> How many times have you been rammed from behind? How many of those were from someone following too closely? How many times have you been tailgated?
None:) I try my best to avoid situations where I'm being tailgated. It's not just always possible. But I think you didn't understand my point : I was speaking about statistics and the entire driving population. Otherwise, if I only think of myself, who never had an accident (minor or otherwise) in 15+ years of driving, with 170,000km on my present car, then I could therefore assume that my driving practices are excellent and that I should not question my driving! By the gods, I didn't even have accidents where 'it's all their fault!':) ah faulty logic, where would I be without it:)
> They are directly comperable. If you "kill" 80 years of man-hours, you have taken away the equivelent of one lifetime. Is it somehow better to take 1/4 of the life period from 4 people than 100% from one person?
I disagree. There are a couple of things wrong with your assessment. First of all, you are comparing killed time with killed people? Wow... just... wow. I don't value my time above the safety of others. I think that it's better to all equally share the load of 'killed time' (which is rather small for an individual), rather than for one person to lose his life to an impatient driver. That's the reality of traffic. You have to share the road, and you'll always meet someone who goes slower or faster than you. I do realize that it applies to all the drivers out there, from the slower ones to the fastest ones. This means I always pay extra attention not to get in the way of other people... up to a point. After all, the road belongs to all, not just the fastest drivers. Just like I have to cope with the inevitable bad driver, you have to cope with the inevitable slower driver.
Basically, tailgaters tend to overreact to small changes in speed to the lead car. This leads to a domino effect where the preceding cars slow down more and more, creating a important slowdown in the traffic in the long run.
So, in the end, not only are you endangering others (reduced reaction times, reduced visibility) but you are also slowing down traffic. I am therefore not thanking you:p
Z.
I grow tired of this. Thanks for the discussion:)
> Oh, I'm not frustrated. I have fun weaving in and out of traffic at three times the limit in bizzards
> It is an unsupported assertion that tailgaters are endangering anyone's lives.
Maybe we don't have the same definition of tailgaters : to me, a tailgater is someone who'll smash into me if a suddenly break. By definition, they are endangering me by removing the possibility to avoid something by breaking without being ran into. It's a fact that cannot be denied. What can be argued though, is what is this magical safe distance. Like you pointed out, it varies from person to person and from situation to another. However, I'll argue that there is minimum distance that is totally unsafe, however fast your reflexes might be. I guarantee you that 99% of the people out there can't stop when they are 10 feet away from me going 60 MPH. These are the ones that are worrying.
> Which one is actually doing something? I would rather see people who cause crashes tossed in jail than ban driving that some people might possibly be unsafe with a lack of evidence.
Ok, I'll bite. Now all we have to do is evaluate the worth of damages due to unsafe driving VS time lost to slow drivers. Apple and oranges really (if you value life in terms other than dollars). Personnally, I'd rather take my chances and accept the fact that I might not get to where I'm going in the most efficient way. I'd also bet that more ordely driving (bug-free computer controlled?) would get us home faster than the horrible mess of speeding cars we have now. I can't seem to find the website with the simulations on it. Darn weak google-fu. Oh, and do tailgaters get home faster than someone going the same speed but which keeps a reasonnable distance from other cars? I don't think so.
> Perhaps if you weren't staring at your rearview mirror constantly you would have seen the thing that made you stop sooner.
Hehehe:) Now you're extrapolating from your own distorted view of slower drivers. Here, let me try my own distorted goggles : Perhaps if you weren't so intent on reaching your destination as fast as possible, with complete disregard for other people on the road, you could get home with a lot less frustration an anger on your mind:p
> or all the other things that illegal and unsafe traffic vigilantes come up with
At least we agree on one thing. We're not there to Police the road, just to get home safely. Vigilantes are as bad as tailgaters.
Ooo, ooo, one last thing I forgot to mention following my train of thought : slow cars drivers are said to be rude because they are slowing other people down. Drivers who tailgate (and aren't racecar drivers) are being rude by endangering other people's lives. Assign weights and judge accordingly.
