The NTSB distracted me

NTSB recommends full ban on use of cell phones while driving
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/ntsb-cell-phone-ban/index.html

Let's review distractions shall we?
Aside from illegally driving while impaired, we have your: kids, dog, hamburger, hair, makeup, sunglasses, big gulp, heater, air conditioning, defrost, wipers, cruise control, radio, MP3, GPS and BFF. This is only a partial list. There are also bees, billboards and buxom blondes to worry about.

It annoys me that cell phones are singled out in this great crusade against distracted driving.

A couple things the NTSB got right. Distracted driving has been a problem "since the Model T". Note that cell phones were invented after most driving distractions were well ensconced within the cabs of our vehicles.

They also point out that when you are driving a car, you are driving a car. I agree. That is what you are doing at that moment. Not talking to your friends, not looking at the scenery, not wondering what you will have for lunch today. You are driving. Do that.

I have noticed over the years that many people do not seem to understand even the most fundamental principles of driving. They don't seem to realize what speed zone they are in, or how to proceed at a four-way stop, or the lane into which they should be turning at any given intersection. The problem seems to me one of licensing too many people to drive. Far too many drivers are incapable of reasoning out a simple sign that says "right turn permitted without stopping". Here in Oregon we have these signs. Here in Oregon the logic of this sign escapes many people. There is also the "20 mph - School Days - 7am through 5pm" sign. I can understand why this one seems like a Jeopardy question to a lot of folks. There is a lot of information to process there. Most people have long since given up deciphering it and just drive 20 mph - Every Day - All Day. If you ask me (and this is my blog, so your question is implicit) there are things so simple that, if a person can not figure it out, they should not be allowed to operate a machine that has the potential to destroy thousands of dollars worth of property and worse: kill or maim several other human beings at once.

Indeed, we entrust that power in the hands of our children. Young people who still throw tantrums when their younger sibling happens to infringe on one of their god-given rights (such as eating the last bowl of Fruit Loops). In addition to that, we don't seem to care about maintaining or improving upon any level of aptitude once a person receives their license. In my state the Department of Motor Vehicles simply sends out a renewal letter and requests a payment when my license expires. At most, they will ask me to come in and have the picture retaken. Do they ever ask me to answer any questions or pass another driving test? Not since I was a teenager have I proven to the DMV that I have the skills to operate a 2-ton juggernaut.

There ought to be continued aptitude tests both in written and driving form. At the very least require an open-book 10 question multiple choice test. Pick 10 things that everyone should absolutely know. Ask them the same questions every 3-5 years. Now everyone knows how to behave at a four-way stop. Simple.

-----

There is a link to a "Study" in the middle of the article. CNN reports on the study that one tenth of all fatalities last year involved distracted driving. That statistic came shortly on the heels of another pointing out how many people are willing to talk on their phones while driving. The implication is that all 3092 deaths in 2010 from distracted driving involved cell phones. I doubt that is true. It seems likely that at least one of those may have been caused by a driver distracted by scalding hot coffee in their lap. In other words, distracted driving is not equivalent to cell phones. There are other ways to be distracted.

CNN then goes on to say that Americans are "apparently driving in denial". Half of those who reported texting or emailing while driving say that "using a cell phone has no impact on their driving performance." Maybe I am too wrapped up in semantics, but there are many uses for a cell phone. Among them are texting, emailing, and talking. CNN uses their field reporter to show us "the facts". He demonstrates by driving an SUV in a closed-off parking lot while accelerating to 25 mph and then

1. inserting a CD and hitting his brakes
2. dialing a number and hitting his brakes
3. texting for 6 seconds and hitting his brakes

You can imagine the results. His SUV ended up farther down the lot after each run. How can this prove anything? Did 'inserting a CD' include digging around under the seat, or in the divider, or in the glove compartment? It didn't look like it. And when he dialed the number, he was hitting each individual number - no speed dial or voice commands. I also noticed that while he was texting, he glanced up from time to time. His eyes were not averted the entire 6 seconds.

Not very scientific. He should have also tried a few non-cell phone related things. Maybe a 7-year-old girl screaming her lungs out and kicking the back of his seat, or he could have taken a swig out of a bottled water - but oops! it fell on the floor and rolled under the brake pedal. At least this would have shown that cell phones are not the only things distracting us. But that wouldn't go over very well, would it? They expect an outcry over cell phone usage but what if it were illegal to be, for instance, gesticulating wildly as you are talking to your passenger? "Do you know why I pulled you over, ma'am? Your hands were not at 10 and 2."

