Re:It was already a dangerous site to visit ...
on
PHP.net Compromised
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I was on the internet, er, before it was the internet. -_- That doesn't mean anything as far as statements made about today.
Agreed. But you came screaming out of the gates with a hard core ad-hominem attack (Troll!) in response to what amounts to little more than a joke. Touchy much? That said, I was on the internet-before-it-was-the-internet back in 1980. Just out of curiosity, what's your magic date?
I've spent considerable time since regretting my early advocacy and plenty of time fixing PHP driven sites or migrating away from PHP to better platforms. Plenty of other people over the years have explained why PHP is a 'fractal of bad design', so I won't make that attempt here. I agree with them.
I calmly stand by my snark, perched atop the mountain of experience.
And I stand by my statements, that PHP would be one of my top picks for back-end design and dynamic pages. It is easy to read, has reasonably good performance, and reasonable security. But no language can stop people from shooting their own foot off if they're so determined, and your grevance seems to be not with the language itself, but with the fact that so many people shoot their own foot off while using it. The only problem I have with PHP is that the designers seem utterly incapable of understanding OOP concepts and the result is half-baked objects. But then, I say the same thing about Java.
You're reading a lot into my jokey original one-sentence post. Grievance (grevance)? I've used PHP. Found it wanting. Moved on. End of story. What's driving your zealous PHP advocacy?
Re:It was already a dangerous site to visit ...
on
PHP.net Compromised
·
· Score: 1
Hi, girlintraining.
I'm no troll. I was there (on the internet, not physically present) when Tim Berners-Lee announced the World Wide Web and I happened to notice while using Gopher. I downloaded and installed the first web browser and went to http://info.cern.ch/hypertext to see what was up with this new thing. I advocated and used PHP when the acronym stood for Personal Home Page. Back when everyone was banging out custom CGI scripts in Perl, it looked pretty cool. And for awhile it was. I rolled out quite a few sites based on PHP at the time. I've spent considerable time since regretting my early advocacy and plenty of time fixing PHP driven sites or migrating away from PHP to better platforms. Plenty of other people over the years have explained why PHP is a 'fractal of bad design', so I won't make that attempt here. I agree with them.
I calmly stand by my snark, perched atop the mountain of experience.
It was already a dangerous site to visit ...
on
PHP.net Compromised
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Well, not seriously. But short of precognition, a coin toss is as good a criterion as any as far as predicting the future longevity of a framework goes. It's one of the things that should be considered when choosing a framework, but it shouldn't be the top consideration. Give due diligence to the other important factors relevant to framework choice (age/maturity, degree of completeness, level of adoption, suitability to task, number of projects/products using it, nature and size of community, quality of development team, past history of development team members if known, quality of code if available,...). If you've chosen well, some degree of longevity will come naturally because good frameworks tend to keep getting used (and thus supported). Beyond that, the only guarantee of longevity is your own willingness to support it yourself if that's at all an option.
It sounds like you've learned at least one important lesson, which is that backing by a giant corporation is no guarantee of anything. Except maybe that if they abandon a product or framework, there's not much you can do about it due to intellectual property considerations. It's been said many times before, but at least with free software, you can maintain the source yourself, build a community, or pay someone to make the changes you need to maintain your application. (Note that this isn't meant to say anything about the quality of the framework - commercially backed frameworks often represent the best of breed in that category, sometimes not. But if abandoned, that's where the story ends.)
Firstly, turn your "Condescension" knob to "OFF", please. It is totally uncalled for, and you parenthetically point out why in your little rant. You (as most people with a deep need to feel superior to those whose less enlightened because they had the misfortune to have only a shitty analogy as the basis for understanding a subject) act as though everyone should have an experts view of physical phenomena that aren't readily observable in everyday life.
Secondly, so what would a traveler on a ship traveling at, say, 99%C, see? Would the lighting conditions on a ship would be increasingly distorted as the velocity approached C? The way the shitty (to use your eloquent term) descriptions of near-light travel explained things, it was the universe outside the viewport that was distorted, because they were effectively stationary relative to the traveler (and the local light source). Just as travelers on a fast moving train (or airplane) can still speak and hear normally though sounds outside are doppler-shifted, the naive interpretation is that conditions on a ship moving at near-light speeds would appear essentially normal.
I sent my comments to the email address mentioned in the original post. They reflect what I've been reading here (I looked at the new site, sent my comments, then came here to see the response). The new site is bad. If it is implemented as default, I will go away. 16 years is probably too long to be visiting a site multiple times a day in any case. Thank you/. for freeing me to seek information elsewhere.