I'm sorry I can't reply in full to your thorough post (since I have limited break time:), but I'd like to make one clarification to my original intent :
I proposed that we inforce a single speed not because that speed is inherently safer than another, but because it would prevent a lot of situations where *perceived* un-civility arises. Let me explain with an example : When I drive the speed limit on a rural road (say 90 km/h), and I'm joined by a tailgater, who's being uncivil? Me for not stopping on the side of the road to let him pass, or him for tailgating? From my point of view, he started it. But from his POV, I did. For the vast majority of the people out there, being uncivil to someone is completely justified if the other started it... It usually degenerates fast from there:)
As far as reflexes go, I only ask for one thing : if I have to slam on the brakes NOW for any reason (which never happened to me with cars following), the preceeding cars have to be able to stop without hitting me. Period. If you are a racecar driver and can do that even though you are an inch away from my car, then fine. But how can I tell the difference? From my point of view, and from experience, the vast majority of people aren't racecar drivers. And my chances of being hit by the preceeding cars is inversely proportionnal to the distance from my car:) So when I see a car 6 feet away from me, it is usually safe to assume that I'm dealing with another jerk who's being 'uncivil' (statistically speaking). It is very hard to keep cool when you perceive someone as a jerk. Inter-car communications would help resolve that:) We would see how civil people really are then, and I bet it wouldn't be pretty.
So, where does that leave us? You're being uncivil for going too fast, and I'm being uncivil for driving too slow. Even if we adjust the speed limit to a higher value, this will still happen, so I don't think it's a good solution. What we need is better passing rules of engagement with strong enforcement. But I don't see that happening until each car is constantly monitored via GPS by the authorities...
In the meantime, the only solution left is to rise above the crowd, and be civil to uncivil drivers:)
> However, what about the 10,000 people behind me? Is that comfort level for that one person worth the time they steal from everyone else around them?
That is not my point. You are blending two issues into this. I'm not talking about behing 'civil'. I'm talking about safety. The dangerous drivers is not the slow one, but the aggressive ones who can't cope with slower speeds (or faster speeds).
I do agree that if there is ever 10,000 vehicules behind you, it's probably a good thing to let them pass:) But then ask yourself this : wan't can't they pass the obviously much slower vehicule? Bad road design? Too much traffic? I will admit that I never have that many people behind me in the rural areas, and when I go to the bigger cities, I usually drive along with the flow of the left-lane traffic. But that is besides the point.
You could also ask yourself another question : Why don't we all agree on a limit, a magical speed limit, chosen by society somehow, at which we should all strive to drive at for a given road? Wouldn't that solve a lot of problems?:) After all, driving is a priviledge, not a god-given right.
As far as the dangers of tailgating goes, I do admit that I would like to see studies on that subject. Tailgaters probably do less direct damage in a collision, but that depends on the vehicules and the situation. And if people are doing more damage when they are 2-4 seconds behind other cars, then that's another issue : they just aren't paying attention to their environment, which is just as bad as tailgating (IMHO), if not worse.
But how can you tell the idiots from the non-idiots? Hmm? The only way to be sure is to provoke them all by tailgating.
Being a non-idiot (as we all are, of course) never pays. And the people who claim to tolerate non-idiots usually don't have enough patience for the non-idiots by the time they're done dealing with the other idiots on the road to actually prove that they aren't idiots themselves. It's a vicious circle.
I found one way to mostly avoid it though : I don't drive during rush hour.
I'll join in to say that nothing EVER justifies endangering the lives of the people in front of you! That's what you are doing when you tailgate, you leave no room for error, which can only end badly if the person in front of you needs to brake for some (hopefully) legitimate reason.
I do agree that we all have to share the road, and that the left lane is for passing. I actually try my best to never be in a situation were someone will tailgate me when I pass (I don't do it for you, I do it for me). But on single-lane roads, I found that *whatever* the speed I drive, there is always going to be a tailgater waiting there for you. Always! Pull to the shoulder you say? That's even more dangerous most of the times! In low-traffic situations where it is not dangerous, you shouldn't have a hard time to pass me when I go the limit. Hell, I'd even slow down for you if it would help (but I know it doesn't).
So please, respect my wish to drive the limit. You'll soon get an occasion to pass me (if you aren't one of those pansies who can't pass unless there is 10 miles of road free ahead of you), just bide your time a little. Sharing the road isn't just a mantra for those who drive slower. I feel your pain and I'll do my best within reason to let you get on your merry way.
You know, if everyone drove the same limit, you know, a magical limit chosen by society somehow, then those problems would not arise. We could probably even cut cost on highways since we wouldn't need 4 lanes for passing cars:) .