Passwords: the luggage locks of teh interwebs

Do you remember those tiny padlocks that came with new luggage? They were no bigger than a quarter, had a universal key and could be picked by a 6-year-old with a paper clip. This is what modern passwords are. As the old saying goes, they only keep out the honest people.

Take a moment to consider how many passwords are in your life. If you do banking online, with more than one bank, or have an email account (or half a dozen), or if you shop online, or sell online, or use a genealogy site, or subscribe to a newspaper, or access online accounts for taxes, social networking, technical forums, schooling, stock market, insurance or employment benefits, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Just about every website you encounter allows you (and much of the time requires you) to register an account with them. So after a few months of internet use, you probably have accounts at 3 banks, 2 auction sites, 5 social networks, 8 different email accounts and over 20 shopping sites. Not to mention a couple dozen others outside the aforementioned categories.

Let me ask you this: do you use the same password for each of those? How about the same username? Did you sign up using the same email address for all of them?

As much as you'd like to, you can't. Think about that for a minute. Why would you want the same password? Because there would be too many to memorize if they were all unique. Why can't you use the same one for all of them? Because each site has its own criteria for allowable passwords. Some require: mixed case, mixed numbers with alpha characters, at least one special character, no repeating letters, no discernible words, no reference to your username or email, must be at least (6, 8, 12) characters long, cannot use a previous password and so forth. Many sites also include challenge questions along side your password. So now you have to remember what you entered as the name of your first pet, or middle school mascot, or siblings middle name. Sometimes the questions are more obscure and you can't remember the name of the hospital in which you were born, or whether you used caps or included punctuation.

Imagine you are taking 30+ pieces of luggage on a cruise and you have locks on each of them of varying shapes and sizes. Imagine the keyring you'd be carrying around. Now imagine if the lock disables itself after the first three keys you try because you can't remember which key fits in the lock. Imagine further that every (1, 3, 6, 12) months the lock requires you create a new key for it. The most logical thing to do in this case would be to carry on your person a detailed list indicating which key went to which lock. This diary-sized book has its own little lock on it. (Some third party apps or web browsers will remember your passwords for you. This is like that diary.)

How do you make all this easier on yourself? You try to make passwords as similar as you can, using the same one on multiple websites if possible. You use birthdays, names or your children or pets, your military serial number, or maybe your favorite cartoon character. When it comes time to change the password, you simply increment the number to the end of it. To track all your passwords you might use a specialized password keeper, but you most likely either use a document on your computer or a spiral notepad or a series of yellow sticky notes on your monitor.

If you don't keep records you will end up forgetting passwords and have to click the "forgot" link. And then you will have to remember which email address or user name you entered a year and a half ago when you really needed to buy those (shoe lifts, rubber stamps, motocross tires) that only that site sells. Now, they'll send you a temp password to the email address on your account. You *DO* remember the email you used, right? And the username?

Cause and Effect. You make your passwords as simple and as easy to remember as you can because websites are concerned about security. You use the most obvious names/numbers in your life because websites are concerned about security. You are forced to compile a list of passwords/usernames/emails because websites are concerned about security. You keep a copy of your passwords within reach of the computer because websites are concerned about security.

Let's sum up the reasons why passwords are equivalent to luggage locks:

• obvious words and numbers are used
• a copy of the words and numbers are almost always nearby
• a virtual bolt-cutter can snip those little locks faster than you can say "script-kiddie".

That's right, even if you can commit to memory every combination of user/pass/email for the dozens of accounts you have scattered across the internet, someone will still be able to get around it. I'm not saying that there should be no such thing as passwords. I am saying that the cumulative effect of trying to tighten security has yielded the opposite result.

Why can't companies realize that the more complicated they try to make it, the more likely it is that people will fall prey to self-defeating practices? A company can require a convoluted combination lock -- with a key -- and a fingerprint scanner, but it wont matter. If someone really wants in to your luggage, there are other ways in besides through that lock.

"My... voice... is... my... passport... ... ... verify... me..."

Stupider Than Expected

Every morning I wake up to the local AM station. They play Rock and Roll from the 50s 60s and 70s. At the top of the hour they broadcast the CNN national news feed followed by the local news.

