Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Who pays the ticket? (Score 1) 459

by eepok (#47707693) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

You are required to drive safely. Too fast or too slow is unsafe. The trick is in the "too". The cop may cite you over for driving 1mph over the limit. You can try to fight it in court (as countless thousands do every day) with the excuse that you were "going with the flow of traffic", but if you're traveling in the rightmost lane, you are not required to travel as quickly as those driving in the leftmost lane, but you should probably be driving no slower than 5 under the limit on a freeway.

The unfortunate issue is that drivers have a really bad habit of justifying their speeding habits with bad or misinterpreted science. Some will say "speed doesn't kill, the speed differential kills" -- but that can be used to justify everyone driving at the speed limit just as easily as driving 10mph over the limit.

Or can it?

Actual research shows that the faster you go, the more likely you are to crash. This is due to infrastructural imperfections, hardware failure, or just driver failure. It's safer to drive slower. From the AAA report on the American Culture of Speed: "When travel speed increases by 1%, the injury crash rate increases by about 2%, the
serious injury crash rate increases by about 3%, and the fatal crash rate increases by about 4%."

When some say that "slow drivers cause accidents", they use the "cause" term incorrectly. In almost all instances, the slower driver didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere. Instead, the slower driver was ahead of an impatient driver and the impatient driver did something stupid.

So please, don't feel like you have justification to drive faster than the speed limit because some interpret the law beneficially to their own habits. Please remember that in 2012, there were 33,561 traffic deaths and in a full 30% of those deaths, speeding was a factor. (http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts#Speeding)

Comment: Re:what about misandry? (Score 1) 680

by eepok (#47707553) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

The problem is the in the pendulum swing. The harder it swings, the less rational the reactionary force has to be. As it pertains to sexism, the historical weapon of chauvinists and the established patriarchy, those riding that pendulum to its furthest extent don't like to (no do they need to) have any introspective dialog regarding any double-standards or hypocrisy in their missions.

For the social reaction to sexism, the pendulum is swinging hard. Consider some of the issues wherein men are currently ridiculed for their interest and/or sensitivity:

Post-divorce child custody -- Still heavily biased toward the mother.
Post-divorce alimony -- A patriarchal concept still being fought by males, but rarely a peep in protest comes from the sex that benefits the most.
Male Circumcision -- Sometimes called "male genital mutilation" in an attempt to garner the same disgust as female genital mutilation, the fight against automatic male circumcision at birth is derided.
Rape -- While all of the western world vehemently fights to reduce the occurrence of female rape, man-on-man rape is thoroughly facilitated mass incarceration centers.
Gender Studies -- Most research universities have a Gender Studies department, but the research and education provided are typically "women's studies". There is little in the way of researching the history and evolution of masculinity (especially in the light of the equalization of rights).

Those riding the pendulum will say, "Oh, too bad! Sucks to be on the other side, doesn't it?" without consideration of who actually ran the patriarchy.

For males that grew up as part of the institutionalized patriarchy, these don't seem like a big deal. However, for the massive number of young males that grew up being taught that males and females are genuinely equal in most ways and should be treated equitably in all things, these double standards are unacceptable. These, amongst other issues, are the problems that young males face, despite not being part of the gender-biased systems of the past.

Comment: Re:(EDIT) Symptom of Greater Issue (Score 1) 459

by eepok (#47706197) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

You are correct about the Driver's Handbook and and the state law in regards to unsafe speed, but I think you missed the point. Why is everyone allowed to uniformly break the speed limit in the first place? Why not do some proper enforcement to bring the speeds back down?

If you're programming a module to complete a task and find that it needs to be written in such a way as to break existing rules to facilitate the rules being broken by other modules, don't you try to fix the problem from the ground up?

Additional question: I know most people are thinking about doing 75 in a 65 and thinking "whoopty doo, big deal". But what about 35mph in a 25mph school zone?

Comment: Who pays the ticket? (Score 3, Insightful) 459

by eepok (#47705817) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

You are "driving" a Google automated car. You get pulled over for doing 10 over the speed limit. You didn't tell the car to do it, the programmers did. Who gets the ticket?

If you do, then that suggests that you have liability for the control of the vehicle. If that's the case, you probably shouldn't allow the car to make the choice whether or not to exceed the speed limit without your input.

If the programmer has liability, then say good by to automated automobiles! No one wants this liability.

Thus, Google cars will not automatically speed... but they may allow you to tell the car to exceed the speed limit... thus reducing the safety of the product overall.