If I remember correctly, there should be about two seconds between you and the other car, which means you don't even have to do math! You just have to be able to count to 'two Mississippis'. Sadly, that seems to be more than most people can do:(
Personally, I found out that most drivers are really clueless about their driving environment. On my way to work, there is a a stretch with a speed limit of 50 km/h (city zone) with four lanes. One one memorable day, I was being tailgated by such a driver, even though I was driving 10 over the speed limit in that zone (which is 'normal' in Quebec for city driving), with no other cars in sight in our direction. I then proceeded with a scientific experiment : after a short while, I changed to the left lane... and was promptly passed on the right by the previous driver... Now, you might assume that that nice fellow wanted to exit on the right shortly after, but then, you'd be wrong.
Bottom line is, people just don't care about driving safely. We have airbags and insurance (and a nice no-fault policy). Who could ask for more?
PS : Don't ever slow down and move to the extreme right of the lane to let those moron pass you, it just gets them angrier. Go figure.
> if you, presumably a fully functioning adult human being can not drive 45 in a 45, not only are you a nuissance, you are a risk to the lives of other drivers on the road.
I always like this argument, and I've heard it a lot : Basically, you are saying that by going less than 45 in a 45 zone *you* are a danger to the other people on the road (note : for a lot of people, going the speed limit is the same). How about this : if you can't safely drive around people who are driving slower than you, then maybe *you're* the one who isn't driving safely? If you can't safely avoid these other drivers, how the hell are you going to handle a deer, or a child (won't someone PLEASE think of the children?) or a sudden obstacle in your way?
I'll agree that people who drive slower might be catalizers (sp?) for dangerous driving behavior, but they aren't the direct cause. Unless of course you believe that the slower person is responsible for the state of mind of the other drivers, and that these other faster drivers can't really be held responsible for their state of mind...
Oh, and before you call me a hypocrite, I do hate it when people drive 35 in a 45 zone. But hey, what's the safest way to drive? Get mad and try to drive into their pants? Or slow down, take a deep breath, and realize that I'll get to work 1 minute late ? I found that driving was much more enjoyable if I just take it easy and let them be.... until a tailgater inevitably joins us though:)
One last thing, after all I just said, please note that I do always take extra care never to be in a situation where I can slow down other drivers when possible. I don't do it for the tailgaters, I do it for me:) The only situation where that does not apply is on two lane roads (one direction each way). In those cases, pass me already!
> Someone who marvels at the fact that we are the only known piece of the universe that is aware of itself, and trying to figure itself out - who sees the universe as a conscious entity
Straight out from Delenn from Babylon 5 :
* "... we are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out."
* "We believe that the universe itself is conscious in a way we can never truly understand. It is engaged in a search for meaning. So it.. breaks itself apart, investing its own consciousness in every form of life"
From that, I can only conclude that you are not an atheist, but are actually a member of the religious cast of the Mimbari.:p
And from what I could glance on the internet on my short break, those lines (which I think are great btw) are actually 'Buddhist-flavored'...
> The same goes for many other laws that have existed for a long time - they exist because society as we know it could not survive without them, not because the government has mandated morality and ethics. However, many people dont see this (such as NIMF), and they are wrongly trying to mandate morality and ethics through law.
Devil's advocate here (HA!) :
Maybe the NIMF believes that society as we know it cannot survive without laws protecting people against violent video games? Seriously, where do we draw the line? Murder? Theft ? 'Pirating' music ? Violent video games?
Note : society has managed to survive for a long time without solid law inforcement preventing murder, theft and pirates. Granted, it wasn't society *as we know it*, but it was a society nonetheless. Survival of the fittest? Who's to say which society will be better for humans in the long run?
> the theorists may *again* have to go back to the drawing board.
I don't think we have to worry about that too much. At least we don't have to erase everything:)
My thinking is, your "backup copy" will be damaged the same way that your DNA is damaged. How does the mutation detection mechanism work? By comparing the backup to the original? What if the backup is mutated? This hopefully can't be it. What if it detects "malfunctions" in the cell. Well, then it could copy the backup DNA on the new one, but which part do you copy? If you copy all of it you're still stuck with potential mutations. If you know which part to copy, there is still a chance (smaller, but still present) that your backup copy is damaged and that you'll also insert anoter (or the same) mutation back in the original.
Like other posters said, we need a RAID (RAIDNA?) for these corrections to be right most of the time.
Actually, you are working the same amount of time each day (in SI unit hours, which haven't changed) but now each day is shorter. So your ratio of free-time/work-time is now lower, meaning you just had a pay-cut buddy.
