Although it sounds perfect it's not. Tax breaks aren't all used for evil such as paying back campaign funding sources. There are legitimate reasons for providing certain industries tax breaks.
You haven't even shown that it's more likely than a moose related fatality or a deer attack
The moose incident is not avoidable without major inconvenience. That was the point.
My brother in law who is a trucker has 2 on his record (1 000 000km driven). It's about where you live and when you travel. Up north moose / deer incidents are in weekly news during the summer. Drive at night and you increase your chances of hitting a moose by more than 10 fold. That's very comparable to the test they did. Don't do it and you don't increase chances of an accident and do it and it's an infinite % increase in change of accident.
It's very likely the author accepted a larger risk of an accident in the process of going to see Valasek and Miller than he did during the test
That's pretty obvious but it's not the case for the other people on the highway.
The point is simple. Don't do testing in an uncontrolled environment. It's easily avoided with no impact on the test itself.
Unneeded risk is just that, unneeded. There are a millions things you do daily to avoid even smaller % of danger and yet you roll your eyes at a completely avoidable scenario.
If you can admit to facts and common sense there's not much more to say here.
If you told me it's inconvenient to address the issue for a situation that occurs less than 1% of the time I'd agree but because there is no additional cost or inconvenience to do it on a closed circuit it's a no brainer. What they did (all of them) was add unneeded risk to an exercise that didn't gain anything by being done in a "non test" environment. That's the point the previous guy was trying to make and it was very valid.
All major applications we use here are making full use of said features. Clearly CALC.EXE doesn't need it but CAD and other design software make great use of it.
Some of the application developed internally have multithreading to allow live data without the need to wait or get GUI interruptions.
So, 1.8% of an unlikely thing involves stalled cars
You didn't read the link did you? 1.8% of highway accidents are stalled vehicle which more often result in fatality. Where I travel there's an average 5 accidents per day. That would mean every 11 days there's an accident involving a stalled car. If you told me it's inconvenient to address the As someone who drives on the interstate, I frequently see cars on the side long enough to be tagged for impound with no evidence of being hit.
Maybe you travel a stretch that is less dangerous. City stretches tend to be more chaotic and law usually forces vehicles to accept the first tow.
The police routinely pull people over to the side of the interstate
Yes, and they follow a protocol to stay safe. They need to do this because highways are dangerous places to stop.
Even marked vehicles are in danger. 4-5 years ago 3 police officers with vehicles parked 2 feet from the line (on the shoulder) with their lights on got hit. This stretch of highway wasn't even chaotic and you could see for miles ahead.
More links to show you highway stopping dangers aren't a myth:
http://www.allenandallen.com/b...
https://www.aaafoundation.org/...
Quit trying to stuff words in my mouth. The answer is "not really".
So 1.8% of interstate accidents in Kentucky involved a stalled vehicle.
http://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc_...
The link is old but it makes the point.
If you don't live close to a busy highway I can understand why you don't understand the danger of stalling on the road while cars are passing you at 75 MPH
Ask the author of TFA, he wasn't a random victim
Who said random? The blame is on all of them. There's a reason testing is done on isolated tracks.
What does this have to do with the topic?
Someone went from the tech being useless, to being explained that the tech works at improving visibility if one isn't a tard behind the wheel to now talking about tards again. If one can't drive safely then that's just a problem in itself isn't it? No amount of lighting will help that driver.
People voluntarily wash their windshield while driving all the time. They also drive in the rain, even heavy rain.
And they know its going to happen because they either initiate the action or anticipate it. In this case he didn't know it was going to happen.
People's cars stall on the highway all the time. At no point was he in the situation your link talks about. Even if he had been on the shoulder, that too happens all the time and rarely leads to a problem.
Would you say it's dangerous to have your car stall on the highway? The answer is yes.
So why would you intentionally put yourself or someone else in that position of danger?
Usually people like putting the odds of survival on their side. Test environments are there so we don't have to create unneeded danger.
Did you watch the video?
Within the first 2 minutes I can see the following two things I consider dangerous:
- They reduced his visibility by activating the wipers and windshield washer
- They cut off the engine while he's on a busy highway
Here's a sample of what happens when you stop on the highway:
http://www.citynews.ca/2007/12...
Just recently there was an emergency vehicle with lights on that was hit while on the shoulder.
That's why good drivers use common sense.
The technology is here to help improve driving at night, not to save you from an unavoidable accident.
StikyPad made a good point. Doing the test on public roads did nothing to reinforce the actual issue.
As far as I know this whole may just be a montage to get a few more views but it does make them look irresponsible.
But I want to run it. The dilemma!!!
You're still made you didn't get to come back?
- Live GUI changes alone can cut down the GUI dev time by about 25%.
- The debugger time line will reduce the time required to debug
- The H/W resource tracking will make quick work of optimizing application or at least finding the culprit.
- The testing tools have been improved to significantly reduce the time required to create test procedures and run them
This is just a small list of things that have been improved.
The story here is that most people just read the 3 words on a box and assume they understand. If a company goes out of their way to hide the truth then shame on them, but if you as a consumer don't take 5 minutes to go online and figure out if a product is fitting or delivering on the merchandise then shame on you.
Personally, I'm far more concerned with my tax dollars being messed with (And there's a whole lot of that going on) because I can't control that. My purchasing decisions are still in my control as long as I don't blindly purchase things.
Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard
