Indeed. Observe violence rates compared with the playing of violent video games. Despite trying to restrict them, studies that look at the long term actually find a negative correlation between violent video games and real life violence. You have to look at very young children shortly after the game to find increases.
There is an artist who actually more or less does this. He also successfully sells the art, often bartering it for hotel stays and such. He never claims it to be real money.
They did try to charge him with counterfeiting once, though. I remember reading that chargers ended up being dropped because he didn't use anything more mechanical than a fountain pen for his work, and the law(at least at the time) specified printing, mechanical reproduction, which he wasn't doing. They were shocked that he was hand drawing everything.
Complicating it even more was that, as art, every 'bill' he created was worth more than face value. IE a "twenty" would go at auction for $10k or something crazy. He'd be a fool to try to pass one of his creations off as 'real money' because it'd be worth less that way.
There's a world of difference between content-based restrictions and time-place-manner based restrictions - do you agree? Are you okay with someone shouting their political speech through a bullhorn at your window at 3AM? Their non-political speech?
Good point. I see a big difference between criminalizing owning some pictures and simply being restricted from broadcasting said images via television or even just plastering them on a billboard.
I guess my support for restrictions on the first boils down to
1. Active attacks - this would include the speeches through bullhorns at windows at 3 am. They're trying to disrupt your sleep, which causes injury. Ban.
2. Inciting violence - varies between calling for duels to endorsing violent overthrow of the country. I'll note that expressing a belief shouldn't normally trigger this. It has to be done with intent to cause violence. Basically you shouldn't be held guilty of a violation because you said 'I'm pro-choice' and a bunch of pro-lifers attacked you.
3. Libel/Slander - probably should come under 'active attack', but lying to harm your target isn't allowed.
Yes, I support the rights of the Phelps to hold anti-gay demonstrations and the KKK to march, and I hate both of them. I support the banning of child porn on the basis that a child is injured in the process of creating it, ergo there shouldn't be any traffic of it.
On the other hand, while creepy drawings lack the harmed individual(s). As somebody who really believes that free speech isn't free if offensive speech isn't free, and lacking any scientifically sound studies that show that banning the stuff will reduce molestation/abuse rates, I have to go against banning them.
I remember an early case where the kid(with his parent's support) fought using the GPS logger installed on his car due to an earlier speeding incident that showed he wasn't speeding at the time the cop said he was. The GPS company sent representatives(for free). The parents hired a lawyer on principle, etc...
He ended up losing, but the court/prosecution spent so much money fighting it that it was just insane. Their intent was to set a precident that 'GPS doesn't count'. Of course, what really happened is that the company took that experience and retooled their devices some - shorter intervals, instant AND average speed, signed log files so you could be assured they weren't edited, etc...
I can be much more verbose now, I have time.
I don't see how it could reduce accidents unless the yellow was too short to allow all vehicle types time to stop.
NHTSA and other associated organizations have done lots of math and studies to determine and verify 'best' designs for nearly every kind of intersection out there, which includes proper yellow light timing.
To put it in context - while I kept it generic I could have said 'increase yellows to NHTSA or similar standards'. If you look at the studies, yellows shorter than NHTSA recommendations tend to have more accidents and red light running. Yellows longer than NHTSA standards don't do much, so it seems they've done their work. Indeed, if all intersections utilize the same standards, you gain the benefit that drivers learn to expect how long the yellow will be at a given intersection - 'Level, 35 mph, the yellow will be 'this' long and I have time to make it/not make it'. No matter where the intersection is.
Thing is though, local governments are discovering that a properly designed intersection that meets NHTSA and similar department rules regarding a well designed intersection won't have enough red-light runners to justify the expense of cameras, and that designing it right(or fixing the flaws) makes it safer than what red light cameras can provide. Of course, this presents a problem - the safest course is to fix the intersection, but that costs money. Cameras at least theoretically 'make' money, so they're preferred in areas concerned more about revenue.
Of course, courts throwing out fines left and right(including forcing the government to pay back all collected fines in select situations) when it's discovered that the reason for excessive red light running is an improperly designed or programmed intersection alters the finances. Much less when it's discovered that somebody shortened the yellow because they weren't making enough, as has occasionally happened. Heads really tend to roll then. The problem is that even if the government and camera company select intersections that happen to have a short yellow, when they're forced to retime the light to standards suddenly revenue drops. Running the cameras are no longer worth it.
If the stats don't pan out, that's interesting.
I suggest reading the sources. It's noted all over that increasing yellow duration at problematic intersections works(at least most of the time). Nearly always there's some problem to be corrected - yellow timing is easy though. Sometimes all you need is a warning light earlier on.
I don't think fatalities is the big issue here. Drunk driving is its own problem that won't be solved with traffic signals. No one wants to deal with collision damage from lower speed accidents.
Bingo. Independent studies have shown that red light cameras don't really reduce serious accidents(T-Boning at speed and such), but can drastically increase the number of rear-end collisions. Not that I want to argue your experience, but there's reasons why I kept it all statistical - accidents will happen no matter what as long as humans are still behind the wheel. All we can do is minimize them.
