Maybe you only live 5 miles from work, if so then yay for you. I have to drive more than 50 miles *a day*, suggesting that I do it at 15mph is stupidly impractical.
I have a 45km commute either way, petrol's $1.10/L or so, my car does ~8km/L in city traffic. All that works out to about $12 per DAY in petrol. $100/month would be awesome.
Perhaps the speed limit of the road should be reduced, or the amber light lengthened, or a safety campaign started to try and convince drivers that it isn't worth risking running a red light to save 20 seconds.
Bolded the solution for you. What actually happens is that when the red light camera system isn't producing enough revenue (remember, they swear blind that it's for your safety) they drop the duration of the amber light until more infringements occur.
Then there would be the 3 or 4 who absolutely refuse to jump, what do you do, kick them out of the door?
Oooh ooh pick me pick me, can I do it? I'm betting one of them is that guy in front of me who put is seat all the way back the moment he got on the plane.
When I street race my friends, I drive like a race-car driver, that is to say that the only life at risk is my own.
This bit is troll.
The very *moment* a stranger approaches or I approach a stranger, I drive like my life is at stake, and like I am responsible for that strangers life.
This bit is not, and for the love of god, why don't most drivers do this? It's because they're cosy in their mobile loungeroom watching a dvd while texting their friend and keeping half an eye on sorta staying in their lane. I try to always remember when driving (regardless of speed) that I'm piloting a lethal weapon and the lives of everyone around me are my responsibility.
I'm blowing my mod points here, and hoping that I'm redundant to other, earlier and wiser comments, but you are clearly too young to know a simple truth.
Life is pain, highness! Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is selling something.
There are levels of risk associated with everything you do, including 'nothing'. If we believe the increase in risk level is justifiable by the benefits of the activity then we do it. The increase in risk from driving faster while still at an appropriate speed for the conditions is minimal compared to the benefits. You can prove it to yourself by applying the 'drop 5, save lives' mantra ad absurdum. Try to remember when you were young enough to have somewhere else worth being, hmm?
There is literally no case you can postulate (including "being chased by tyrannosaurs") in which ADDING energy is the best escape strategy.
How about chased by an angry truck? ie. "Stuck stationary behind a car trying to change lanes, car finds a gap and makes the lane change, meanwhile a truck behind you didn't see the stoppage and is now fully locked up and sliding towards you". Yes, it's happened to me. Yes, I got out of it by accelerating hard.
If you're only comfortable driving significantly slower than the speed limit (under normal conditions) then you probably shouldn't be on the road (as a driver).
That thing doesn't match up well with this thing.
You shouldn't ever (not ever) being blowing past other vehicles with a 20mph speed differential. If you are, you need to slow down.
It's actually illegal to travel more than I think 10km/h under the limit in the right lane, in theory. However, I have never EVER seen someone pulled over for it, which is especially irritating in Australia where (with no "keep left" or "no overtaking on the left" laws) most drivers seem to pick a lane at random, with no regard for their preferred speed or the long line of traffic behind them. You HAVE to weave through traffic just to stay at the speed limit because both lanes are full of widely spaced morons doing 20 under the limit.
* We drive on the left. Swap left and right for you US'ians.
Robot drivers will put an end to nose-tail accidents
Volvo agrees with you. Of course as someone who enjoys driving, I insist on there being only one driver. I'm fine with that being a machine, but while I'm behind the wheel, it'd f**king better not touch my brakes/steering/etc. If it's good enough to take over from me in emergencies then it can drive the whole way and I'll bring a book.
That's why I drive the most recent model of my car to be made _without_ antilock brakes. If I stand on the brake pedal, it's because I *want* the wheels to lock, as part of a manoeuvre I'm pulling. If I want limit braking I'll damn well do it myself. The controls are called 'controls', not 'suggestion boxes', for a reason.
At 15mph you'll die of old age before you get there. Hitting a solid object at 45mph is often fatal, so unless you grade safety by how pretty your corpse will be, all accidents above that speed are equally fatal.