Actually, it does. But it all depends on your reference point. You see, someone living at the equator is now moving a little slower than before (about 38 angstroms per second slower). Now, according to special relativity, this means that those people are now living shorter lives than their equivalent selves in a dimension where the earthquake didn't occur (I hope I'm not getting this wrong, I'm in a hurry). Granted, at a speed of about 147 m/s, the time dilatation is negligeable compared to the 2.68 micro seconds per day gain that we now have.
(btw, I calculate my age using the length of a day, not those pesky SI seconds...)
Look at the time! Boy do those microseconds ever fly!
I always thought that things looked more and more like Earth-gov in Babylon 5... you know, with Night-Watch and all that crap. At least I've yet to see a "SCORCHED EARTH" message hidden in any of my GPS info:)
> So the question remains: how much are the "clamouring" types willing to pay? 1Million jobs? 2Million? 5M? 10M? 15% of GDP? > That's the real question.
The other real question is : are you willing to pay the price of neglecting the effects of global warming?
How many people will have their lives changed significantly in the next 5, 10, 20 years because of global warming? How many people will die (if any, of course)? Will 1 million jobs be worth that? By the way, where did you get those numbers?
You also mention that kyoto "so vicious" to the US economy. Was that in the short term or in the long term? What do you think is more important for the actual president and vice-president ? I'm putting my vote on the short-term (4 years sounds about right). And finally, won't the effects of global warming be bad in the long term for the US/world economy?
Get all the facts before you decide on "how many US jobs global warming is worth". I sure don't think we have them all, that's why we need to pay attention and study the question carefully.
You forgot about Fltk http://www.fltk.org/ for your interfaces needs (free and portable) and Dev-C++ from Bloodshed software http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html which is a great IDE for windows (which is also free!). Of course, you don't get all the fonctionnality of Visual C++ in one package, but it does the job without problems (at least for me:)
Is that pixel dead or color stuck? Like another poster pointed out, a pink or red pixel in the middle of your screen just might be a tad annoying. On the other hand, your brain can probably 'fix' a dead pixel automagically:p
It just has to be one of the most addictive games out there:) It's by the creators of XCOM and is basically XCOM with internet play (only much better). Sadly enough, it was so addictive I had to cancel my subscribtion. I wasn't strong enough not to look at my emails every half hour or so:)
I never paced my emails though. I always found it frustating when the other players stopped for a day or for the weekend. When that happened, I just started other games and concentrated on those. I'd rather win or lose against an opponent that is giving me his/her 100%:)
Slashdot Mirror
> All of which you would already have know if you actually used Eclipse like you said.
:p
...
That's funny, I use Eclipse and I had no idea what MyEclipse, GA, M and WTP meant! I must have forgotten to install the InstantKnowledge(tm) plugin
Btw, Eclipse has many plugins, some of which have nothing to do with web development or java
Z.
> How many times have you been rammed from behind? How many of those were from someone following too closely? How many times have you been tailgated?
:) I try my best to avoid situations where I'm being tailgated. It's not just always possible. But I think you didn't understand my point : I was speaking about statistics and the entire driving population. Otherwise, if I only think of myself, who never had an accident (minor or otherwise) in 15+ years of driving, with 170,000km on my present car, then I could therefore assume that my driving practices are excellent and that I should not question my driving! By the gods, I didn't even have accidents where 'it's all their fault!' :) ah faulty logic, where would I be without it :)
... up to a point. After all, the road belongs to all, not just the fastest drivers. Just like I have to cope with the inevitable bad driver, you have to cope with the inevitable slower driver.
. And here's another : http://www.nature.com/news/1998/981126/pf/981126-8 _pf.html. And another : http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/0700.php.
:p
:)
:)
None
> They are directly comperable. If you "kill" 80 years of man-hours, you have taken away the equivelent of one lifetime. Is it somehow better to take 1/4 of the life period from 4 people than 100% from one person?
I disagree. There are a couple of things wrong with your assessment. First of all, you are comparing killed time with killed people? Wow... just... wow. I don't value my time above the safety of others. I think that it's better to all equally share the load of 'killed time' (which is rather small for an individual), rather than for one person to lose his life to an impatient driver. That's the reality of traffic. You have to share the road, and you'll always meet someone who goes slower or faster than you. I do realize that it applies to all the drivers out there, from the slower ones to the fastest ones. This means I always pay extra attention not to get in the way of other people
The second one, which also relates to the rest of your post, is the false assumption that tailgaters improve the flow of traffic. The studies I found indicated that they actually slow down the traffic! Here's a non-scientific report (sorry, I can't find the real ones only tonight, took me a while to find them the first time.. so you don't have to take my word for it, hopefully, your google-fu will be stronger than mine) http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000911.html
Basically, tailgaters tend to overreact to small changes in speed to the lead car. This leads to a domino effect where the preceding cars slow down more and more, creating a important slowdown in the traffic in the long run.
