- read articles like this one and understand where you're vulnerable despite all of the above. Research on the extent and severity of the risks and make an informed decision on whether you should purchase a separate dedicated firewall device (or two), on whether you should use another firmware or device because your existing router is just too risky and whether you should just pay someone else to do all of this for you if you're not able to do it yourself
Telling you "there's this and that vulnerability in your gear" is a valuable service and it's not their fault that you lack the personal skills to benefit from it.
using one of those while driving is no more of a distraction than having your buddies in the car
I disagree. So do academic studies looking at mobile phone use. So do the UK authorities.
the fact of the matter is that ANYTHING that causes your brain to not be working fully on analyzing the road is dangerous. this includes music, people, bugs, kids, games, movies, signs on the side of the road, hunger, thirst, needing to go to the restroom, etc. the fact of the matter is that it is absurrd to ban one of these things while driving without banning the others.
Welcome to an analogue world. The issue isn't whether it toggles a binary switched labelled, "Distraction", the issue is that on a sliding scale from "Buddhist monk using decades of training to focus on driving" to "Steering with your arse so you can feed the kid in the backseat while watching TV", Google Glass is somewhere in-between "Reading a book" and "Watching the cricket match you're driving past" and that makes it fucking dangerous.
the fact of the matter is that it is absurrd to ban one of these things while driving without banning the others.
Again, it's not a binary world. It's absurd to treat all risks as identical.
the problem is that the government realizes they cant ban the rest of them, so they just ban the ones they can.... and this is selective prosecution, which is against the law in the US. and as i pointed out earlier, it COULD be used to make driving easier, with tools that make it safer as well
It COULD but it's far far more likely to cause death and mayhem. Personally I'm fine with people stupid enough to drive while using Google Glass exiting the gene pool but the UK authorities have clearly decided that stupid people need protecting from themselves, and that the level of risk in this specific instance justifies more than gentle encouragement to be sensible.
Your reaction merely confirms their assessment.
the only thing that should be illegal is the misuse of it
I think the UK authorities agree with you. It's why they're banning its use while driving, not banning the device itself.
Using it while driving is fucking stupid, dangerous and a good thing to tell people not to do.
Then again I am white and clean shaven so I probably am safe.
I'm not so sure. With no actual evidence I have a reliable opinion that it's safe to have an excessively large comical moustache than to be clean shaven.
There is that awkward moment as you go through the 'Saddam' stage, but after that you're golden.
It does mean that in the event of an accident it's easier to demonstrate whether a driver was breaking the law.
"I wasn't distracted by the mobile phone I was using as I killed her" is no longer a valid defense.
Oddly enough, the law doesn't need to explicitly mention such distractions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7888653.stm
Nonsense.
That's the whole point of accidents.
How is a great driver going to avoid someone crashing into him while stationary at an intersection? How is a great driver going to avoid a lorry swerving across three lanes on a motorway with no notice? How's a great driver going to avoid all the accidents that are caused by other people and can't be predicted, or all of the accidents that are.. well, accidents.
Y'know, shit happens.
Given the incidence of drunk driving has fallen dramatically over the past couple of decades, with a corresponding reduction in the number of deaths, I'd say there's a lot of merit in his point.
So what you do is create a more general law governing activities while driving,
It already exists. It's possible to be charged with 'driving without due care and attention' and 'dangerous driving'.
The additional law on mobile phone use appeared to have three main goals: publicise the stupidity of driving while using your handheld phone, make it possible to issue on-the-spot penalties, and to legally declare mobile phone use a distraction that prevents due care and attention.
Extending the law to include Google Glass is in some ways logical, but will be pretty hard to enforce - but that latter point adds the value.
There's a very big difference between providing a HUD (near the eye, on the windscreen or wherever) that provides driving aids of various forms, and letting the population at large use a general purpose computing device that can obscure their entire vision in one eye while drawing all of their attention when they're controlling a large heavy fast moving vehicle.
That isn't fear, that's raw common fucking sense.
"Local police successfully intercept Heroin shipment"
"Police seize drugs worth $4000"
"Police thwart blackmail attempt"
"Police become fucking heroes of the night"
The police _love_ this sort of shit.