Comment: (EDIT) Symptom of Greater Issue (Score 1) 459

by eepok (#47705799) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

If the speed limit is unsafe, that means that too many people around the car are traveling above the speed limit. This, in turn, means that there is insufficient traffic enforcement. I see two solutions...

Solution A: Allow automated vehicles to routinely exceed the speed limit thus contributing to the unsafe environment.
Solution B: Implement appropriate traffic enforcement and raise city revenue on the reckless habits of traffic offenders.

Why the hell is Solution A even being considered?

Comment: Symptom of Greater Issue (Score 0) 459

by eepok (#47705755) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

If the speed limit is unsafe, that means that too many people around the car attempting to travel at "only" the speed limit. This, in turn, means that there is insufficient traffic enforcement. I see two solutions...

Solution A: Allow automated vehicles to routinely exceed the speed limit thus contributing to the unsafe environment.
Solution B: Implement appropriate traffic enforcement and raise city revenue on the reckless habits of traffic offenders.

Why the hell is Solution A even being considered?

Comment: Humor vs. Measured Offense Potential (Score 4, Insightful) 680

by eepok (#47704469) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

My partner and I have been together for almost 13 years. We have one of those very good relationships where we talk about problems instead of getting to the point of yelling, etc. She has a very audacious sense of humor and feels comfortable joking about spousal abuse (amongst other things) because she knows that spousal abuse is such a foreign concept in our relationship. ("I know I said I would cook tonight, but I'm ordering pizza. Please don't beat me...") I say the same back.

If someone didn't understand the context and overheard us joking in this way, they might think there was an actual issue with violence in our household. And I think this is the impetus with the new censorship rule on Fark. If you're not a frequenter of Fark discussions and stumble across one of many memes without the historical context, you'll think everyone there is a rape-shrugging, gay-bashing, general hater. And you would be wrong.

----------------------
Let's talk about a couple of the memes:

40 lbs. Box of Rape (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2Z7SafOiCXM/hqdefault.jpg) - If you simply read someone threaten to "send a 40 lbs. box of rape" to another person, you'd think that was a horrible concept. Boxed rape!? The idea alone is atrocious. That is until you figure out that someone took a photo of a box of rapeseed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed), considered the homonym audaciously humorous, and put it online. The internet went wild with the hilariously outlandish concept of "boxed rape" (the action, not the seed) and it has since been part of tongue-in-cheek, context-driven discussion.

Blazing Saddles references - The Mel Brooks movie 'Blazing Saddles' is synonymous with audacious humor and if any one work of artistic endeavor was to embody the spirit of Fark, it would be this movie. It addresses rape, penis size, stereotypes (beneficial and detrimental), racism, homophobia-- nothing is so sacred that it cannot be laughed at. But consider the actual context-- Mel Brooks projects absurdity upon each of these ideas by making their offenders look absolutely ridiculous. And for the most part, Fark feels and acts within the same vein.

Glenn Beck's mythical crime in 1990 - Fark is one of the grand purveyors of the myth that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. They publicized the hoax not as a means of directly implicating Glenn Beck in a crime that never happened, but to demonstrate the effectiveness of the political messaging system that was/is constantly making extreme accusations in the form of inquiry. So Fark (amongst others) shot back. "Why hasn't Glenn Beck denied...?"

'Legitimate' Rape - A couple years back, a conservative politician stated that abortions do not need to be available to women because in the case of 'legitimate rape', the female body has a means of preventing any impregnation at all. This, of course, is absolutely absurd... which is why Fark latched onto it. It's demonstrative of really, really stupid politician commenting on thing about which he knows little and Fark thrives on such snafus. So when a story comes up regarding rape, you're likely to see the idea of "legitimate rape" be brought up-- not because they're suggesting a distinction, but because they're restating the absurdity of this concept.
-------------------

If you are under the impression that Fark users tell jokes that promote rape, sexism, racism, or discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, then you don't know Fark. Farkers celebrate every gain in the realm of gay rights and attack heinous acts with derision.

If you don't understand that Fark's use of rape, sexism, and homosexuality in their humor comes from a Mel Brooks-style commentary on the absurdity various ideals and actions, then you don't understand Fark. It's disappointing that this kind of humor will no longer be tolerated as it pertains to these specific topics because it's a cathartic outlet for audacious humor in a good direction.

Comment: Prefer PvE over PvP (Score 1) 273

by eepok (#47698593) Attached to: Of the following, I'd rather play ...