So, in the end, not only are you endangering others (reduced reaction times, reduced visibility) but you are also slowing down traffic. I am therefore not thanking you
Z.
I grow tired of this. Thanks for the discussion
> Oh, I'm not frustrated. I have fun weaving in and out of traffic at three times the limit in bizzards
I liked that one
> It is an unsupported assertion that tailgaters are endangering anyone's lives.
:) Now you're extrapolating from your own distorted view of slower drivers. Here, let me try my own distorted goggles : Perhaps if you weren't so intent on reaching your destination as fast as possible, with complete disregard for other people on the road, you could get home with a lot less frustration an anger on your mind :p
Maybe we don't have the same definition of tailgaters : to me, a tailgater is someone who'll smash into me if a suddenly break. By definition, they are endangering me by removing the possibility to avoid something by breaking without being ran into. It's a fact that cannot be denied. What can be argued though, is what is this magical safe distance. Like you pointed out, it varies from person to person and from situation to another. However, I'll argue that there is minimum distance that is totally unsafe, however fast your reflexes might be. I guarantee you that 99% of the people out there can't stop when they are 10 feet away from me going 60 MPH. These are the ones that are worrying.
> Which one is actually doing something? I would rather see people who cause crashes tossed in jail than ban driving that some people might possibly be unsafe with a lack of evidence.
Ok, I'll bite. Now all we have to do is evaluate the worth of damages due to unsafe driving VS time lost to slow drivers. Apple and oranges really (if you value life in terms other than dollars). Personnally, I'd rather take my chances and accept the fact that I might not get to where I'm going in the most efficient way. I'd also bet that more ordely driving (bug-free computer controlled?) would get us home faster than the horrible mess of speeding cars we have now. I can't seem to find the website with the simulations on it. Darn weak google-fu. Oh, and do tailgaters get home faster than someone going the same speed but which keeps a reasonnable distance from other cars? I don't think so.
> Perhaps if you weren't staring at your rearview mirror constantly you would have seen the thing that made you stop sooner.
Hehehe
> or all the other things that illegal and unsafe traffic vigilantes come up with
At least we agree on one thing. We're not there to Police the road, just to get home safely. Vigilantes are as bad as tailgaters.
Z.
Ooo, ooo, one last thing I forgot to mention following my train of thought : slow cars drivers are said to be rude because they are slowing other people down. Drivers who tailgate (and aren't racecar drivers) are being rude by endangering other people's lives. Assign weights and judge accordingly.
I'm sorry I can't reply in full to your thorough post (since I have limited break time :), but I'd like to make one clarification to my original intent :
:)
:) So when I see a car 6 feet away from me, it is usually safe to assume that I'm dealing with another jerk who's being 'uncivil' (statistically speaking). It is very hard to keep cool when you perceive someone as a jerk. Inter-car communications would help resolve that :) We would see how civil people really are then, and I bet it wouldn't be pretty.
:)
I proposed that we inforce a single speed not because that speed is inherently safer than another, but because it would prevent a lot of situations where *perceived* un-civility arises. Let me explain with an example : When I drive the speed limit on a rural road (say 90 km/h), and I'm joined by a tailgater, who's being uncivil? Me for not stopping on the side of the road to let him pass, or him for tailgating? From my point of view, he started it. But from his POV, I did. For the vast majority of the people out there, being uncivil to someone is completely justified if the other started it... It usually degenerates fast from there
As far as reflexes go, I only ask for one thing : if I have to slam on the brakes NOW for any reason (which never happened to me with cars following), the preceeding cars have to be able to stop without hitting me. Period. If you are a racecar driver and can do that even though you are an inch away from my car, then fine. But how can I tell the difference? From my point of view, and from experience, the vast majority of people aren't racecar drivers. And my chances of being hit by the preceeding cars is inversely proportionnal to the distance from my car
So, where does that leave us? You're being uncivil for going too fast, and I'm being uncivil for driving too slow. Even if we adjust the speed limit to a higher value, this will still happen, so I don't think it's a good solution. What we need is better passing rules of engagement with strong enforcement. But I don't see that happening until each car is constantly monitored via GPS by the authorities...