All I need now is a mechanism to disable my current account so I nor anyone else can post to it any longer. Then I can happily move on.
I'd say you missed the point then. You accuse dryriver of needing Hollywood-fueled fanfare and drama, when in fact dryriver was questioning the need to play the "child genius" card every time a young person does something exceptional. That means nothing without some sort of followup so the second half of the story is told, hopefully involving living up to the early promise.
When I read about the hackability of smart TV's with cameras, I have to escalate beyond Betteridge to "Hell no!". My present HD TV is just fine, thank you.
Wrong focus. The concept is that you have borrowing privileges as long as you are eligible. In a library system your eligibility arises from being a verifiable resident of the community, usually with a local address (so either paying taxes or paying rent to someone who is paying taxes). When you move away, your access to the library stops. Subscription based borrowing is similar - your right to borrow lasts as long as you subscribe, but your eligibility is limited only by your continued willingness and ability to pay, not by your address (obnoxious regional/national restrictions notwithstanding).
So start a business catering to the vast hipster audience clamoring for more interesting material. Based on all the exasperated "Netflix has nothing I would ever want to watch" comments, you should make a mint.
They have pretty much nothing I'm interested in (too esoteric)... (I used to ask things like, "can you get me a book on sword metallurgy?" / "no", and eventually gave up).
This leaves me wondering why you felt compelled to comment, since it tells me little about the quality of your library system and more than I wanted to know about how 'esoteric' you are. The tone of your comment almost suggests a certain pride in how you 'tested' them with a request you likely knew beforehand would be difficult to fulfill, thus giving you 'justification' to find them wanting. Sword Metallurgy? In the 21st century? Really? Why not something more relevant like "Sextant Repair for Dummies" or "101 Embossing Patterns for your Leather Buggywhip". Or the ever popular "Sliderule Cookbook"? You're probably an intelligent person, so I suspect you knew from the start that a better source for information on Sword Metallurgy would likely be found at a nearby college or university, particularly one with specialized collections in your area of interest.
Here's a challenge for you: Think about what the purpose of a Public Library is. (Hint: Not to be there just for you, to cater to your particular esoteric needs). Think about what material they don't have might be *generally* useful and MAKE A SUGGESTION. My local library is pretty receptive to recommendations and welcomes them enthusiastically, though their limited budget means they favor materials likely to be of interest to most patrons. Tell them how they could improve their interlibrary loan system to make it easier to get materials of a less general nature. In my state (CT), I have access to the holdings of libraries statewide. With a little extra effort, I can search the holdings of non-public libraries (universities, private collections, etc). In either case, the requested materials are delivered to my local library and can be returned there without requiring a long drive. If that's not possible where you live, try to make it happen. Not just for yourself, but for those in your community who might benefit as well. Make it happen rather than sniffing haughtily about how useless your library is and taking 'holier than thou' swipes at 'pop-culture junkies'. In a democratic society, your community is what you make it.
What part of "abandon the old accounts" and start new ones did you miss? The day when you are prohibited from closing/disabling/abandoning an online account will be a sadder day than the one you're lamenting about.
I stopped using PayPal a few years ago. I forgot to renew the card it was associated when it expired. When I tried to update the details PayPal had blocked the account and refused to re-active unless I provided photographic ID. What, pray tell, do PayPal want or need with photographic ID? So, I, being the level headed and rational individual I am, smelled a huge fetid rat and stopped using their 'services.'
One good reason is to prevent forgotten/inactive accounts from being fraudulently reactivated for nefarious purposes (id theft, money laundering, whatever). Asking for proof of identity seems like a good security measure to me, not some nefarious scheme to - well what were you afraid of exactly?
I'm beginning to realize that despite genuine problematic behavior on their part, a lot of the PayPal hate seems to be the result of knee-jerk "I didn't get what I want so they suck", a whopping dose of conspiracy angst and just plain not thinking things through to understand why. I sure as hell don't trust them indiscriminately, but I don't think they are the great evil that some make them out to be. For the vast majority of their customers, they seem to do just fine, otherwise they would be out of business.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. PayPal is used as a convenient way to pay via credit card without revealing the number to anyone but them. That's safe enough because as you mention, there's fast and legal redress through the CC company should something go wrong, and I can always cancel the card. Bank account credentials aren't revealed to them, so they don't have access to actual money.
