Yeah, when people don't act the way I want them to act I feel justified in stealing from them too. You know another way to "bypass their control"? Ignore their fucking games. Apparently they still control you enough to make you desire their products so badly.
Except that this doesn't just apply to games. It applies to movies, ebooks, software, textbooks, courseware. Increasingly large segments of human culture are being withheld unless you wish to sign a contract with a corporation. Your method of 'ignore their games' is not a realistic option for anyone who wishes to participate in society. As more and more parts of our culture need to be 'ignored', how soon does 'ignore the product' turn into 'exile yourself from modern cultural interaction'?
Unless the device locks out all non-driving relevant functionality while driving, its use should be prohibited just like any other mobile internet device.
That's interesting, because my mobile internet device displays Waze, which provides me route guidance and warnings about upcoming hazardous conditions.
Of course, there is no enforcement on this, because it would require some significant DRM-like implementations on my device, something which I would NOT be happy about.
She was driving in an unsafe manner and was pulled over. Seems that's enough to ensure that people don't drive in an unsafe manner, not freaking out about a new technology.
The same logic can be applied to making it so that every vehicle is equipped with a governor on the engine to keep speeds below 65mph.
There are countless things which drivers could do on the road, and the only thing that keeps them from doing them is educating them on safe driving practices. The fear of getting pulled over for texting only made drivers text from their hips (ironically increasing the number of texting related accidents when texting bans were enacted).
My phone only displays information to improve situational awareness. Satnav/GPS or traffic alerts. I also don't try to pour milk and eat cereal in my car, or shave, or put on makeup.
But that's because I received education on how to be a safe driver. Not because everything unsafe was banned.
I commute on the DC beltway. My GPS warns me about accidents and traffic conditions and routes me around it. I also don't have to drive distracted when it routes me through an area I'm not familiar with. No fumbling with maps, doing that 'lean forward so I can read the side street names to make sure that this is the one I w... Oh crap that was the turn I needed' thing.
I'd wager $20 that SATNAV systems have a positve impact on safe driving due to their ability to reduce operator workload and distractions.
Kind of like how I have a mount for my phone on my dashboard. I connect my phone, turn on the SATNAV app, and its no different than what you just described.
I would prefer it if you didn't get your knowledge and ability through "unscheduled, unguided real world experience" on the streets where I walk, cycle, or drive.
Umm... that's kind of how learner's permits work. You demonstrate that you know the basic rules of the road, you are given a permit with a few restrictions, and you go out and practice on real roads. If you are really concerned about that, you are going to have to overhaul the entire US approach to learning how to drive.
The point is that someone who has not spent hours getting the experience driving around in a safe simulated environment with Google glass on their head is not safe to do that on the public roads.
You do realize that such training isn't even required to get a license to drive the vehicle in the first place? Do you know what I had to do to get a permit? I went to the DMV, paid them $10, answered 16 questions, and walked out the door. I'm over 18, so I could have hopped right in a vehicle and been on the highway in less than 15 minutes.
Google glass doesn't require any specialized training to get accustomed to that a driver wouldn't learn how to do with any other bit of equipment.
You know a good way to ensure that people get used to using HUDs? Give them training on how to be good drivers. I just finished the Motorcycle Safety Program rider's skills course and something like that, which had nothing to do with checking gauges/maps/etc focused on the behaviors which lead to good driving, and not on the details of focusing on every piece of equipment you would use.
ie: People who learn how to be safe drivers, learn how to practice with new equipment in a safe manner.
further ie: Focus on training safe drivers, and you won't have to worry as much about them using equipment in an unsafe manner. Then all the fear about 'new technology x' won't be necessary.
How much training to drivers receive regarding their Heads Down Displays? You know, those things which display information necessary to safely operate the vehicle but are located in a position which requires the driver to take their eyes off the road to check the information? A HUD which displays Speed, Direction, and navigation information should be LESS distracting and require less training/expertise than the current HDDs which are required equipment on all vehicles.
No, drivers today aren't really given any training on how to use their HDDs, so why would a HUD require fighter-pilot levels of training to use?
I actually believe that GPS is something that greatly improves a drivers ability to focus on the road and operate their vehicle safely. When the driver isn't worried about constantly checking each exit sign, or making sudden or quick lane changes, safety is improved for everyone. I know that when I have my satnav operating, the whole driving experience seems improved. My anxiety is reduced when driving in unfamiliar cities, I focus on the road, I have extra warning time to initiate lane changes, and with fewer missed exits I spend less time on the road reducing exposure to accident opportunties.