From personal experience, most "yellow sign" speed limits (the "advisory" speed limits that they post on off-ramps and tight bends) are roughly half the actual speed that a decently handling vehicle can navigate the bend in good conditions. They usually indicate (as they are meant to) the speed that a family sedan with cheap tyres and poor suspension can safely navigate the bend while it's raining.
"Going faster than is safe for the current conditions" is stupid, and is always dangerous. That seldom has any connection with "going faster than the number on the sign on the side of the road 5km back".
A modern airliner is actually safer than the usual small plane (Cessna etc).
This isn't in dispute. The GPP is simply saying that a pilot who spent years flying a small plane is probably a better _pilot_ than a pilot who has never flown anything but an Airbus A380 (and consequently knows that "you take off by pressing the take-off button, then you wait 5 hours, then you tell the passengers when it's safe to take their seat belts off after the plane lands itself"). Of course, pilot training involves a lot of hours in small planes.
All drivers should have to take driver training in a small car with no ABS or traction control, and in that training they should actually be taught how to control a car. It's enshrined in our Australian government mindset, and in legislation, that "it's dangerous to know how to drive a car properly because if you do, you're more likely to take risks". This is stupid, because you take just as many risks when you're doing something at which you're incompetent. You just don't _know_ you're taking them. They try to counter that by making everyone drive at parking-lot speeds so that when the inevitable collisions occur, no-one's hurt.
What they discount is that dropping the average driving speed also has a cost. Lowering my average speed by 10km/h adds 9 minutes to my daily commute. Over the course of a 40-year working life, that adds 120 DAYS to my time in the car. Not only is that 1/3 of a year of my life that I'll never get back (actually a whole year's worth of leisure/personal time, if you take 8 hours for sleep and 8 for work out of each day), but those are high-risk hours too - that's time in the car on the road, during which I could get T-boned at an intersection or caught in a pileup, or just have a heart attack due to the blonde in the plus-size 4WD who's on her mobile phone and doesn't realise I've stopped at the lights. But this very real, measurable cost doesn't sounds truthily scary to the public, so it gets no political attention.
Not even gonna bother asking for a citation on that, because I just started work in a company that does financial software, and lock-in is a large part of (from what I can see) most such companies' business models.
Use of a flippant remark (shoulda put a smiley on the end of it, I guess) to justify diagnosis of insanity is nearly certifiable evidence of... actually I dunno what, but it is. Yeah.
Very true. It still freaks me out when my wife (who's 19, and so very Web 2.0) gives someone her hotmail address after 10 minutes talking to them on WoW. I (probably like most of you) was brought up to never share any personal information online for fear of being kidnapped by Moral Panics or sweet-talked into giving out my parents' credit card numbers or something, I'm not sure exactly why. Thinking it through, I'm not convinced that there's any real safety issue with having such information out there, unless you're a particularly vulnerable person, but I'm still not convinced that there isn't.
That's because while you're pair programming, you spend 80% of your time programming and 20% of your time talking about it. When you're solo programming, you spend 80% of your time reading slashdot and 20% of your time programming.
I don't know what you were coding with MFC, so maybe you were far beyond my (admittedly rather simple) usage of it back then... but almost every time I thought I'd found a case where MFC was actually broken, it turned out to be my not using it correctly.
Your experience with Matlab bears this out a little - either you're a very advanced user or (more likely, IMO, for the average AC, although of course you, sir, are not that;) you're doin' it wrong. Of course, the very rare occasion when it IS the compiler/OS/API that's broken, this will drive you insane...:P
In general, I apply the same philosophy to big, very-widely-used APIs that I apply to compilers: If there's a problem, it's your fault, not the API/compiler/etc's fault.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, you only think you're right because you figgered it out yerself. Christians KNOW they're right cuz GOD told'em so hisself!
Although we're not the one that ask "do you intend to commit any felony or terrorist act while in the United States?"
Damn question trips me up every time.
Maybe you only live 5 miles from work, if so then yay for you. I have to drive more than 50 miles *a day*, suggesting that I do it at 15mph is stupidly impractical.
Well obviously that'd want to see if hobbled, NON-poisoned Mythbusters presenters blew up in the same way as poisoned, hobbled ones.
For science, of course.