Fair enough. I couldn't decide whether there was any substance behind the OP's enlightened commentary or whether it was just adolescent poo-flinging. I thought if I prodded a bit I might evoke a response that could lead to an entertaining discussion. I have my answer now and I'm ashamed to say I wasted my time. Mea culpa.
Thanks. Sitting here about 3 miles from a Navy sub base and a little further from the Coast Guard Academy, I don't need lecturing on naval ratings.
I'll try one more time and point out that your question was about "enlisted men". You used the term Enlisted *men*. In 2013. Then you gave a woman as an example.
If your question was meant to be gender neutral, your choice of words was poor. If your question was meant to address the almost non-existent representation of lower ranks on the Star Trek shows, that could be a fun discussion, but you weren't clear.
You could argue that your terminology is common usage when referring to non-commissioned military personnel, but it was coined in a time when the military was predominantly made up of men and is woefully outdated. For heaven's sake, your question was posed in the context of a fictional space-faring organization apparently evolved from the Navy that takes place in the Far Future and includes not only men and women, but a multitude of non-human races of varying gender, not to mention artificial beings with no gender to speak of. When you refer to "men", that either means you're being sloppy (this gets my vote) or you are being deliberately specific.
I knew what you probably were trying to ask, because I'm old enough to recognize the phrase you used as meaning "non-officers". And it's obvious you just dashed off some quick post without really thinking about it much. That's cool - we're all busy. However, it is not my job to guess what you meant and respond to your vague utterance in the precise way you intended it. It *is* your job when communicating to be clear about what you mean so the discussion can be about the subject you want to discuss, not about figuring out what it was that you meant exactly.
It's good form when you realize you've been misinterpreted (or called out for sloppy use of language) to at least explain "that's not what I meant" and clarify so people can have a fun conversation about an old TV show they like before jumping straight to lashing out and calling someone an idiot.
Is it lost on you that most of the thread following your post has nothing whatever to do with your original post, but served as a convenient forum for thread hijackers to randomly talk about whatever Star Trek related subject happened to pique their interest? Maybe you weren't quite as clear as you thought.
Your question seemed poorly formulated and your supporting comment only confused matters.
You ask "Why so few enlisted men in Star Trek?", then proceed to offer 2 of the worst examples possible as "the only two I can think of". Yeoman Rand, as I already pointed out, was a woman. Chief O'Brien, though technically an enlisted man, has a confusing rank history, including times where he was referred to as Lieutenant and wore Lieutenant's insignia as well as episodes where he was clearly in charge of and giving orders to junior officers.
If you meant to question the lack of non-officers on the ships, "enlisted personnel" would have been more clear, given your choice of Rand as an example. If your question deliberately referred to gender, combining an example and counter example in the same clause was sloppy. Why not mention O'Brien as the sole example and finish with "and Rand was a woman"?
Beyond that, your question just seems silly, given that it refers to a series of TV shows that just happen to focus on the command crews as their subjects. The TOS Enterprise had a crew complement of around 430 and the TNG Enterprise a complement of over 1000. That's a hell of a lot of enlisted personnel, even if they didn't get very many speaking parts in the shows. Who do you think all those people are rushing through the corridors during red alert? Why didn't the writers focus more on them? Possibly because the show wasn't about them.
But what do I know? I am, as you point out, being an idiot.
Driver: "Yo, dude, I'm headed your way. In my car. Driving it myself. Alone. Tell me where you're at so I can pick you up". Non-driver: I'd better not send a response since I know my friend is driving and sending a text might be a distraction.
Driver sends multiple texts to non-driver:
Driver: "C'mon man, answer me!" Driver: "Why don't you ANSWER!!!?" Driver: "WTF!!!! I will spam u with texts until you tell me where you are!!!". Driver: "U R M8king me crzy!!! Answer!!!". Driver: Runs over child at school crossing
Lawyer to non-driver: "Why didn't you respond? You clearly knew Driver would continue to text while driving until you responded. If only you had responded, the driver would have put down the phone and driven safely to your location. You are responsible for the accident because you did not take sufficient measures to ensure the driver would stop texting!"
Slashdot Mirror
I was on the internet, er, before it was the internet. -_- That doesn't mean anything as far as statements made about today.
Agreed. But you came screaming out of the gates with a hard core ad-hominem attack (Troll!) in response to what amounts to little more than a joke. Touchy much?