Satnav systems should be considered a safe driving device. (thankfully most state laws agree with me and have exceptions for GPS devices)
I'm the type of person to get outraged at the slightest infringement on rights, but I do have to say that this is not one of them with a few caveats.
1. When you are driving a vehicle, you have a responsibility to drive that vehicle. Anything that isn't assisting you in improving your ability to drive that vehicle is something which you should not be doing while driving a vehicle. I'd include adjusting the temperature as something which is important to do while driving because it's important that the driver not be distracted or fatigued by environmental conditions. Texting? Not something that is going to improve your driving.
2. We need uniform enforcement. That means that the police need to be restricted in their use of laptops, cellphones, and texting while driving. If there is training that can be given to police officers that makes them 'safe drivers' while using devices, that same training should be offered to non-police drivers as well.
I have a few relatives who told stories about fleeing the genocides which surrounded those wars.
I'm sure that Europeans have 'been through all of it, and come out alright.' That's because they are alive to consider how they came out alright. I'd ask my grandmother how her mother felt about the situation, but she is in some unmarked grave in Poland.
They aren't so much afraid of people intentionally bringing in cameras as they are worried about people bringing in recording devices which are attached to easily hacked sensor platforms. Yes, I could easily bring in a hidden camera to work, but I won't and I don't because I agreed not to. However, if I were allowed to bring my phone, and someone hacked it to constantly record audio/video and transmit it back out, that might be a bit of a problem that doesn't even require a malicious employee.
They also just want to avoid dumbass mistakes and make certain behaviors more obvious. ie: A simple 'No cell phones rule' is a hell of a lot easier to enforce than a 'Cell phones are ok, but make sure they are on airplane mode or turned off, and don't use the USB ports to charge them, and make sure they aren't hacked' rule.
Not an option if you want to receive emails or SMS texts, or control the music on your phone. Which is kind of the point of his post. Because god knows mowing the grass is a mentally challenging task...
I got a bluetooth headset specifically for working in the yard. A corded headset was constantly being yanked off my head as it got caught on a bramble or branch. I would often be outside for several hours, and I DID want the SMS/phone function on for at least one particular benefit. My wife letting me know that dinner would be ready in 15 minutes. It was also useful for receiving messages that my parents were popping by in 30 minutes, or all sorts of other things that are kind of nice to know.
But yes, your solution of 'Just don't want to do that' is a wonderful option.
Primarily frugivore. Which means secondary was? Also, what did the progenitor of that primate eat? The fruit eater might have been decended from a preditor that saw it's preferred prey animal die off and compensated by incorporating more fruit into its diet.
You may not need to get to surface escape velocity, but if you were to do that, wouldn't your delta-V expenditure be higher in the long run?
I'm not sure that's a 'problem'. I could probably lift a 100kg rock and carry 10m. But if I could move 25kg sections one at a time, why wouldn't I want to do it that way? Sure, I might save 2 minutes worth of work, but would it be worth the lower back injury?
Worrying that about the efficiency of accelerating an object over time, vs just heaving it to escape velocity just seems like a lot of worry over no practical benefit.
But the bike that is doing 30mph is clearly driving at an unsafe speed and is less able to avoid unexpected road hazards compared to the slower reasonable bike. This includes cars backing out of drive ways, stop lights turning red (the idiots probably just run the yellow), dogs running out, doors opening on parked cars, pot holes seen ahead, etc.
That would be something to infer from the data, not declare beforehand.
The post is about commuting, where the goal is to cover the distance from your home to your job and back. The amount of time that takes is irrelevant.
I'm going to have to disagree, I think it is a very valid metric to consider. A commute of 5 miles in rural VA is very different than a commute of 5 miles in Washington, DC or NYC. If you only consider distance, it would treat a quick commute in a rural setting the same as a slow commute in a dense urban setting.
All of these injury and fatality statistics have to be divided by miles driven/ridden.
What about accidents per on-road hour?