Personally, I never liked PvP games. Invariably, the loser gets sick and tired of the game, sometimes offended, and what started as a fun idea ends with anger and discontent.

I'm more of a PvE gamer. Give me something that I and a couple friends could do with an external enemy or a joined goal and everyone comes out happier at the end.

Comment: AB32 - Easy for big polluters, tough for the green (Score 1) 97

by eepok (#47682197) Attached to: How California's Carbon Market Actually Works

The big pain in the ass here is that AB32 trickles down to California businesses and state-run entities. Everyone has to do their part to reduce California emissions back to 1990s levels (NOT per capita... raw GHG tonnage per year). That's easy for some, but not so easy for others.

If your organization was a big time polluter with little employee growth since the 1990s, you can switch to plug-in hybrids for your fleet, swap out incandescent bulbs for fluorescent/LED, put in new thermostats, disallow hot water in the bathrooms, adopt roof-top solar, and, if necessary, buy bio-methane energy credits. Reaching your AB32 goals would be easy.

But what if you were one of the model organizations in the 1990s that was at the forefront green tech but have since doubled in size? Ya, you may still have a fantastic per capita GHG emissions rating, but you've doubled in size! That means you have to cut your per capita in HALF to get back to your 1990 emissions level. Organizations with this problem are actually going back through their numbers and hoping to INCREASE their back-casting GHG emissions. They want to be seen as having been bigger polluters than they were because, with AB32, if you weren't a big polluter, you're going to have to invest beyond the diminishing returns curve to get anywhere near your state-mandated goals.

If AB32 could be amended to require going back to 1990 PER CAPITA emissions, my organization would be sitting pretty. Hell, we'd be able to sell off the credits from our being BELOW our 1990 per capita emissions. But that's not the case... so we, as one of the lowest per capita polluters in the nation for our industry, will end up paying more in cap-and-trade fees and offsets than actual big polluters.

Comment: Re:Not Surprising (Score 4, Insightful) 160

by eepok (#47679173) Attached to: The Flight of Gifted Engineers From NASA

And that's the way it's supposed to be. The big funding, risk, and genuine exploration is done by the bloated, but driven, government. Once all the basics have been proven, once all the risks have been measured, and once a potential business model evolves from that exploration, then private business comes in to profitize it.

When the government loses the drive to continue exploration, private industry moves in to profitize and expand until they can no longer profitize. Then government comes in, uses what private business learned, and then does big exploration all over again. Etc.

All big exploration starts with governments. The private sector comes in only after the risky, heavy lifting is done. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Comment: Factory Floor Implementation (Score 1) 146

by eepok (#47655015) Attached to: Chinese Researchers' 'Terror Cam' Could Scan Crowds, Looking for Stress

This would be great to use in sweatshops! You'd need fewer armed guards and you'd be able to see who is too relaxed (AKA slacking off)! Oh, panoptic society, I thought you were just a fantasy!

Wait, 1984 wasn't a guidebook? Well, then why have been working towards all the same tech? Oh... we're idiots. Got it.

Comment: Re:K-12 Education (Score 1) 514

by eepok (#47577433) Attached to: Jesse Jackson: Tech Diversity Is Next Civil Rights Step

You may have missed the first line I wrote, so I'll post it again: "... it's not just increased education spending that creates better educated students."

The raw number of dollars spent within the general concept of education is irrelevant because it includes really stupid expenses like competitive athletics expenses, hair-brained over-investment in classroom tech, and luxury buildings for brand new schools who are seeking to attract the best and brightest teachers (to the detriment of other schools).

Moreover, I provided links to research and case studies that show the benefits of my suggestions. One doesn't need to prove that a combination of treatments work before trying a combination of treatments.

I'll brake it down easy for you:

Given: Schools in poor neighborhoods provide poor education to their students. Those students grow up with a higher rate of criminality and a lower chance to enter the (fiscal) middle class.

Suggestion: Decrease class room size (proven benefits by research)
Suggestion: Ensure sufficient climate control (proven benefits by research)
Suggestion: Engage the parents (proven benefits by research)
Suggestion: Recruit passionate and competent educators and make the necessary efforts required to convince them to stay long-term (proven benefits by experience)
Suggestion: Implement all of the above for a single school in a very bad part of town.

Would you assert that these actions, widely implemented over a low-income, low-performing area are not likely to beneficially affect the futures of the students, families, and neighborhoods treated?

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...