Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Yes, I’m old enough or remember no cell phones and yes I think people are too addicted to them and need to put them away during the movies and during classes, etc. However, I disagree with you about them being purely for entertainment. Some people’s entire businesses rely on their cell phone.
For me it’s a safety must. Once I forgot my cell phone at home and got a flat tire on a major highway. The tire ended up being on the same side as traffic, so I couldn’t get to it to change it. Guess what, no one stoped to help. I had to risk my life and car and get back on the road. I destroyed the tire and almost damaged the rim to get off the highway to a nearby parking lot. The parking attendant wouldn’t let me use the phone until I told him I worked for Law Enforcment and my work would come looking for me if I did contact them. The ONLY reason my two daughters have phones is for the safety reasons. And by the way, mass shootings have been around for decades.
So while cell phones have their down sides, I’m never going to say, they should go away. You might as well scream GET OFF MY LAWN to every young person you meet. But I will tell a martial arts student to put it away and line up. I will tell someone to put their phone away during a movie. At work, I’m not allowed to have my cell phone. It goes in a locker and I’m grateful for that.
I also remember when there were no cell phones and a private phone line was a luxury with party lines being the norm
I can also remember crank style phones as there were still some around when I was a kid
It all boils down to manners and respect for others which sad to say are on the decline as they are not being taught as they used to be
Bingo.
Double super bingo.
...I also remember those days. If I wanted to call a friend, I first had to ask permission to do so. If I had to make a call while on the go, there was always the nearest corner telephone box. Those have all but disappeared today The closest public telephone to where I am is at the train station five blocks away. Where I last lived, it was about 3/4 of a mile walk (in the entrance of the market I shopped at). Calls used to be a nickel (which is where the phrase "It's your Nickel" came from) then later, a dime (though in New Orelans they were still a nickel in the 1970s). Now they are something like 1$ and you get a limited amount of time.
As a reasonably young whippersnapper that grew up with most of the modern conveniences (cell phones got popular while I was in high school) I agree with this completely. A fraction of what these kids are pulling these days would have gotten me straight up murdered by my mother when I was growing up.
I think most of the problems people complain about can be traced to bad parenting. Not all though. My sister had the same parents and upbringing as me but she was/and still is a hellion and I was/am not.
If people lived long enough there would be someone here who remembers a day when fire departments and police didn't exist either. Cellphones increase our safety level tremendously.
Some of my relatives remember when air conditioning didn't exsist, but they wouldn't wish it away. It saves lives every year.
I think when you factor in all of the traffic accidents and deaths caused by people's head buried in their cellphones (it blows my mind how many people I see driving around while texting), I think the average person would be hard-pressed to prove they are a net benefit. As a matter of fact a couple weeks ago I was passed by someone on the freeway in the #1 lane, and slowly he wandered onto the left hand shoulder (going 70mph), and about 3 feet from the guard rail suddenly realized and slammed the wheel the opposite direction and crossed all 3 lanes, barely missing 2 other cars. Yeah, they make us feel safer, but in all my years I can't think of one time when they would have helped me in an emergency. Seems you're always at home, or in the office, or a store, or with other people, or whatever. Of course there are many exceptions, but for the average person it may be just a perception, not a reality.
That's why it's illegal to text while driving and also illegal to block someone's potential emergency calls.
Distracted driving has always been a problem for as long as there have been cars. I remember seeing people reading the news paper while drivign 60 mph before cell phones. I've seen ladies doing their makeup. Distracted driving will be mitigated when cars become driverless. I expect it to become mandatory within my children's life time as the tech is perfected. When that happens, the population will really boom. Thousands of people die in car accidents every month. I have bluetooth capability in my car and I have the "do not disturb while driving" setting turned on in my phone. I do not receive texts while driving with that setting on and phone calls go through my car's speakers and built in microphone. I don't get a lot of calls, because very few people have my number. That was different with past jobs when worked from the road.
It's all about being smart and considerate. I think education/training goes a long way, but we don't really do that anymore. Well I do, but not everyone.
...so would Luke bullseying womp rats in his T-16 be considered distracted piloting?
No more than bombing practice in an F16.
...just looked it up, ahh pneumatic cannon, basically a BB rifle on steroids.
I more pictured him leaning out of his speeder with a Cycler.
Anyway, was an attempt for get the thread back on the launch rails.
Yeah, I think those things (driving while makeup, other distracted driving) is only added to with cellphones. Now people do makeup AND text while drinking coffee and driving. It's just giving more reasons to be stupid.
And driverless cars? I think the hype associated with that is incredible. Do you have any idea the cost to install the necessary equipment on the roads to allow that to work? Can you imagine that technology trying to decide where the road is on a road covered with ice and snow and hasn't been plowed and the line markers haven't been painted in years? Maybe it will be used on a very few roads where someone is willing to invest in the infrastructure, but I can't imagine anything substantial happening in anyone's lifetime.