I have a 45km commute either way, petrol's $1.10/L or so, my car does ~8km/L in city traffic. All that works out to about $12 per DAY in petrol. $100/month would be awesome.
Perhaps the speed limit of the road should be reduced, or the amber light lengthened, or a safety campaign started to try and convince drivers that it isn't worth risking running a red light to save 20 seconds.
Bolded the solution for you. What actually happens is that when the red light camera system isn't producing enough revenue (remember, they swear blind that it's for your safety) they drop the duration of the amber light until more infringements occur.
boingboing story
it happens in australia too
"Either it's mean or it's arbitrary, and either way it gives me the willies." - Calvin
Then there would be the 3 or 4 who absolutely refuse to jump, what do you do, kick them out of the door?
Oooh ooh pick me pick me, can I do it? I'm betting one of them is that guy in front of me who put is seat all the way back the moment he got on the plane.
Same reason they don't have seat belts on buses - the cost.
When I street race my friends, I drive like a race-car driver, that is to say that the only life at risk is my own.
This bit is troll.
The very *moment* a stranger approaches or I approach a stranger, I drive like my life is at stake, and like I am responsible for that strangers life.
This bit is not, and for the love of god, why don't most drivers do this? It's because they're cosy in their mobile loungeroom watching a dvd while texting their friend and keeping half an eye on sorta staying in their lane. I try to always remember when driving (regardless of speed) that I'm piloting a lethal weapon and the lives of everyone around me are my responsibility.
I'm blowing my mod points here, and hoping that I'm redundant to other, earlier and wiser comments, but you are clearly too young to know a simple truth.
Life is pain, highness! Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is selling something.
There are levels of risk associated with everything you do, including 'nothing'. If we believe the increase in risk level is justifiable by the benefits of the activity then we do it. The increase in risk from driving faster while still at an appropriate speed for the conditions is minimal compared to the benefits. You can prove it to yourself by applying the 'drop 5, save lives' mantra ad absurdum. Try to remember when you were young enough to have somewhere else worth being, hmm?
There is literally no case you can postulate (including "being chased by tyrannosaurs") in which ADDING energy is the best escape strategy.
How about chased by an angry truck? ie. "Stuck stationary behind a car trying to change lanes, car finds a gap and makes the lane change, meanwhile a truck behind you didn't see the stoppage and is now fully locked up and sliding towards you". Yes, it's happened to me. Yes, I got out of it by accelerating hard.
If you're only comfortable driving significantly slower than the speed limit (under normal conditions) then you probably shouldn't be on the road (as a driver).
That thing doesn't match up well with this thing.
You shouldn't ever (not ever) being blowing past other vehicles with a 20mph speed differential. If you are, you need to slow down.
It's actually illegal to travel more than I think 10km/h under the limit in the right lane, in theory. However, I have never EVER seen someone pulled over for it, which is especially irritating in Australia where (with no "keep left" or "no overtaking on the left" laws) most drivers seem to pick a lane at random, with no regard for their preferred speed or the long line of traffic behind them. You HAVE to weave through traffic just to stay at the speed limit because both lanes are full of widely spaced morons doing 20 under the limit.
* We drive on the left. Swap left and right for you US'ians.
Robot drivers will put an end to nose-tail accidents
Volvo agrees with you. Of course as someone who enjoys driving, I insist on there being only one driver. I'm fine with that being a machine, but while I'm behind the wheel, it'd f**king better not touch my brakes/steering/etc. If it's good enough to take over from me in emergencies then it can drive the whole way and I'll bring a book.
That's why I drive the most recent model of my car to be made _without_ antilock brakes. If I stand on the brake pedal, it's because I *want* the wheels to lock, as part of a manoeuvre I'm pulling. If I want limit braking I'll damn well do it myself. The controls are called 'controls', not 'suggestion boxes', for a reason.
At 15mph you'll die of old age before you get there. Hitting a solid object at 45mph is often fatal, so unless you grade safety by how pretty your corpse will be, all accidents above that speed are equally fatal.
