gov.pe.ca · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Measuring Disinterest by Gibgezr · 2014-05-21 10:54 · Score: 1 · on The Sci-Fi Myth of Robotic Competence

A car that is approaching you from behind with no sign of slowing down is not tail-gating, they are about to run into you. Tail-gating is when a vehicle behind you maintains less than the appropriate distance but is going the same speed you are. Is English not your first language, or are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've said because you like to argue?

How the fuck do you tell the difference between "a car approaching you from behind" and "a car tail-gating you"? A tail-gating car approaches you from behind, then ...doesn't run into you. There is no way for me to tell them apart, as the driver in front: I can't read their minds. Mind you, I've never seen this mythical "run you over if you don't speed up" behaviour, but I've been tail-gated before (it occasionally happens when you obey speed limits, dangerous assholes like to crowd you). I leave my cruise control set for the speed limit, and they decide not to bump into me.
The safe distance between you and the car in front of you is supposed to be beteen 3-4 seconds in ideal conditions, longer if the road is wet/icy/snowy or the vehicle in front is lighter than yours (like following a motorcycle, or if you drive a truck, etc). The Smith System says 4 seconds, but the gov't of Canada claims 3 under perfect conditions: http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/or...
It is the responsibility of the driver BEHIND to maintain this distance, unless they are in another lane and passing. Only the driver following can do this; the driver in front has no safe way to maintain the distance: driving over the speed limit to try and maintain a safe distance is both dangerous and futile.

The rest of your rant is based on the concept of "at fault", which is a legal definition, and isn't what I wrote to begin with.

No, it's not based on just the legal definition of at fault, which is why I mentioned driver safety instructors and insurance companies alongside the lawyers. However, the legal definition should be good enough, as it is done that way for a very good reason. The person following has complete control over the situation; it is their, and only their, decisions that resulted in the accident. Even in your bogus "unholy steamroller that will not slow down and is going to run you over" scenario, there are just two possible ways to avoid the accident:
1)The car ahead speeds up. This is problematic: they are now driving above the speed limit, which is both illegal and more dangerous than:
2)The car following SLOWS THE FUCK DOWN to the speed limit and backs off the appropriate distance (3-4 seconds) until it can get into a clear passing lane and then blithely speed off. Now, you claim #2 is not valid because the asshat coming up from behind is a murderous psychotic who can't take his foot off the accelerator, but I don't see that as a reason to then say that #1 is what we all should do in every instance of this. That is a pure logical fallacy.

Now, which of these is the least dangerous? Which of these is taught as the correct response in driving schools? Which of these does the law say is legal? Which of these do we want both humans and robots doing? Now imagine if we programmed robot cars to "just speed up" when someone behind them started tail-gating...no, sir, that is not a good answer. That is an awful answer. If you can't see why that is an incorrect way to program a robotic car to respond, we are at an impasse. I don't think you need any special education beyond a safe driver's course to understand why, but might I suggest "Probabilistic Robotics" by Thrun et alii if you are interested in the study of programming autonomous cars and the logic/math behind it all. It's heavy reading, but is currently the gold standard in academic texts on the subject. You may find it just as good reading as Risks Digest.

Re:Oh, bullshit.... by druxton · 2004-11-15 02:43 · Score: 1 · on Iraq law Requires Seed Licenses

...unlike corn and so forth, which is where that Canadian case came from

That case actually involved canola, and canola pollen is heavy and not normally carried long distances by wind. However, according to the farmer who lost that case, the judged ruled that it didn't matter how the GM plants ended up in the field. See here for an account in his own words.

Re:What??? by shepd · 2002-11-20 11:14 · Score: 1 · on Retailers Swing DMCA To Stop "Black Friday" Sale Info

>out of curiosity, what's illegal about boxing day sales? i'm Canadian and i've never heard of a boxing day sale being against the law.

I'm looking for details... this might just be a regional thing (or an Ontario thing) but a few years ago a store opened on Boxing Day and got hit with a $150k fine, if what I remember from the news is correct.

I am sure the law was repealed recently, as a lot of local stores opened for boxing day last year.

Ahhh, finally found something useful. Now anyone with some law books care too look up "Retail Business Holidays Act R.S.O. 1990, ch.R.30 (the Act)".

Here it is. PDF.

And the rules:

"Prohibition
2. (1) No person carrying on a retail business in a retail business establishment shall,
(a) sell or offer for sale any goods or services therein by retail; or
(b) admit members of the public thereto,
on a holiday."

Boxing Day was once a legal holiday (it's in the PDF version).

HTH!