...add to that having to cope with a bunch of imperfect human operators who act randomly and spontaneously as well as do stupid things (like mentioned above) behind the wheel. That collision last month in Las Vegas between an autonomous mini bus and truck that was backing up shows this technology has a long way to go. It may work fine if every vehicle is automated but there's going to be a very long transition period as many will not be able to afford a such a highly advanced vehicle.
It's not necessarily "smart" streets/roads that they're looking to develop, as yes, that would be prohibitively expensive for cities to install (and disruptive as they'd have to modify all streets freeways, car parks etc with a grid guidance system). What they are testing are sensor arrays in the vehicles themselves linked to self contained autonomous AI systems and GPS to navigate the vehicle and make decisions. Think "Johnny Cab" without the annoying antrho-robotic driver.
I think much of the new technology that's being pushed nowadays is what I call "a solution looking for a problem".
A great way for corporations to make big profits as long as they can convince the public they really really need this awesome technology. Which, of course, they don't. But somehow people get on board solely because it's new and it's technology, so by definition it's awesome.
And suddenly something we did fine without becomes something we can't do without.
Given the human fault:autonomous vehicle fault rate in collisions is something like 40:1 right now, I'd say rather we'd better rush this out ASAP. :\
These things literally get hit because they drive too correctly. http://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/15023/autonomous-cars-are-getting-into-accidents-because-they-drive-too-well
They'll just include the annoying voice
It looks insane, but you can sit quite close to a 60” (+) 4K “tv” screen and still not resolve the physical pixels. The viewing angle is akin to a nice seat in the cinema. Excellent sound is available for not too much money. No crowds of selfish idiots to take you out of the moment.
That’s how I plan to see the new Star Wars.
Truth.
Good luck avoiding the spoilers.
...precisely my point. Unless there is a total ban on non autonomous vehicles (highly unlikely as it would be totally unpopular, particularly here) you are going to have a mix of driverless and human guided vehicles on the road and incidents like the one in Las Vegas will not go away. I don't even see how European nations will be successful with banning of IC vehicles as they propose as not everyone will be able to afford a brand new car.
Currently there is also a conundrum between protecting the vehicle's occupants or those on the outside. Mercedes is considering the giving former priority which would put pedestrians, motorcyclists, and cyclists at greater risk.
What incidents, though? If humans are more often at fault in an accident than autonomous vehicles, replacing human drivers with autonomous vehicles is going to decrease the number of accidents. That accident did not happen because of the autonomous vehicle, it happened because of the (figurative) idiot behind the truck wheel.
EDIT: I guess if humans are way more likely to hit a self-driving car than another human, then they might raise the accident rate changing over. But frankly I have no sympathy for someone who would hit me or my self-driving car because they think I'm not going to follow the rules of the road. :\
...again the point I am trying to make. The level of AI needed to cope with and make adjustments to human randomness and spontaneity just isn't there yet. So I don't see much of an improvement unless only autonomous vehicles are allowed on the road and that is highly unlikely to happen unless an entirely different socioeconomic model replaced the one we have so such vehicles would be accessible to all income levels. The delayed Tesla 3 is still at the upper end in price (35,000$) for most people. Now imagine a much more sophisticated vehicle which is going to cost even more to develop and produce.
Your still going to see a majority of human guided cars on the road just due to economics.
I see your point, I just honestly don't think the vehicles should be held to higher standards of safe driving than a human being.
This'll happen eventually (hopefully quickly). The car used to be an upper class novelty (didn't work very well at all with the horse-drawn carriages, either).
With control algorithms centred on safety, kids will quickly learn to have great fun making “autonomous” vehicles swerve and slam the brakes on.
These vehicles won’t really be “self-driving”, they’ll be government driven. Cars will just become little pods in a public transport system. Your travel will be at their whim. Plus details on you and your journey shared and sold by the corporations that make the car or the algorithm.
If you use any kind of GPS that ship has long since sailed.
...however that is one of the talking points of the concept's supporters, safer than letting descendants of simians control them.
...It won't be quick at all unless as I mentioned, there is a major change to the socioeconomic structure. The schlep working a warehouse job for 22$K a year will still be driving his old beater Ford Fiesta to work.
A.I. has made a huge leap resently. I was just watching a talk on it today. I said driverless cars would be mandatory withing my children's lifetimes and I stand by that statement. I have no doubt. AI will drive better than humans (because they suck $#@ as it is) and that will drive legislators to make it mandatory as a matter of safety. When it happens, I'll be old and a driverless car will probably be the only thing keeping me from being forced into a nursing home. So yeah, I'm not going to be willing or able to object.