Logic and policy.

Maybe those words don't go together, but you'd think the clever lawyers would take any opportunity to make their point. But then, maybe they don't want their point made.

Our town has a rule that a billboard can't change more than once a day - except for time and temperature. Unfortunately, the billboard companies claim the town doesn't have jurisdiction over state roads; which is just about all the roads that have businesses on them. So; first the "rotating triangle" billboards, and now, partial- or full-video boards are starting to proliferate.

I'm waiting for someone to hold the billboard companies liable for an accident because the driver was distracted by the motion. Their defense will be "our boards aren't a distraction." But I argue that any motion has to be categorized by the driver to decide whether it requires action and thus is a distraction.

Maybe we could compromise that a certain level of motion is not a distraction. Perhaps if the image changes no more than once during the time it typically takes a driver to pass.

But the companies are selling impressions - a car driving by while your ad is displayed. If you say they can only display an average of one ad while a car drives by, then that cuts their impressions by 50% - 75%. And if they are telling their customers that a certain number of people will see their ad, they are selling the fact of driver distraction. Or are they guaranteeing their customers a certain number of babies in their car seats?

The bottom line is: If the billboards aren’t a distraction, they aren’t doing their job. So anyone who has an accident in the presence of a billboard should be able to place some liability on the companies.

(c) 2008 Bill Barnes ... More like this: http://numbersforeveryone.blogspot.com/

We don't . . . any more

This is a starting point. Feel free to add your comments (they will be moderated). Credit will be given for originality -- skip the obvious (such as the first few).

We don't walk any more.
We drive to the mailbox. We take the elevator to the second floor (if the stairs are even available).

We don't talk any more.
We TXT, we IM, we email, we trade voicemails, we might even "chat" -- but that doesn't mean "talk".

We don't use words any more.
See previous listing. And I'm not necessarily just referring to technical jargon or government acronym-speak, either. To me, most personalized license plates are gibberish and it takes me longer to read an SMS than a page of Dostoyevsky.

We don't type any more.
I used to be a fair typist. I could hit 70 WPM on transcription with keyboard-entered formatting codes. Now I spend most of my time with my right hand on a mouse and my finger on the Ctrl key to copy and paste. I tell my ergonomist that I can't use a "natural" keyboard because I so often work one-handed that I have to stretch my left hand from the shift to a far-right letter. (Don't tell me to get a 15-button mouse. I use too many computers to install customized drivers and then learn a set of non-mnemonic commands. At least MSWord [pre-07] carries most of its customization in a single file.)
Even when I'm coding, which is straight typing without too much thinking, there are too many odd characters for me to get up any real speed.

. . . More to come.

(c) 2008 Bill Barnes ... More like this: http://numbersforeveryone.blogspot.com/

Caffeine

The doctor gave me a routine that included "Drink x glasses of water a day. Caffeinated drinks don't count toward your requirement." The instructions did not say "avoid caffeine," only caffeine-containing drinks don't count.

Why Is It?

By this criterion, drinking a litre of iced tea (150 mg caffeine after the ice melts) is evil but drinking a mug of coffee (133 mg caffeine) chased by 3/4 litre of is water acceptable.

I have always assumed that whatever nutrients I ate over a short period became effectively integrated into a single dosage in my body.

References:
Caffeine table from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
(c) 2007 Bill Barnes

More information than I need

My bicycle computer can display the miles I've ridden down to one thousandth of a mile (23.001). But wait a minute. The technology* it uses to measure distance can't measure less than about 7 feet and one thousandth of a mile is about 5-1/4 feet.

So, why do they bother with that last decimal place? I know, the answer is "because they can". The display is wide enough and they want to pretend that they are more accurate than they actually are. But wouldn't it be more honest just to leave it off. I know there's always a rounding error but this seems to gratuitously imply it knows more than it does.

* A bicycle computer measures distance by counting the revolutions of the wheel. Every time a magnet attached to a spoke passes a sensor on the fork, it counts "one". Then the electronics, knowing the distance covered in one revolution of the wheel is PI*diameter, converts revolutions to miles or kilometers. Of course, the computer can be calibrated for different wheel sizes and .001 mi would almost be accurate for a 20" child's bike.

(c) 2007 Bill
More like this: http://numbersforeveryone.blogspot.com/