That seems to be the most appropriate means to measure accident exposure. The reason I suggest the per hour rate, is because of how much variation there is in cyclist speed. In general, all motor vehicles travel at the similar speeds on similar roads. However, consider a cyclist doing 10MPH for 10 miles, and one doing 30MPH for 10 miles. You can expect that the 10MPH cyclist will experience many more 'high risk' encounters due to their lower speed and increased time on the road. (More vehicles overtaking them, more oncoming vehicles, greater speed gaps between the cyclist and a car, etc)
The road near my house is like Mecca for cyclists. Creek Rd (Old Rte 100) along the Brandywine Creek in Chester County, PA. It is beautiful, but it has got to be the most dangerous road I could imagine for cyclists.
1. It is CURVY and at the speed limit, you barely have enough time to see what is around the bend in time to stop if there is something stopped (or slow, like a cyclist) 2. There is NO shoulder to speak of. It's an old PA road, which means it has been worn down over the centuries until the right hand shoulder is basically a 3'-5' tall earthen wall. When it isn't a steep bank, it's old growth oaks and sycamores. The left shoulder is a metal guard rail abutting the creek. There is no 'bailout' room. 3. It is NARROW. With no shoulder, there is just enough room for two way traffic. You will often encounter vehicles that cut the curves. Even a slight incursion means risking a head on collision. 4. It is a tourist road. There are LOTS of people who don't know the road, and their attention is focused on the scenery. 5. There is no safe passing zone. The road is 35MPH, and it is very tempting as a car to pass someone doing 15MPH because it is hard being stuck behind a cyclist for several miles. Unfortunately, due to the curves, people don't give enough room for the cyclist AND the eventual oncoming traffic that is rounding the corner up ahead. This puts the driver in a 'MOVE RIGHT' panic. The cyclist to the right becomes an afterthought.
Due to the conservation efforts, and the Brandywine Creek, I don't know if there will ever be a wide enough shoulder for a cycling lane, but damned if that road doesn't seem like a cycling death trap. A beautiful ride, but far more dangerous than the cyclists seem to grasp.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it makes more sense to use the term copyright infringement.
If I have a particularly good memory, and I memorize a book at a library, and then retell that book word for word to my child, is that stealing?
Yeah, when people don't act the way I want them to act I feel justified in stealing from them too. You know another way to "bypass their control"? Ignore their fucking games. Apparently they still control you enough to make you desire their products so badly.
Except that this doesn't just apply to games. It applies to movies, ebooks, software, textbooks, courseware. Increasingly large segments of human culture are being withheld unless you wish to sign a contract with a corporation. Your method of 'ignore their games' is not a realistic option for anyone who wishes to participate in society. As more and more parts of our culture need to be 'ignored', how soon does 'ignore the product' turn into 'exile yourself from modern cultural interaction'?
Unless the device locks out all non-driving relevant functionality while driving, its use should be prohibited just like any other mobile internet device.
That's interesting, because my mobile internet device displays Waze, which provides me route guidance and warnings about upcoming hazardous conditions.
Of course, there is no enforcement on this, because it would require some significant DRM-like implementations on my device, something which I would NOT be happy about.
Imagine if Motorcycles were invented today. People would flip their lids.
So the Googleglass thing is kind of irrelevant.
She was driving in an unsafe manner and was pulled over. Seems that's enough to ensure that people don't drive in an unsafe manner, not freaking out about a new technology.
The same logic can be applied to making it so that every vehicle is equipped with a governor on the engine to keep speeds below 65mph.
There are countless things which drivers could do on the road, and the only thing that keeps them from doing them is educating them on safe driving practices. The fear of getting pulled over for texting only made drivers text from their hips (ironically increasing the number of texting related accidents when texting bans were enacted).
My phone only displays information to improve situational awareness. Satnav/GPS or traffic alerts. I also don't try to pour milk and eat cereal in my car, or shave, or put on makeup.
But that's because I received education on how to be a safe driver. Not because everything unsafe was banned.
I commute on the DC beltway. My GPS warns me about accidents and traffic conditions and routes me around it. I also don't have to drive distracted when it routes me through an area I'm not familiar with. No fumbling with maps, doing that 'lean forward so I can read the side street names to make sure that this is the one I w... Oh crap that was the turn I needed' thing.
I'd wager $20 that SATNAV systems have a positve impact on safe driving due to their ability to reduce operator workload and distractions.
Kind of like how I have a mount for my phone on my dashboard. I connect my phone, turn on the SATNAV app, and its no different than what you just described.
