Ridiculous Fines for Cellphone Use while Driving

Fines vary from $20 to $2000 – is this merely an extra money for the government to spend on new roads, or will it prevent people from using cellphones?

Photo from Stefan Kloo’s flickr

We all know your reaction time doesn’t improve when you use a cellphone while driving. If I were playing Angry Birds, I wouldn’t even see the other car coming.  But I could hold a navigation device in my hand all day while building a Lego tower, and not be fined. Even calling someone while riding a bike is no problem.

Calling would distract you from driving, and therefore be an offence. Research shows that older people react much slower than younger people (Green, 2009), and there is a dramatic increase  in reaction time between an 80 year old and a 20 year old man. Why then do we not forbid all old people to drive? They’re much more dangerous that young people calling.

Research also shows that handheld calling causes as many accidents as handsfree calling (Victor H., 2011). It doesn’t matter whether you hold your phone or not, you can’t pay as much attention to the road as you should. But when attention becomes the problem, we could also forbid music in cars. I personally find pink cars very distracting, let’s forbid those too.

Is there any way to forbid everything that causes distraction? No, but calling is a popular thing to do while driving, so when you forbid that. We might solve a big part of the problem. But then handsfree calling should be forbidden too. And Angry Birds. While we’re at it, let’s just ban all cellphone use from our lives. It is not possible.

Will the fine prevent you from calling while driving?

Sources:
Driver Reaction Time; Visual Expert
Using a Bluetooth hands-free while driving just as risky as using the handset, study finds; Phone Arena

Punishing Before and After Crimes

There is technology that can detect thoughts that  might, or will, lead to a crime.

Photo from photoXpress

Is it ethically responsible to hold people in detention for crimes they are going to commit in the future?

Normally, you will be sentenced to prison for a crime you committed in the past. The punishment is a reaction to your crime. If you’d commit murder, you would be in prison for 30 years or so, maybe for the rest of your life. We see this as a normal thing, but were you accountable for what you did? Probably so, unless you have a mental disorder. It is very hard to draw the line between those two. Doesn’t everyone who commits murder have a mental disorder? The real question is whether someone will commit murder again. If you have a mental disorder you aren’t expected to. You’re just a case of chance.

But if you’re not a case of chance, and you have been in prison for 29 years, with one year left, are you at that moment still accountable for what you did 29 years ago? How long does a punishment have to last? The worse the crime, the longer the imprisonment. But do those 30 years re-awake the dead person? Do they take away the guilt?

In the Netherlands the police is punishing people for crimes they committed, 4 years ago. People who uploaded videos of illegal sets of fireworks a few years ago are being held accountable for it now. Is this not a strange way of punishing, when people don’t even remember the video existing on YouTube?

What if you’re sentenced for a crime you are going to commit in the future? In the movie Minority Report gifted humans predict that John, the main character, will commit murder in 36 hours. John doesn’t even know the victim at that moment, but he is sentenced for murder. If pre-crime detection were possible in our world, would we use it? Are you accountable for a murder you are going to commit, without yourself knowing yet? We’d say it’s impossible to prove a future crime, but what if the government says the pre-crime detection is certainly right?

Video:
Indefinite Detention for Future Crime

Never make a Decision, and Never make a Promise

Never make a decision when you’re angry, and never make a promise when you’re happy.
by Keyyth G. of whataboutkeyyth

Photo from Grand Canyon NPS’s flickr

I find anger and happiness are the two emotions that are simultaneously polar opposites and identically the same. On the one hand anger is spawned in the pit of upset, and it feeds off of negativity. While happiness emerges from a joyous place and grows from positivity. Yet on the other hand they both share the quality to induce reactions instantly be it good or bad; also they both have the nerve striking ability to make us cry, but I’m sure that I’m not telling you anything you haven’t heard before. I ran across a little word of good advice and felt the need to share it. “Never make a decision when you are angry and never make a promise when you are happy.”

Now how can those two emotions be the worst in assisting you in a decision or making a promise?

It’s simple in those moments we are at our weakest as people. Be it with anger; we are mentally weak and sometimes unable to clearly think things through. When angry we may make rushed decisions and that rushed decision could have lasting consequences.