That said, I was on the internet-before-it-was-the-internet back in 1980. Just out of curiosity, what's your magic date?
I've spent considerable time since regretting my early advocacy and plenty of time fixing PHP driven sites or migrating away from PHP to better platforms. Plenty of other people over the years have explained why PHP is a 'fractal of bad design', so I won't make that attempt here. I agree with them.
I calmly stand by my snark, perched atop the mountain of experience.
And I stand by my statements, that PHP would be one of my top picks for back-end design and dynamic pages. It is easy to read, has reasonably good performance, and reasonable security. But no language can stop people from shooting their own foot off if they're so determined, and your grevance seems to be not with the language itself, but with the fact that so many people shoot their own foot off while using it. The only problem I have with PHP is that the designers seem utterly incapable of understanding OOP concepts and the result is half-baked objects. But then, I say the same thing about Java.
You're reading a lot into my jokey original one-sentence post. Grievance (grevance)? I've used PHP. Found it wanting. Moved on. End of story. What's driving your zealous PHP advocacy?
Hi, girlintraining.
I'm no troll. I was there (on the internet, not physically present) when Tim Berners-Lee announced the World Wide Web and I happened to notice while using Gopher. I downloaded and installed the first web browser and went to http://info.cern.ch/hypertext to see what was up with this new thing. I advocated and used PHP when the acronym stood for Personal Home Page. Back when everyone was banging out custom CGI scripts in Perl, it looked pretty cool. And for awhile it was. I rolled out quite a few sites based on PHP at the time. I've spent considerable time since regretting my early advocacy and plenty of time fixing PHP driven sites or migrating away from PHP to better platforms. Plenty of other people over the years have explained why PHP is a 'fractal of bad design', so I won't make that attempt here. I agree with them.
I calmly stand by my snark, perched atop the mountain of experience.
... it introduced visitors to PHP.
That's pretty much how Airbnb works, and the experience so far has been a joy. Two thumbs up for the better way.
Well, not seriously. But short of precognition, a coin toss is as good a criterion as any as far as predicting the future longevity of a framework goes. It's one of the things that should be considered when choosing a framework, but it shouldn't be the top consideration. Give due diligence to the other important factors relevant to framework choice (age/maturity, degree of completeness, level of adoption, suitability to task, number of projects/products using it, nature and size of community, quality of development team, past history of development team members if known, quality of code if available, ...). If you've chosen well, some degree of longevity will come naturally because good frameworks tend to keep getting used (and thus supported). Beyond that, the only guarantee of longevity is your own willingness to support it yourself if that's at all an option.
It sounds like you've learned at least one important lesson, which is that backing by a giant corporation is no guarantee of anything. Except maybe that if they abandon a product or framework, there's not much you can do about it due to intellectual property considerations. It's been said many times before, but at least with free software, you can maintain the source yourself, build a community, or pay someone to make the changes you need to maintain your application. (Note that this isn't meant to say anything about the quality of the framework - commercially backed frameworks often represent the best of breed in that category, sometimes not. But if abandoned, that's where the story ends.)
Firstly, turn your "Condescension" knob to "OFF", please. It is totally uncalled for, and you parenthetically point out why in your little rant. You (as most people with a deep need to feel superior to those whose less enlightened because they had the misfortune to have only a shitty analogy as the basis for understanding a subject) act as though everyone should have an experts view of physical phenomena that aren't readily observable in everyday life.
Secondly, so what would a traveler on a ship traveling at, say, 99%C, see? Would the lighting conditions on a ship would be increasingly distorted as the velocity approached C? The way the shitty (to use your eloquent term) descriptions of near-light travel explained things, it was the universe outside the viewport that was distorted, because they were effectively stationary relative to the traveler (and the local light source). Just as travelers on a fast moving train (or airplane) can still speak and hear normally though sounds outside are doppler-shifted, the naive interpretation is that conditions on a ship moving at near-light speeds would appear essentially normal.
What say you, your brilliance?
All six should show up in Stockholm, accept the award together and explain why. That should give the Nobel committee a hint that things need updating.
I sent my comments to the email address mentioned in the original post. They reflect what I've been reading here (I looked at the new site, sent my comments, then came here to see the response). The new site is bad. If it is implemented as default, I will go away. 16 years is probably too long to be visiting a site multiple times a day in any case. Thank you /. for freeing me to seek information elsewhere.
All I need now is a mechanism to disable my current account so I nor anyone else can post to it any longer. Then I can happily move on.