I would prefer it if you didn't get your knowledge and ability through "unscheduled, unguided real world experience" on the streets where I walk, cycle, or drive.
Umm... that's kind of how learner's permits work. You demonstrate that you know the basic rules of the road, you are given a permit with a few restrictions, and you go out and practice on real roads. If you are really concerned about that, you are going to have to overhaul the entire US approach to learning how to drive.
The point is that someone who has not spent hours getting the experience driving around in a safe simulated environment with Google glass on their head is not safe to do that on the public roads.
You do realize that such training isn't even required to get a license to drive the vehicle in the first place? Do you know what I had to do to get a permit? I went to the DMV, paid them $10, answered 16 questions, and walked out the door. I'm over 18, so I could have hopped right in a vehicle and been on the highway in less than 15 minutes.
Google glass doesn't require any specialized training to get accustomed to that a driver wouldn't learn how to do with any other bit of equipment.
You know a good way to ensure that people get used to using HUDs? Give them training on how to be good drivers. I just finished the Motorcycle Safety Program rider's skills course and something like that, which had nothing to do with checking gauges/maps/etc focused on the behaviors which lead to good driving, and not on the details of focusing on every piece of equipment you would use.
ie: People who learn how to be safe drivers, learn how to practice with new equipment in a safe manner.
further ie: Focus on training safe drivers, and you won't have to worry as much about them using equipment in an unsafe manner. Then all the fear about 'new technology x' won't be necessary.
How much training to drivers receive regarding their Heads Down Displays? You know, those things which display information necessary to safely operate the vehicle but are located in a position which requires the driver to take their eyes off the road to check the information? A HUD which displays Speed, Direction, and navigation information should be LESS distracting and require less training/expertise than the current HDDs which are required equipment on all vehicles.
No, drivers today aren't really given any training on how to use their HDDs, so why would a HUD require fighter-pilot levels of training to use?
I actually believe that GPS is something that greatly improves a drivers ability to focus on the road and operate their vehicle safely. When the driver isn't worried about constantly checking each exit sign, or making sudden or quick lane changes, safety is improved for everyone. I know that when I have my satnav operating, the whole driving experience seems improved. My anxiety is reduced when driving in unfamiliar cities, I focus on the road, I have extra warning time to initiate lane changes, and with fewer missed exits I spend less time on the road reducing exposure to accident opportunties.
Satnav systems should be considered a safe driving device. (thankfully most state laws agree with me and have exceptions for GPS devices)
I'm the type of person to get outraged at the slightest infringement on rights, but I do have to say that this is not one of them with a few caveats.
1. When you are driving a vehicle, you have a responsibility to drive that vehicle. Anything that isn't assisting you in improving your ability to drive that vehicle is something which you should not be doing while driving a vehicle. I'd include adjusting the temperature as something which is important to do while driving because it's important that the driver not be distracted or fatigued by environmental conditions. Texting? Not something that is going to improve your driving.
2. We need uniform enforcement. That means that the police need to be restricted in their use of laptops, cellphones, and texting while driving. If there is training that can be given to police officers that makes them 'safe drivers' while using devices, that same training should be offered to non-police drivers as well.
I have a few relatives who told stories about fleeing the genocides which surrounded those wars.
I'm sure that Europeans have 'been through all of it, and come out alright.' That's because they are alive to consider how they came out alright. I'd ask my grandmother how her mother felt about the situation, but she is in some unmarked grave in Poland.
They aren't so much afraid of people intentionally bringing in cameras as they are worried about people bringing in recording devices which are attached to easily hacked sensor platforms. Yes, I could easily bring in a hidden camera to work, but I won't and I don't because I agreed not to. However, if I were allowed to bring my phone, and someone hacked it to constantly record audio/video and transmit it back out, that might be a bit of a problem that doesn't even require a malicious employee.
They also just want to avoid dumbass mistakes and make certain behaviors more obvious. ie: A simple 'No cell phones rule' is a hell of a lot easier to enforce than a 'Cell phones are ok, but make sure they are on airplane mode or turned off, and don't use the USB ports to charge them, and make sure they aren't hacked' rule.
Owning one of them gave to the owner the feeling of how precious and unique is the time of our life
Nope, I got that feeling from a terminal illness, AND it didn't even require an expensive watch!