Or take happiness, in our happiest moments we are so full of such a glad soul, that we are almost willing to give away everything we own, or make a promise to someone; say that you’ll work on your snappiness or your patience with very little intent of actually doing such a thing. Doing so gives someone hope only to have it taken away.

Address them differently, but do address them. With anger step away and give yourself time to clearly think it though before you are able to do something you may regret. With happiness; simply enjoy the moment don’t go looking for a cherry topper for your happiness, that way you avoid a disappointing counterpart.

What decisions did you make based on emotions?

I’m a 22 year old college student currently pursuing my associates degree in computer science. I’m an artist, well I am whenever I get a chance to be which is far and in between here lately.

Senkaku Islands: “War is the only solution”

The Senkaku Islands are covered in jungle but no rivers – it’s uninhabitable.

Photos from theatlantic.com

This month Japan bought the islands, prompting large-scale protests in China. Japan has been in control since 1972 anyway. But there might be a lot of oil reserves.

The dispute was caused by the territorial claims of Japan and China. The islands are within the boundaries of both countries, because they are close to Chinese coast as well as the Japanese one. Japanese boats have been on patrol to prevent Chinese fishing boats from visiting.

It is strange that China makes a fuss of the islands. They never really seem to have cared about them; Japanese boats have been on patrol long before this dispute. What would China want to do with those islands?  The oil that can be found there might be of some use, but it can’t be as important as China makes it seem. And the financial argument of China can’t possibly be better than the cultural argument of Japan. It became clear that a financial argument was possible in 1971, so why protest against the Japanese claim now? China hasn’t  been able to use those oil (and gas) reserves for 40 years, it can’t be that important if you ignore those reserves for so long.

This doesn’t make Japan good though. They tell the world that China only wants those islands for the money, but isn’t it a strange coincidence that Japan is in control of the Senkaku Islands since 1972, one year after the oil discovery? And why do they want to be the official owner of the islands, when they have been in control for so long? An answer for that is the money they’ll get from the oil reserves.

Is the dispute only about oil? There is also an important military shipping lane and it offers fishing grounds.  But does China need the fishing grounds or the oil? Probably not. They can’t need the strategic shipping lanes either, as if they would fear Japan more if it ‘officially’ owns these islands.

For China it is important to create an enemy. It is better for the harmony among people when they all have the same enemy; Japan. If China encourages protests, everyone in China will become mad at Japan. Normally if people protest in China, people are beaten and sent to jail. In the anti-Japan protests, no one is hurt. China is supporting the protests, if not organising them.

In front of a camera a Chinese civilian said: “They are stealing our land. War is the only solution”. If all civilians would be as easily manipulated as she is, war will be the only way to relieve their anger. What if Japan is not the chosen enemy but Europe or the United States? How easy would it be for China to start a war, to convince their people they’re right?

Is war the solution to this dispute?

Walk Away from Traffic

The true causes Traffic jam?

Photo from geo.sunysb.edu

It isn’t the density of people, but the density of cars. As shown in the photo above, a bunch of people occupied the whole street when they rode with their personal cars. Head-striking traffic is eradicated when people use economical mediums such as a bus or environmental such as bicycle.

December of last year sold 1,145,079 vehicles in United States. With roughly a million cars sold each month, no wonder why our roads are intersected with traffic.

People blame different factors to traffic. Main in the list was the disturbances, like accident or construction constricting the road. And of course, rush hour, the most used excuse.

Japan Airlines CEO Haruka Nishimatsu rides the public bus to work; while every person is prided with his or her own vehicle in the United States.

If you’ll just go to the book store a block away, walking won’t be bad. Cycling is a nice time to think and feel the rush of air while all those time burning hundreds of calories. Technology can help us live better, but not to the point of laziness. There’s no technology for clearing away traffic magically nor technology to permanently keep an inactive body healthy.

If people use their feet to pace a proximity, or be smart to ride with other people than seclude themselves on their personal cars all the time, there will be less traffic.

So, can you walk?

Sources:
December Auto Sales Primed For Year’s High; Auto Observer
Japan Airlines’ CEO pays himself less than the pilots, takes the bus to work; boingboing