Goodbye, Slashdot.
This. Mod parent up, please.
I'd say you missed the point then. You accuse dryriver of needing Hollywood-fueled fanfare and drama, when in fact dryriver was questioning the need to play the "child genius" card every time a young person does something exceptional. That means nothing without some sort of followup so the second half of the story is told, hopefully involving living up to the early promise.
Best /. post ever. Thanks.
Yeah, that's kind of what I said already, though not quite so straighforwardly. Thanks for reinforcing the message! :-)_
When I read about the hackability of smart TV's with cameras, I have to escalate beyond Betteridge to "Hell no!". My present HD TV is just fine, thank you.
Wrong focus. The concept is that you have borrowing privileges as long as you are eligible. In a library system your eligibility arises from being a verifiable resident of the community, usually with a local address (so either paying taxes or paying rent to someone who is paying taxes). When you move away, your access to the library stops. Subscription based borrowing is similar - your right to borrow lasts as long as you subscribe, but your eligibility is limited only by your continued willingness and ability to pay, not by your address (obnoxious regional/national restrictions notwithstanding).
So start a business catering to the vast hipster audience clamoring for more interesting material. Based on all the exasperated "Netflix has nothing I would ever want to watch" comments, you should make a mint.
They have pretty much nothing I'm interested in (too esoteric) ... (I used to ask things like, "can you get me a book on sword metallurgy?" / "no", and eventually gave up).
This leaves me wondering why you felt compelled to comment, since it tells me little about the quality of your library system and more than I wanted to know about how 'esoteric' you are. The tone of your comment almost suggests a certain pride in how you 'tested' them with a request you likely knew beforehand would be difficult to fulfill, thus giving you 'justification' to find them wanting. Sword Metallurgy? In the 21st century? Really? Why not something more relevant like "Sextant Repair for Dummies" or "101 Embossing Patterns for your Leather Buggywhip". Or the ever popular "Sliderule Cookbook"? You're probably an intelligent person, so I suspect you knew from the start that a better source for information on Sword Metallurgy would likely be found at a nearby college or university, particularly one with specialized collections in your area of interest.
Here's a challenge for you: Think about what the purpose of a Public Library is. (Hint: Not to be there just for you, to cater to your particular esoteric needs). Think about what material they don't have might be *generally* useful and MAKE A SUGGESTION. My local library is pretty receptive to recommendations and welcomes them enthusiastically, though their limited budget means they favor materials likely to be of interest to most patrons. Tell them how they could improve their interlibrary loan system to make it easier to get materials of a less general nature. In my state (CT), I have access to the holdings of libraries statewide. With a little extra effort, I can search the holdings of non-public libraries (universities, private collections, etc). In either case, the requested materials are delivered to my local library and can be returned there without requiring a long drive. If that's not possible where you live, try to make it happen. Not just for yourself, but for those in your community who might benefit as well. Make it happen rather than sniffing haughtily about how useless your library is and taking 'holier than thou' swipes at 'pop-culture junkies'. In a democratic society, your community is what you make it.
What part of "abandon the old accounts" and start new ones did you miss? The day when you are prohibited from closing/disabling/abandoning an online account will be a sadder day than the one you're lamenting about.
I stopped using PayPal a few years ago. I forgot to renew the card it was associated when it expired. When I tried to update the details PayPal had blocked the account and refused to re-active unless I provided photographic ID. What, pray tell, do PayPal want or need with photographic ID? So, I, being the level headed and rational individual I am, smelled a huge fetid rat and stopped using their 'services.'
One good reason is to prevent forgotten/inactive accounts from being fraudulently reactivated for nefarious purposes (id theft, money laundering, whatever). Asking for proof of identity seems like a good security measure to me, not some nefarious scheme to - well what were you afraid of exactly?
I'm beginning to realize that despite genuine problematic behavior on their part, a lot of the PayPal hate seems to be the result of knee-jerk "I didn't get what I want so they suck", a whopping dose of conspiracy angst and just plain not thinking things through to understand why. I sure as hell don't trust them indiscriminately, but I don't think they are the great evil that some make them out to be. For the vast majority of their customers, they seem to do just fine, otherwise they would be out of business.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. PayPal is used as a convenient way to pay via credit card without revealing the number to anyone but them. That's safe enough because as you mention, there's fast and legal redress through the CC company should something go wrong, and I can always cancel the card. Bank account credentials aren't revealed to them, so they don't have access to actual money.