From personal experience, most "yellow sign" speed limits (the "advisory" speed limits that they post on off-ramps and tight bends) are roughly half the actual speed that a decently handling vehicle can navigate the bend in good conditions. They usually indicate (as they are meant to) the speed that a family sedan with cheap tyres and poor suspension can safely navigate the bend while it's raining.
"Going faster than is safe for the current conditions" is stupid, and is always dangerous. That seldom has any connection with "going faster than the number on the sign on the side of the road 5km back".
Exceeding the appropriate speed for conditions is what gets you into trouble.
"Speeding" just gets you ticketed.
Thanks, I needed a new sig! (Paraphrased due to 120 chara
Also add my personal motto on the topic: A speeding fine is the penalty for being caught travelling at over the posted speed limit.
A modern airliner is actually safer than the usual small plane (Cessna etc).
This isn't in dispute. The GPP is simply saying that a pilot who spent years flying a small plane is probably a better _pilot_ than a pilot who has never flown anything but an Airbus A380 (and consequently knows that "you take off by pressing the take-off button, then you wait 5 hours, then you tell the passengers when it's safe to take their seat belts off after the plane lands itself"). Of course, pilot training involves a lot of hours in small planes.
All drivers should have to take driver training in a small car with no ABS or traction control, and in that training they should actually be
taught how to control a car. It's enshrined in our Australian government mindset, and in legislation, that "it's dangerous to know how to drive a car properly because if you do, you're more likely to take risks". This is stupid, because you take just as many risks when you're doing something at which you're incompetent. You just don't _know_ you're taking them. They try to counter that by making everyone drive at parking-lot speeds so that when the inevitable collisions occur, no-one's hurt.
What they discount is that dropping the average driving speed also has a cost. Lowering my average speed by 10km/h adds 9 minutes to my daily commute. Over the course of a 40-year working life, that adds 120 DAYS to my time in the car. Not only is that 1/3 of a year of my life that I'll never get back (actually a whole year's worth of leisure/personal time, if you take 8 hours for sleep and 8 for work out of each day), but those are high-risk hours too - that's time in the car on the road, during which I could get T-boned at an intersection or caught in a pileup, or just have a heart attack due to the blonde in the plus-size 4WD who's on her mobile phone and doesn't realise I've stopped at the lights. But this very real, measurable cost doesn't sounds truthily scary to the public, so it gets no political attention.
If it is easy enough, it'll STILL require instructions for some people.
Not even gonna bother asking for a citation on that, because I just started work in a company that does financial software, and lock-in is a large part of (from what I can see) most such companies' business models.
Does Quickbooks ( / other package ) run in Wine?
Use of a flippant remark (shoulda put a smiley on the end of it, I guess) to justify diagnosis of insanity is nearly certifiable evidence of... actually I dunno what, but it is. Yeah.
Very true. It still freaks me out when my wife (who's 19, and so very Web 2.0) gives someone her hotmail address after 10 minutes talking to them on WoW. I (probably like most of you) was brought up to never share any personal information online for fear of being kidnapped by Moral Panics or sweet-talked into giving out my parents' credit card numbers or something, I'm not sure exactly why. Thinking it through, I'm not convinced that there's any real safety issue with having such information out there, unless you're a particularly vulnerable person, but I'm still not convinced that there isn't.
Sadly, unless you're a government, I don't think the two cancel each other out. And even then there's usually some show of military force required...
http://www.stopsayingfail.com/
That's because while you're pair programming, you spend 80% of your time programming and 20% of your time talking about it. When you're solo programming, you spend 80% of your time reading slashdot and 20% of your time programming.
I don't know what you were coding with MFC, so maybe you were far beyond my (admittedly rather simple) usage of it back then... but almost every time I thought I'd found a case where MFC was actually broken, it turned out to be my not using it correctly.
;) you're doin' it wrong. Of course, the very rare occasion when it IS the compiler/OS/API that's broken, this will drive you insane... :P
Your experience with Matlab bears this out a little - either you're a very advanced user or (more likely, IMO, for the average AC, although of course you, sir, are not that
In general, I apply the same philosophy to big, very-widely-used APIs that I apply to compilers: If there's a problem, it's your fault, not the API/compiler/etc's fault.