31–40 of 70 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good driving doesn't have that much to do with your reaction time. 40% slower to respond, with a well planned drive, is a lot safer than 40% faster driving too close.
Sure, but one aspect of "terrible" driving would be: following too close, leaving oneself insufficient space to brake in response to leading vehicles. So, someone who is terrible in that respect could be more dangerous sober than a better driver is when drunk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but one aspect of "terrible" driving would be: following too close, leaving oneself insufficient space to brake in response to leading vehicles. So, someone who is terrible in that respect could be more dangerous sober than a better driver is when drunk.
Of course, the real reason the limit is there is because the greatest danger is the terrible driver, drunk. When you take 30% worse of "terrible", you get "really terrible".
(This is mainly unrelated but simply fascinating) I came across an article on this same topic, regarding a man who after being shot in the head could no longer sleep..... and apparently lived (as a fully functioning human being??) for 40 more years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kern The problem is that I cannot find any scholarly articles that mention him (searched on Google Scholar, do not have access to other…
For a definitive weapon against sleep you could look into modafinil. I haven't tried it because all the shady websites where you can buy it only ship to the US, but apparently it turns off your need for sleep completely with next to no effects of sleep deprivation. But I wouldn't use it to skip more than a night of sleep. Sounds like a bad idea because you do need to sleep. Sleep is good for you.
[1] http://www.gwern.net/Modafinil#suppliers-prices
[2] See /r/nootropics or LongeCity for reviews.
I'm a bit surprised that .08 BAC corresponds to 70% ability. That means that in many cases, a good-but-legally-drunk driver will be vastly out-performing a terrible-but-sober driver. I'm just glad my car will drive itself soon.
>>That means that in many cases, a good-but-legally-drunk driver will be vastly out-performing a terrible-but-sober driver. Not really. Drunk-driving is illegal due to increased reaction times, not decreased driving ability. You can be drunk and properly follow the traffic laws, but if you run into a situation that requires quick reflexes you're much more likely to not react quickly enough. Whereas terrible drivers a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found this article - http://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2010/07/02/the-end-of-... - which mentions some other cases and claims that Paul Kern didn't sleep... but did close his eyes and rest for a couple of hours each day. The whole thing's setting off some skeptical alarms in my head. I think it's pretty telling that all but one of the examples are unverified and from before 1950, when things like EEGs weren't a…
Prahlad Jani has yet to be debunked and he was observed twice (in 2003, 2010) round the clock for up to 15 days without food and water intake or waste movements. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/International/man-eat-drink/sto... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani Very credulous. But, as the wise man says "We'll see." :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, the real reason the limit is there is because the greatest danger is the terrible driver, drunk. When you take 30% worse of "terrible", you get "really terrible".
That's the reason ing , but to me it just proves that drunk driving shouldn't be a crime separate from poor driving. (I guess it would be OK as an aggravating factor for other traffic crimes.) Someone who drives acceptably while drunk drives acceptably, period.
(We opt not to lean to the more permissive side because drivers who are drunk are indeed already responsible for a great deal of injury, loss of life, and damage)
Upon further examination, they found that error rates due to fatigue had decreased, but that error rates related to patient handoffs had increased by a similar amount. The long shifts, while being a source of fatigue, did provide for good continuity of care, as the same doctor handled the case for longer.
Once the study team started addressing some of the problems in handoffs, such as going through the patients alphabetically instead of by severity, they began to see the error rates decrease.
Tony Schwartz in his book "The Way We're Working Isn't Working" also mentioned a study on laboratory mice. They were deprived of ever sleeping until they died.
From this Tony Schwatz advises we have a daily nap.
I'm sure there are countless other hellish and inhumane experiments animals are going through to better our understanding of sleep. But it seems like we still don't know much.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Jouvet [2] http://psychology4a.com/sleep8.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found this article - http://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2010/07/02/the-end-of-... - which mentions some other cases and claims that Paul Kern didn't sleep... but did close his eyes and rest for a couple of hours each day. The whole thing's setting off some skeptical alarms in my head. I think it's pretty telling that all but one of the examples are unverified and from before 1950, when things like EEGs weren't a…
Prahlad Jani has yet to be debunked and he was observed twice (in 2003, 2010) round the clock for up to 15 days without food and water intake or waste movements. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/International/man-eat-drink/sto... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani Very credulous. But, as the wise man says "We'll see." :)
In a case like this, it's up to the ones making the extraordinary claim to provide the evidence, not up to anyone else to debunk it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prahlad Jani has yet to be debunked and he was observed twice (in 2003, 2010) round the clock for up to 15 days without food and water intake or waste movements. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/International/man-eat-drink/sto... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani Very credulous. But, as the wise man says "We'll see." :)
Both studies were done by the same scientist who seems to have other stakes in the process than just academic curiosity.
However, both tests were done with other researchers (in 2010, with "a team of 35 researchers from the Indian Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences (DIPAS) as well as other organizations") in the largest hospital chain in one of the most industrialized states in India.
So, still very believable to my mind, despite the reaction of the scientific community at large. Many are quick to say "impossible", citing what they know based on their own observations. It saddens me that modern scientists are such cynics. History has proven that "impossible" is just a point of view and that many things widely believed to be impossible in the past are completely doable.