Not an option if you want to receive emails or SMS texts, or control the music on your phone. Which is kind of the point of his post. Because god knows mowing the grass is a mentally challenging task...
I got a bluetooth headset specifically for working in the yard. A corded headset was constantly being yanked off my head as it got caught on a bramble or branch. I would often be outside for several hours, and I DID want the SMS/phone function on for at least one particular benefit. My wife letting me know that dinner would be ready in 15 minutes. It was also useful for receiving messages that my parents were popping by in 30 minutes, or all sorts of other things that are kind of nice to know.
But yes, your solution of 'Just don't want to do that' is a wonderful option.
Primarily frugivore. Which means secondary was?
Also, what did the progenitor of that primate eat? The fruit eater might have been decended from a preditor that saw it's preferred prey animal die off and compensated by incorporating more fruit into its diet.
You may not need to get to surface escape velocity, but if you were to do that, wouldn't your delta-V expenditure be higher in the long run?
I'm not sure that's a 'problem'. I could probably lift a 100kg rock and carry 10m. But if I could move 25kg sections one at a time, why wouldn't I want to do it that way? Sure, I might save 2 minutes worth of work, but would it be worth the lower back injury?
Worrying that about the efficiency of accelerating an object over time, vs just heaving it to escape velocity just seems like a lot of worry over no practical benefit.
But the bike that is doing 30mph is clearly driving at an unsafe speed and is less able to avoid unexpected road hazards compared to the slower reasonable bike. This includes cars backing out of drive ways, stop lights turning red (the idiots probably just run the yellow), dogs running out, doors opening on parked cars, pot holes seen ahead, etc.
That would be something to infer from the data, not declare beforehand.
You'll need to provide us with your source code.
I'll provide you my source code, but just remember, you asked for it. So no complaining to the police when it is delivered.
The post is about commuting, where the goal is to cover the distance from your home to your job and back. The amount of time that takes is irrelevant.
I'm going to have to disagree, I think it is a very valid metric to consider.
A commute of 5 miles in rural VA is very different than a commute of 5 miles in Washington, DC or NYC. If you only consider distance, it would treat a quick commute in a rural setting the same as a slow commute in a dense urban setting.
All of these injury and fatality statistics have to be divided by miles driven/ridden.
What about accidents per on-road hour?
That seems to be the most appropriate means to measure accident exposure. The reason I suggest the per hour rate, is because of how much variation there is in cyclist speed. In general, all motor vehicles travel at the similar speeds on similar roads. However, consider a cyclist doing 10MPH for 10 miles, and one doing 30MPH for 10 miles. You can expect that the 10MPH cyclist will experience many more 'high risk' encounters due to their lower speed and increased time on the road. (More vehicles overtaking them, more oncoming vehicles, greater speed gaps between the cyclist and a car, etc)
The road near my house is like Mecca for cyclists. Creek Rd (Old Rte 100) along the Brandywine Creek in Chester County, PA. It is beautiful, but it has got to be the most dangerous road I could imagine for cyclists.
1. It is CURVY and at the speed limit, you barely have enough time to see what is around the bend in time to stop if there is something stopped (or slow, like a cyclist)
2. There is NO shoulder to speak of. It's an old PA road, which means it has been worn down over the centuries until the right hand shoulder is basically a 3'-5' tall earthen wall. When it isn't a steep bank, it's old growth oaks and sycamores. The left shoulder is a metal guard rail abutting the creek. There is no 'bailout' room.
3. It is NARROW. With no shoulder, there is just enough room for two way traffic. You will often encounter vehicles that cut the curves. Even a slight incursion means risking a head on collision.
4. It is a tourist road. There are LOTS of people who don't know the road, and their attention is focused on the scenery.
5. There is no safe passing zone. The road is 35MPH, and it is very tempting as a car to pass someone doing 15MPH because it is hard being stuck behind a cyclist for several miles. Unfortunately, due to the curves, people don't give enough room for the cyclist AND the eventual oncoming traffic that is rounding the corner up ahead. This puts the driver in a 'MOVE RIGHT' panic. The cyclist to the right becomes an afterthought.
Due to the conservation efforts, and the Brandywine Creek, I don't know if there will ever be a wide enough shoulder for a cycling lane, but damned if that road doesn't seem like a cycling death trap. A beautiful ride, but far more dangerous than the cyclists seem to grasp.