another stupid analogy
o k , i w i l l l e a r n t o t y p e s l ow e r f o r y o u . . .HaiBai wrote:
another stupid analogy
One of the first things you're taught in an engineering course is to never blindly trust calculators.HaiBai wrote:
i already mentioned that a program would have less error then natural human error.
288 son.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
One of the first things you're taught in an engineering course is to never blindly trust calculators.HaiBai wrote:
i already mentioned that a program would have less error then natural human error.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
at least calculators are consistentunnamednewbie13 wrote:
One of the first things you're taught in an engineering course is to never blindly trust calculators.HaiBai wrote:
i already mentioned that a program would have less error then natural human error.
Unless presented with human error...by the developers or the people who enter data into them. Or if worn out and glitchy.
Just learn how to be a defensive driver and chances are you'll never get into a wreck.
Just learn how to be a defensive driver and chances are you'll never get into a wreck.
if there's a power outtage at work, there's only one engineer that can still work. he put himself through school as a drafter, and years of experience have left him with the skills to not rely on a computer.
he does ask me now and again to retrieve an attachment from his e-mail though . . .
he does ask me now and again to retrieve an attachment from his e-mail though . . .
you have a choice to follow warning labels, they aren't law. however, the company obviously has to print the warning labels to warn the consumer.burnzz wrote:
o k , i w i l l l e a r n t o t y p e s l ow e r f o r y o u . . .HaiBai wrote:
another stupid analogy
(if school wasn't law)
you have a choice to go to school, it isn't law. however, the government obviously has to provide school for those willing to learn.
see where your analogy fails?
but a program can be perfected until eventually there are no bugs. there is always human error because of bad judgement and etc.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unless presented with human error...by the developers or the people who enter data into them. Or if worn out and glitchy.
Just learn how to be a defensive driver and chances are you'll never get into a wreck.
i see where talking to you fails. you have no life experience, and it's my fault for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
where does lack of life experience hinder my argument?
zzzz
exactly.
owned
owned
not really...
HaiBai wrote:
exactly.
owned
Mandating proprietary computer navigation for personal automobiles is a punitive measure that, with current technology, the cost of maintenance and the margin for GPS and proximity detection error, will not make the roads safer or navigation cheaper. I do not want to trade people who may not be paying attention to the road with people who aren't paying attention at all. If you don't want to drive, vanpool or take the bus or train.HaiBai wrote:
but a program can be perfected until eventually there are no bugs. there is always human error because of bad judgement and etc.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unless presented with human error...by the developers or the people who enter data into them. Or if worn out and glitchy.
Just learn how to be a defensive driver and chances are you'll never get into a wreck.
Again, learn to be a defensive driver. Over ten years without getting into a wreck, here.
No, you are bullheadedly refusing to acknowledge the facts. You know one saying used after something fails dramatically, "well, it looked good on paper"? Have you even showed us this paper?HaiBai wrote:
exactly.
owned
I don't agree with slamming the validity of someone's opinions because of youth and inexperience, but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with them when they're wrong.HaiBai wrote:
immature
i don't think this should be implemented now. i'm talking about the future. when in the future? who knows. but eventually it should happen.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Mandating proprietary computer navigation for personal automobiles is a punitive measure that, with current technology, the cost of maintenance and the margin for GPS and proximity detection error, will not make the roads safer or navigation cheaper. I do not want to trade people who may not be paying attention to the road with people who aren't paying attention at all. If you don't want to drive, vanpool or take the bus or train.HaiBai wrote:
but a program can be perfected until eventually there are no bugs. there is always human error because of bad judgement and etc.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unless presented with human error...by the developers or the people who enter data into them. Or if worn out and glitchy.
Just learn how to be a defensive driver and chances are you'll never get into a wreck.
Again, learn to be a defensive driver. Over ten years without getting into a wreck, here.
nounnamednewbie13 wrote:
No, you are bullheadedly refusing to acknowledge the facts. You know one saying used after something fails dramatically, "well, it looked good on paper"? Have you even showed us this paper?HaiBai wrote:
exactly.
owned
im not referring to youunnamednewbie13 wrote:
I don't agree with slamming the validity of someone's opinions because of youth and inexperience, but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with them when they're wrong.HaiBai wrote:
immature
Defensive driving doesn't make me any less likely to experience my near daily close call with a heart attack or homicidal road rage
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
How does being a defensive driver prevent you being rear-ended?Again, learn to be a defensive driver. Over ten years without getting into a wreck, here.
I've seen three people rear-ended while stationary at traffic lights in broad daylight.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I seem to average 1-2 near death experiences daily, doesn't matter how carefully I drive.Jay wrote:
Defensive driving doesn't make me any less likely to experience my near daily close call with a heart attack or homicidal road rage
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I actually feel safer commuting on a motorcycle because I can cut lanes up to the front at lights. I dont have to worry about getting rear ended. Same in heavy traffic.Dilbert_X wrote:
I seem to average 1-2 near death experiences daily, doesn't matter how carefully I drive.Jay wrote:
Defensive driving doesn't make me any less likely to experience my near daily close call with a heart attack or homicidal road rage
In the end though, no one is more dangerous than slow/timid drivers.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Being a defensive driver greatly reduces your chances of getting into a wreck. I've avoided rear-enders before by merely paying attention to what's behind me as well as what's in front of me, and simply moving out of the way. It's not fool-proof, especially if you're jammed in a car pack at a traffic light, but if you're able to leave yourself a car space between you and the guy ahead, you can move up a bit and lessen or avoid impact, or even have space to change lanes if not blocked in.
Of course, if you're going to jump around from lane to lane while eating a sammich, talking on the phone, fiddling with your MP3 player and driving with your knees, there is no such increased chance of safety.
Drilling good driving habits into people before giving them a license should be a higher priority than handing the responsibility to computers.
Of course, if you're going to jump around from lane to lane while eating a sammich, talking on the phone, fiddling with your MP3 player and driving with your knees, there is no such increased chance of safety.
Drilling good driving habits into people before giving them a license should be a higher priority than handing the responsibility to computers.
at this point in time, i agreeunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Drilling good driving habits into people before giving them a license should be a higher priority than handing the responsibility to computers.
But computers never crash or fail for any reason... make the switch now!
These people are way more dangerous.Jay wrote:
In the end though, no one is more dangerous than slow/timid drivers.
Also people who drive much too fast for the traffic/conditions.Of course, if you're going to jump around from lane to lane while eating a sammich, talking on the phone, fiddling with your MP3 player and driving with your knees, there is no such increased chance of safety.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!