I think the way we design intersections needs a rethink.
Actually, following NHTSA and similar standards tends to be very effective at reducing accident rates.
They're still making money from marijuanna sales there. I could have told them they wouldn't make that much money, they were way too optimistic, and set the tax rates too high to properly compete with illegal sources.
Compounding that was a federal campaign against the financing and housing of legal dispensaries - they have a hard time getting the money to get the economy of scale necessary for profit. Leasing commercial property is also almost impossible.
There's an old saying that the best way to get a bad law changed is to strictly enforce it. Piss off enough people with either having to drive slow or pay the tickets, they'll instead elect anybody promising to fix the 'problem'.
If it still reduces accidents as well as red light running, does it matter if 'more' people run the yellow? The goal of traffic signals is safe intersections and driving, not a 'Simon Says' game.
Note: Link provided not for unbiased site, but because site does have links to reputable studies.
I DID read a biased FAQ by a red light company. Note how they pound the cost of accidents in life and property damage, citing studies. But when it comes to how red light cameras effect the crash rate? 'If red-light and speed safety cameras reduced by an additional 25%...'. Uncited supposition.
Fact is, the 'typical' fatal red-light running is a person going through an 'aged' red, at high speed, while drunk. Not the type to be worried about a camera at that point. Most accidents involving 'fresh' reds are minor, comparable to the rear-end collisions that increase due to the cameras(google should give studies easily).
I apologize for not linking a study, but I have to head out.
Good idea! They even make fancy ones that can bend to turn corners a bit and use the shape of the rollers to keep the product on them going the right direction and not falling off the conveyor.
A slight slope would be all that you'd need to keep the product moving without any further human assistance.
Depending, the ice truck should already have one available. Heck, worst case have a cart.
Indeed, I'm mostly a libertarian and I view this as not really any different than a neighborhood, town, or city getting together and forming a cooperative. My reaction is 'good on them! Fie on established businesses that are failing to meet demands'.
If the line moves 4 times faster, for 1/4 the time, then you need 4 times the laborers... for 1/4 the time. You don't get to multiply people the same way you can speed.
Power vs Energy.
He does actually point this out - his example was rather than needing 5 volunteers doing 1 hour shifts sequentially, they do it in parallel. Which raises the question of whether you HAVE 5 volunteers, or just 1 doing a 5 hour shift...
Still, one would have to ask how many bags a volunteer can carry - if he can carry 3 per trip, but ends up only carrying 1-2 much of the time, a caching system would be more efficient because he can just keep hauling 3 bags per trip rather than 1-2 if that's all the current customer is ordering.
I've never accused Walmart of efficiency, and McDonald's did it's motion efficiency studies decades and decades ago, and hasn't kept up the work.
A) still calling B) trying to update a half dozen media sites and C) now facebook is going to auto spam you complete with graphics and ad's
Okay, in my experience with the military every time there was a major disaster somewhere in the world I had to tell my command that I was safe and that I didn't have any immediate family in the affected area. They eventually mostly automated this with a website I could use.
So, at least theoretically facebook could dispense with the graphics and ads and send minimal amounts of data, even stuff like 'respond to this text with your status to auto-update', using a few kilobytes rather than megabytes. Done widely enough this would indeed help lower the strain on communication infrastructures during times of emergency while allowing more people to update their status.
I still have no idea what actual information this is supposed to convey. Or is it more of a "rah rah, evolution!" reaction thing?
You need something to compare it to; it's right in the article: "For comparison, humans and chimpanzees split somewhere between 5 and 7 million years ago"
So mice and rats diverged somewhere between 12 and 24 million years ago, while the range is 5 to 7M for humans and chimps. Humans and Chimps are very different and we'd certainly not try to treat chimpanzees as 'small humans' in a lab setting. Yet we tried to do so with mice, treating them as small rats.
Just a linear comparison would tell you that rats and mice have had 3 times as long to diverge as humans, making it a good chance that they're more different than humans and chimps are, even excluding that a generation of rats/mice can be measured in months when it's decades for humans and chimps.
As for the huge range - "He left the highway somewhere in Nebraska" is an overly broad area to search for an escaped felon, but if it's the best the investigators can come up with at the moment, it's the best they can come up with. 'Specification' is already a vague line, and without DNA to compare, or even enough intact skeletal remains, it can be tough.
The problem is that they still get money from normal people who don't realize their real agenda. It's a bit like smoking way back in the day - people didn't know it was harmful*, the tobacco companies were pushing untrue messages, etc...
PETA, the organization is a lot like that. They push a specific variation on their message to the world(be ethical about the treatment of animals!) that is non-offensive to the majority of people. As a result, pet owners will donate money to them, thinking that PETA is a bit like the old NRA(which put the money towards safety education, safe firing ranges, and such) - that their money would go towards animal shelters, education, fighting animal abuse, etc... They don't realize that their money is used to fund overpaid executives and push radical agendas.
As such, we need to scream it to the rafters until enough people know to give to their local animal shelter over PETA and PETA goes bankrupt.
*Well, many did, but it wasn't advertised, there were a lot of truly ignorant people.