News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Should Law Subsidize Driving? by Annatar on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @06:36AM (#19318125)
I see that the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are out in force today, trying sensationalist headlines in an affort to get people to pay for the subscription. Doesn't this violate this website's code of conduct or some such?

Bless the ruined internet where a common plebeian can make nonsensical, unprovable claims like "In the United States, motor vehicles are now the leading killer of children and the top producers of greenhouse gases." Not only is this sensationalist claim impossible to scientifically prove (and prove repeatably, which is the foremost requirement of the scientific method), but a single container supertanker generates as much pollution with just one trip as all the cars in the U. S. in an entire year, but hey!, "details-schmetails"...

And once again, no technology is discussed.

Re:Should Law Subsidize Driving? by matt4077 on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @06:58AM (#19318222)
Here's some Google technology: https://goo.gl/images/jUnTNJ

Traffic Accidents are the leading cause of death from injury among young people. (Click on the other charts to find the one showing injury being #1 among all deaths in those age groups).

> and prove repeatably, which is the foremost requirement of the scientific method

No, nothing needs to be proven repeatedly. Once something is proven, you're done. Wikipedia: "A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition."

Plebeian indeed...

Re:Should Law Subsidize Driving? by Annatar on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @03:33PM (#19322476)
This is not proof Sir, it's just a table. For something to be scientifically proven, the methodology has to be disclosed and it has to be repeatable, consistently. No amount of re-inventing the scientific method from first principles will help you, no matter how much this web site is "Hacker" "News" (:-)

Plebeian indeed!

Re:Should Law Subsidize Driving? by pbhjpbhj on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @06:41AM (#19318148)
Given your rant, a source would have been appropriate.
Re:Should Law Subsidize Driving? by Annatar on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @06:43AM (#19318157)
Don't get worked up over it, it's just an observation of the state of affairs, I don't have a tin foil hat.

I think the U. S. should have better public transportation infrastructure and more pedestrian sidewalks and, oh! drivers which actually comply with the law and stop for pedestrians at pedestrian crossings, but that's completely beside the point to this nonsensical "study".

That's just, like, my opinion man.

Re:Should Law Subsidize Driving? by pbhjpbhj on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @07:12AM (#19318286)
I just hoped for a citation on your surprising tanker claim.
Re:Should Law Subsidize Driving? by Annatar on Wednesday March 06, 2019 @03:35PM (#19322488)
Too lazy to search it for you (and I read it roughly seven years ago); use a search engine yourself. Really, the sense of entitlement in this place...

And if that with the tanker surprised you, maybe you should spend more time researching and less time reading sensationalist studies which hope to hook people into a subscription (:-) Just a suggestion (;-)