My guess is the robo-call companies pay them big bucks to harass everyone, so the telcos have no motivation to do shit about the problem.
You can also pay for the privilege of not being harassed. You can block ten numbers, you can block numbers without caller ID, and you can get caller ID. And you can pay for each of these features.
Are you "rocking" them? Really?
He's rocking them like rocks all day, in his cradle of love, which also rocks.
Collision avoidance is easier in the air. There is much more room. (Compare to driving on a huge flat desert, as opposed to narrow roads.) And you can go above and below others, not merely to the left and right.
Only if you assume non-crowded airways. Get a crowd in there (which would be inevitable), and it gets very difficult indeed.
Having a flying car would be pointless if everybody had to go 10mph.
What you say is true of the current situation. But it all goes out the window if you extrapolate to a world in which most people who drive are flying instead.
Just the opposite. Consider that we developed drones long before we developed a self driving car.
Irrelevant. I agree with you: the navigation issue was solved long ago. But navigation isn't the problem. Collision avoidance is.
At the present time the probability of ANY drone collision is ridiculously low, and if it did happen, relatively little would be lost.
You can program specific lanes for flying, they're used all the time by commercial aircraft, but by the same token there's a lot less static clutter, margins are greater(no worrying about whether the kid on the side of the road will dart out), etc...
But if everybody -- or even 30% of everybody -- were flying at the same time, this would all change.
You would have to have low-altitude "commuter lanes" which would of necessity be crowded. Collision avoidance would have to be active and dynamic... not merely relying on "lanes" for safety. Not to mention that most vertical-lift small vehicles today have rather blatant single points of failure: until you get at least four independent rotors, if one fails, down you go, and you'd likely take several others with you.
Nope.
Yep.
Your first link is to the American Psychological Association, and only a 9very) brief abstract. I searched and did not find the paper anywhere that wasn't paywalled. So this doesn't really say anything. It said "evidence of impairment" at ridiculously low concentrations of 0.015% (15 mg/dl), but doesn't say anything about at what point they consider "significant", or how how impairment was measured. What was the methodology? Without that information this is meaningless. It says exactly nothing about the subject under discussion.
Your second link is just a straw-man. Quote:
[Of the five] States adopting 0.08% laws experienced 16% and 18% relative postlaw declines in the proportions of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers whose blood alcohol levels were 0.08% or higher and 0.15% or higher. CONCLUSIONS: It all states adopted 0.08% legal blood alcohol limits, at least 500 to 600 fewer fatal crashes would occur annually.
This says nothing about the effects of alcohol. I has to do with the effects of the law, and the behavior of people in states which passed those laws. While it might be reasonable to think there is some relationship between the two, that's not what the study shows. Further, the numbers given are of drivers who killed themselves, not of drivers who were endangering others. The whole point of the law was supposed to be about endangering others. I have zero respect for laws that try to protect me from myself.
Your third link:
There is no evidence of a threshold blood alcohol (BAC) below which impairment does not occur
Another straw-man. I don't dispute this, but it's irrelevant. The whole subject here was the point at which impairment is significant enough to endanger others. That is supposed to be the point of the law.
All of these are rather vague conclusions which skirt the real issue (which does not surprise me in the least... it is rather typical of "studies" that attempt to support a forgone conclusion).
My main point though is: even if these studies validly contradicted the ones I mentioned (they don't), that doesn't mean the ones I mentioned don't exist. Contradictory studies happen all the time. It doesn't prove me wrong, it just implies that there is controversy.
Why should death and serious injury be the deciding factor? If it reduces accidents at all - even non-fatal accidents, minor injury accidents, and no injury accidents - that's good in my book.
Because if you aren't in danger of causing death or serious injury, then you aren't significantly endangering anyone. So why make it against the law?
A world that is 100% safe for children would also be suitable for nobody but children. I, for one, don't want to live in that world.
I would like to see your studies.
I don't have the citations at hand, though I've posted them here on Slashdot at various times in the past.
The State of Idaho did its own study, in which it concluded that the driving of most people is NOT significantly impaired at 0.1% BAC. Of course, that didn't stop them, some years later, from changing the law to 0.08% anyway. Which just illustrates my point.
Over 40 years ago, the national government of Canada did a very comprehensive study involving hundreds of people, which among other things compared the effects of marijuana in various doses to the effects of alcohol in various doses. That study reached similar conclusions.
You are a troll,
An ignorant blind troll who does little more than repeatedly spread the same misinformation again and again, without regard and with complete blindness to all facts that might solve your ignorance.
If you would care to make specific accusations about the things you think I said which were wrong, I would be happy to prove otherwise.
Unless or until you do, you are just blowing hot air. I cite sources for my information, demonstrating that I am neither ignorant or lying. You have provided no information at all, much less citations. All you're doing is calling names.
Calling me ignorant doesn't faze me at all, because I know otherwise and I regularly demonstrate otherwise. If you show that I was wrong or ignorant of some subject, I'll happily admit it and correct myself. But calling names doesn't cut it, and I doubt you can do the other.
Perhaps you could explain why you think that these scenarios are not likely to happen?
Because the language of the bill says nothing about requiring any kind of personal details, or anything else that the alarmists claim it is aimed at.
I think that the language of the Bill is pretty much designed to stop the application of the Precautionary Principle as a method of environmental protection.
If by that you mean: "Rulemaking should not have to be based on sound science," then I agree: it would appear to prevent that situation.
I, for one, think that's great.
It was about climate science denial so some people would see that as a troll, but I agree that it's an abuse of mod points to vote for or against climate science by modding a post about climate science denial that is not offensive in any way.
No, it is NOT about climate science "denial". At all. It was a series of factual statements about actions by the EPA.
I did NOT say "EPA's science is bad". What I wrote was that EPA has refused to produce any actual science at all in support of its rulemaking. Good, bad, or otherwise. It wasn't a judgment about the state of climate science in any way.
You are a fool to believe all judges have the same definition of reasonable. I say this as a cop who has been in many courts before many judges.
You are a fool to believe that's what I believe.
That isn't what I said, and it isn't what I meant.
In the US, for example, the constitutional requirement of probable cause and protecting against unreasonable search and seizure and such don't apply to their kind.
Sorry, you're out-of-date. Federal Appeals Court last year ruled that border guards DO need probable cause to search such things as computers and phones under most circumstances. The only exceptions are circumstances which would also be exceptions away from the border.
If you appear fit and nothing can be found wrong yet minimal exercise causes pounding heart and shortness of breath -- get your thyroid checked. Hypothyroidism can cause low blood sugar that's only evident during exercise.
Corporations are a creation of the state. You cannot separate the two.
And now, you begin to understand the problem with corporations and campaign laws.
What I wanted to show by bringing up this example is that in current airplane design, there are circumstances in which automation is known to fail (in this case, unreliable/defective sensors). In these circumstances, the systems are designed to give control back to the pilot. The rationale for this is quite clear.
Yes, like I said, it's to make the passengers feel good. Because as we have seen, the pilots depend on the same sensors that the autopilot does. Airliners aren't fighters, you don't fly by the seat of your pants. By the time your inner-ear-gyro tells you that there's a problem, you're already screwed. Which was precisely what happened.
How in the shit are pitot tubes still icing anyway? Why is heating the tube not a thing which works? Heating elements are not new technology. We should really be able to manage this by now.
"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight
