Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The problem with traffic engineers... (Score 4, Insightful) 579

by twdorris (#47367835) Attached to: Unintended Consequences For Traffic Safety Feature

As it turns out, people are stupid.

Truer words have never been spoken. People are stupid and you can't fix stupid. You'd think they'd weed themselves out eventually, but as it turns out, we're all people. And we're all stupid. We're just stupid at different times.

I've nearly run into the back of someone at a stop light when they started rolling forward and then suddenly slammed on the brakes because they didn't see a car coming into the intersection. I was glancing around checking for traffic I might have been concerned with and nearly ran into the back of him because I just assumed he was going to continue rolling forward like the hundreds of others before him I had been behind at other intersections.

A single moment of inattention and a single false assumption nearly caused a wreck. I was stupid. We're all stupid. We all need some engineered help against stupid from time to time. A sensor that detects an impending crash with something right in front of me would have helped. Lots of cars have these things now. That's an engineered solution to a moment of stupidity.

Not everything can be fixed with engineered solutions, but we can't assume modifying behavior is a fix-all either. In fact, I would give behavior modification a far less chance of success given how random and clueless we meatbags are.

So I vote for more engineered solutions, not less. But the solutions need to involved some human behavioral analysis as well. I mean who in their right minds couldn't have predicted that passing motorists would see these count down times and use them to speed through intersections? And who wouldn't have predicted that this would leave to an increase in accidents on average? Duh. That should have been taken into account and a different solution should have been investigated.

All that said, I also feel like we need to define some acceptable limits here. I mean we can't go making every single intersection 100% secure. If some accidents are happening at an intersection, let's talk about the *rate* and decide if that's just an acceptable rate or not. The fact that there are accidents or that accidents are happening a little more often now than they were before is a little meaningless without numbers to compare to. I find that we have FAR, FAR too many laws and regulations trying to bring fatalities and liabilities and accidents to near zero already.

Comment: Re:News flash (Score 4, Insightful) 121

by twdorris (#47361017) Attached to: Happy Software Developers Solve Problems Better

People who are happy do better at things.

Its more like individuals achieve better performance when they are happy. Either way that is really good news. :-)

OMFG...why do people have to reply like that? "It's more like", "Not only that, but", "It's worse than that because". Ugh. The one-up-manship drives me nuts.

How is "individuals achieve better performance when they are happy" any better than "people who are happy do better at things"? Seriously? How is one "more like" the article than the other when the whole purpose was to provide a sarcastic summary of a long-winded project to show some obvious results?

And the little smiley at the end does NOT make it all OK. It's not smart. It's not humorous. It's nothing but a bunch of drivel so you could hear your keyboard clack away.

And while you're at it, get off my damn lawn!

Comment: Re:Internet bullies (Score 3, Informative) 194

by twdorris (#47349563) Attached to: The Internet's Own Boy

First, that 13 year old girl was bullied on My Space, not Facebook. Prosecutors tried to go after her, but ultimately she was acquitted of the main felony charge anyway. So maybe nobody is going after the "bullies" in this case because they know better. If they can't even get a 3-year sentence to stick on an "uneducated, immature soccer mom", what chance do they have against high ranking officials that will be even harder to pin down anyway? Seems like a good call to me.

Comment: Re:Compromise is implied by multipurpose (Score 2) 432

by twdorris (#47089625) Attached to: Has the Ethanol Threat Manifested In the US?

You're full of shit. Modern engine management systems take care of it all.

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

The computer can adjust for the change in stoichiometric ratio (mixture), obviously. And to some extent I'm sure they have fiddled with the ignition timing and maybe the open loop mixture tables as well. But you're stuck with whatever compromise in compression ratio they decided on when they designed the hard parts. And who knows if valve timing might be better tweaked as well. Cars that don't have adjustable valve timing will have a compromise there too.

I'm fairly certain the OP's point is valid that somewhere in the system some number of compromises are made to allow for the multi-purpose operation.

Comment: Re:Elegance only exists in textbooks (Score 1) 373

by twdorris (#46582349) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Do You Consider Elegant Code?