Why do people use PayPal at all?
Mainly as a convenient means to avoid giving credit card numbers to those I trust even less than them. Nothing beyond that.
Fair enough. I couldn't decide whether there was any substance behind the OP's enlightened commentary or whether it was just adolescent poo-flinging. I thought if I prodded a bit I might evoke a response that could lead to an entertaining discussion. I have my answer now and I'm ashamed to say I wasted my time. Mea culpa.
Thanks. Sitting here about 3 miles from a Navy sub base and a little further from the Coast Guard Academy, I don't need lecturing on naval ratings.
I'll try one more time and point out that your question was about "enlisted men". You used the term Enlisted *men*. In 2013. Then you gave a woman as an example.
If your question was meant to be gender neutral, your choice of words was poor. If your question was meant to address the almost non-existent representation of lower ranks on the Star Trek shows, that could be a fun discussion, but you weren't clear.
You could argue that your terminology is common usage when referring to non-commissioned military personnel, but it was coined in a time when the military was predominantly made up of men and is woefully outdated. For heaven's sake, your question was posed in the context of a fictional space-faring organization apparently evolved from the Navy that takes place in the Far Future and includes not only men and women, but a multitude of non-human races of varying gender, not to mention artificial beings with no gender to speak of. When you refer to "men", that either means you're being sloppy (this gets my vote) or you are being deliberately specific.
I knew what you probably were trying to ask, because I'm old enough to recognize the phrase you used as meaning "non-officers". And it's obvious you just dashed off some quick post without really thinking about it much. That's cool - we're all busy. However, it is not my job to guess what you meant and respond to your vague utterance in the precise way you intended it. It *is* your job when communicating to be clear about what you mean so the discussion can be about the subject you want to discuss, not about figuring out what it was that you meant exactly.
It's good form when you realize you've been misinterpreted (or called out for sloppy use of language) to at least explain "that's not what I meant" and clarify so people can have a fun conversation about an old TV show they like before jumping straight to lashing out and calling someone an idiot.
Is it lost on you that most of the thread following your post has nothing whatever to do with your original post, but served as a convenient forum for thread hijackers to randomly talk about whatever Star Trek related subject happened to pique their interest? Maybe you weren't quite as clear as you thought.
Don't be an idiot.
Come again?
Your question seemed poorly formulated and your supporting comment only confused matters.
You ask "Why so few enlisted men in Star Trek?", then proceed to offer 2 of the worst examples possible as "the only two I can think of". Yeoman Rand, as I already pointed out, was a woman. Chief O'Brien, though technically an enlisted man, has a confusing rank history, including times where he was referred to as Lieutenant and wore Lieutenant's insignia as well as episodes where he was clearly in charge of and giving orders to junior officers.
If you meant to question the lack of non-officers on the ships, "enlisted personnel" would have been more clear, given your choice of Rand as an example. If your question deliberately referred to gender, combining an example and counter example in the same clause was sloppy. Why not mention O'Brien as the sole example and finish with "and Rand was a woman"?
Beyond that, your question just seems silly, given that it refers to a series of TV shows that just happen to focus on the command crews as their subjects. The TOS Enterprise had a crew complement of around 430 and the TNG Enterprise a complement of over 1000. That's a hell of a lot of enlisted personnel, even if they didn't get very many speaking parts in the shows. Who do you think all those people are rushing through the corridors during red alert? Why didn't the writers focus more on them? Possibly because the show wasn't about them.
But what do I know? I am, as you point out, being an idiot.
Chief O'Brien and Yeoman Rand are the only two I can think of.
Yeoman (Janice) Rand wasn't a man.
Driver: "Yo, dude, I'm headed your way. In my car. Driving it myself. Alone. Tell me where you're at so I can pick you up".
Non-driver: I'd better not send a response since I know my friend is driving and sending a text might be a distraction.
Driver sends multiple texts to non-driver:
Driver: "C'mon man, answer me!"
Driver: "Why don't you ANSWER!!!?"
Driver: "WTF!!!! I will spam u with texts until you tell me where you are!!!".
Driver: "U R M8king me crzy!!! Answer!!!".
Driver: Runs over child at school crossing
Lawyer to non-driver: "Why didn't you respond? You clearly knew Driver would continue to text while driving until you responded. If only you had responded, the driver would have put down the phone and driven safely to your location. You are responsible for the accident because you did not take sufficient measures to ensure the driver would stop texting!"
Non-driver: "FML."