Almost without exception, whenever the CNN economic segment includes some sort of statistical indicators, they are followed by "less than economists expected" or "more than economists expected" or "higher than economists expected" or "lower than economists expected".

Here are some questions to consider:

Just who are these economists that never expect anything, and why does CNN keep consulting them? Could it be that an economy that includes over 6 and a half billion variables is hard to predict? If it is so enigmatic, then why bother predicting anything at all? If the "experts" are wrong so often, why should we listen to them in the first place? Is it possible that their "predictions" are merely wishful thinking, or worse: is the media's indefatigable persistence in broadcasting their failed guesses an attempt to manipulate the economy itself?

Isn't it true that there is not enough printed cash in the banks corresponding to deposits? Isn't it true that bank runs are caused, in part, by lack of public confidence in being able to retrieve their money? If bank runs are no longer likely, can there exist a more or less equivalent chain of circumstances just as damaging? Isn't it also true that the media has been known to affect public opinion? Isn't it possible that the media, belonging overwhelmingly to a single political party, work tirelessly to bend your perception of the economy to their political ends?

Recommendation for Thesis/Dissertation

Some brilliant young Doctoral or Masters candidate needs to research and write a paper on the savings in fuel/oil/brake pads/pollution/etc. that could be realized by one simple concept: Time the traffic lights properly in urban areas.

We all have witnessed the successful implementation of such a novel concept on some thoroughfare somewhere. Ask yourself why it can't be done on all streets? Too complicated? I think not. Traffic patterns can be studied and predicted. Traffic lights can be programmed to respond to heavier or lighter traffic conditions. Don't tell me we don't have the technology. I've seen the video of men walking on the lunar surface. What were we using back then? Slide rules, abaci, and computers with roughly the same power as your electronic bathroom scale?

Think of all the fuel you are expending idling there, not to mention how much it takes to build up your vehicle's momentum after a stop. Now multiply that by tens of millions. What would it cost for a city to time their lights to promote better traffic flow? What are the savings? There must be hundreds of corollary benefits such as reduced stress, fewer road rage incidents, and fewer fender-benders. That's what I would like our thesis examinee to find out.

It might also be interesting to find out why the-powers-that-be have not already taken the initiative to make their cities more easily navigable. Some reasons might include: the desire for more traffic incidents to occur for the purpose of issuing fines; the desire to sell more fuel for the purpose of collecting more taxes; the desire to slow down the flow of traffic for the purpose of encouraging patronage of local businesses (so as to collect more taxes).

You may notice those examples have one thing in common. I cannot believe that there is any other reason stopping us ("we" the consenting governed) from saving ourselves money, time, and aggravation other than political. After all, when a government collects money, it boils down to politics, doesn't it?

It only feels like it's out of control

Everyone keeps referring to "out of control" spending.

Let me be clear on one fact: Spending is NOT out of control. Our elected representatives have complete control over what is spent. It would be more accurate to describe our spending as immoral, irresponsible and reckless.

But most of all: Unconstitutional.

Our Pharisaical government has created countless 'traditions of the elders' that are unassailable. Built up over the years, these interpretations and extrapolations of the Constitution have piled up till we have a tower of babbling judges, lawyers and politicians who have lied to themselves for generations until they actually believe that the Constitution means the opposite of what it says. Instead of a limited government with enumerated powers, we have an unlimited government with any power it says it has.

Indeed, most elected representatives have lips that honor the Constitution, but their hearts are far, far from it.

And We, The People, have ceased to govern ourselves, content to let someone else nanny us. We are coming to the end of a once great civilization. One where families used to help each other. Instead we are claiming a sort of state sponsored Corban:

I can't help you, for what was once was mine to share with you is now earmarked for a bridge in Topeka, or a school breakfast in Poughkeepsie, or toilet seat in the Pentagon. But don't worry, you will be taken care of. I paid my taxes, the State will see to it.

The Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, is collectively being ignored. The public debt increases to the tune of $4 billion a day. The constituency is sufficiently apathetic or misinformed or ill-equipped to think themselves out of a wet paper bag. There are many analyses as to why the once mighty Roman Empire fell. For whatever the reasons truly were, one cannot help but feel a foreboding that a similar fate is quickly machinating before our eyes.