Most code will not fall into the "elegant" category. The reason is that real-life software has to deal with exceptions, language crocks, patches/modifications and bug-fixes.

And those damn users. I can write what I (and seemingly others) consider "elegant" code. But that's usually only possible down in the bowels of a microprocessor where you have known constraints and no meat bags randomly typing shit at you that you have to parse and decipher and then present a myriad of exception messages back to, etc., etc.

Comment: Re: tired of the lack of progress on GIMP (Score 4, Interesting) 75

by twdorris (#46418293) Attached to: Krita 2.8 Released

GIMP is way over-promoted by FOSS zealots who usually can't accomplish much more than cropping a picture and applying a few filters to the entire image.

This. I really, REALLY want to use GIMP; I do. And I've tried; several times. But I just can't. It's just too clunky and slow and not well thought out in any reasonable manner. Windows pop up in wrong places with wrong Z order, making them impossible to find sometimes. *Common* features (like adjustment layers) are simply missing or work in horrible, horrible ways (like drawing a @#$!@%$ line with an arrow point end).

No, GIMP is not what some people make it out to be. I'd rather use an old Paintshop Pro 6 release than anything GIMP related. And I would except Corel does a better job at screwing up their own products than any other company I've seen in ages. I've actually bought and paid for several versions of Paintshop Pro in the past decade only to have my license mysteriously stop working. "Too many installations" they say. But this message comes up randomly when I haven't done any new installation in months. And then, suddenly, my workflow is halted in its tracks and I'm back to trying GIMP one more time.

My requirements are not steep. I'm not a pro graphics artist by any means. But there doesn't seem to be any good open source graphics editors out there and Krita doesn't seem to fit the bill either. Bah.

Comment: Re:Duh? (Score 1) 148

by twdorris (#46016257) Attached to: Examining the User-Reported Issues With Upgrading From GCC 4.7 To 4.8

The linked "bug" is here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19350097/pre-calculating-in-gcc-4-8-c11 - which says, "Hey, this certain optimization isn't on by default anymore?" And to which the answer is, "Yeah, due to changes in C++11, you're supposed to explicitly flag that you want that optimization in your code."

That linked "bug" appears to be an actual "bug" since a fix for it was posted to 4.8.2. See here.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511

Comment: Re:When you have a bad driver ... (Score 1) 961

by twdorris (#45585759) Attached to: Is the Porsche Carrera GT Too Dangerous?

When it comes to cars, I wont be happy until human-driven cars are outlawed on public roads. Just so we are clear on where i stand on risk vs safety.

Interesting. You're still accepting risk, though. You've just defined your limit to be so small that I dare say it's bordering on insane; IMO anyway.

Ah...if only we could all just wake up and have an automated machine put our clothes on for us, transport us where we want to go and put us to bed at night. That'd be great. Then all we'd have to do is sit around and think while we stare blindly ahead.

Again, no thanks.

Life isn't worth living without experiences. Seriously, it's not. And experiences have risks. They just do. I risk tripping and stabbing myself with a scissor every time I walk across the floor with one in my hand. That's a risk I've learned to accept. I could put the scissors in a box and gently nudge it across the floor with my shuffling feet I suppose. But that's not an acceptable "safety vs. risk" trade off I'm willing to make. We all make these trade offs every day.

All we're talking about here is how far to take it. I can see now that you're willing to take this particular one far, far further than I would have ever imagined any sane person to consider. If enough others think similarly, then I may need to modify my definition of sane I suppose.

Comment: Re:When you have a bad driver ... (Score 1) 961

by twdorris (#45585469) Attached to: Is the Porsche Carrera GT Too Dangerous?

I assure you it was people like you being parodied.

By people like you that aren't actually thinking through the implications of a totally safe environment.

Wait, what? You never said you wanted a totally safe environment? Ok, then I guess even you find some amount of risk acceptable. No?

So we both accept some risk. All we're babbling about here is how much. I think we're there. I think we've been there since anti-lock brakes were introduced. Everyone else seems to want to keep tacking on more and more laws to getting that 0.001% more warm and fuzzy feeling out of it.

No thanks.

To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.

Working...