In the meantime, the only solution left is to rise above the crowd, and be civil to uncivil drivers
Z.
> However, what about the 10,000 people behind me? Is that comfort level for that one person worth the time they steal from everyone else around them?
:) But then ask yourself this : wan't can't they pass the obviously much slower vehicule? Bad road design? Too much traffic? I will admit that I never have that many people behind me in the rural areas, and when I go to the bigger cities, I usually drive along with the flow of the left-lane traffic. But that is besides the point.
:) After all, driving is a priviledge, not a god-given right.
That is not my point. You are blending two issues into this. I'm not talking about behing 'civil'. I'm talking about safety. The dangerous drivers is not the slow one, but the aggressive ones who can't cope with slower speeds (or faster speeds).
I do agree that if there is ever 10,000 vehicules behind you, it's probably a good thing to let them pass
You could also ask yourself another question : Why don't we all agree on a limit, a magical speed limit, chosen by society somehow, at which we should all strive to drive at for a given road? Wouldn't that solve a lot of problems?
As far as the dangers of tailgating goes, I do admit that I would like to see studies on that subject. Tailgaters probably do less direct damage in a collision, but that depends on the vehicules and the situation. And if people are doing more damage when they are 2-4 seconds behind other cars, then that's another issue : they just aren't paying attention to their environment, which is just as bad as tailgating (IMHO), if not worse.
Z.
You think people driving on the road today actually pay enough attention to be able to react in half a second? ... HA!
Z.
But how can you tell the idiots from the non-idiots? Hmm? The only way to be sure is to provoke them all by tailgating.
Being a non-idiot (as we all are, of course) never pays. And the people who claim to tolerate non-idiots usually don't have enough patience for the non-idiots by the time they're done dealing with the other idiots on the road to actually prove that they aren't idiots themselves. It's a vicious circle.
I found one way to mostly avoid it though : I don't drive during rush hour.
Z.
I'll join in to say that nothing EVER justifies endangering the lives of the people in front of you! That's what you are doing when you tailgate, you leave no room for error, which can only end badly if the person in front of you needs to brake for some (hopefully) legitimate reason.
:) .
I do agree that we all have to share the road, and that the left lane is for passing. I actually try my best to never be in a situation were someone will tailgate me when I pass (I don't do it for you, I do it for me). But on single-lane roads, I found that *whatever* the speed I drive, there is always going to be a tailgater waiting there for you. Always! Pull to the shoulder you say? That's even more dangerous most of the times! In low-traffic situations where it is not dangerous, you shouldn't have a hard time to pass me when I go the limit. Hell, I'd even slow down for you if it would help (but I know it doesn't).
So please, respect my wish to drive the limit. You'll soon get an occasion to pass me (if you aren't one of those pansies who can't pass unless there is 10 miles of road free ahead of you), just bide your time a little. Sharing the road isn't just a mantra for those who drive slower. I feel your pain and I'll do my best within reason to let you get on your merry way.
You know, if everyone drove the same limit, you know, a magical limit chosen by society somehow, then those problems would not arise. We could probably even cut cost on highways since we wouldn't need 4 lanes for passing cars
Z.
If I remember correctly, there should be about two seconds between you and the other car, which means you don't even have to do math! You just have to be able to count to 'two Mississippis'. Sadly, that seems to be more than most people can do :(
Z.
Personally, I found out that most drivers are really clueless about their driving environment. On my way to work, there is a a stretch with a speed limit of 50 km/h (city zone) with four lanes. One one memorable day, I was being tailgated by such a driver, even though I was driving 10 over the speed limit in that zone (which is 'normal' in Quebec for city driving), with no other cars in sight in our direction. I then proceeded with a scientific experiment : after a short while, I changed to the left lane... and was promptly passed on the right by the previous driver... Now, you might assume that that nice fellow wanted to exit on the right shortly after, but then, you'd be wrong.
Bottom line is, people just don't care about driving safely. We have airbags and insurance (and a nice no-fault policy). Who could ask for more?
PS : Don't ever slow down and move to the extreme right of the lane to let those moron pass you, it just gets them angrier. Go figure.
Z.
> if you, presumably a fully functioning adult human being can not drive 45 in a 45, not only are you a nuissance, you are a risk to the lives of other drivers on the road.
...
.... until a tailgater inevitably joins us though :)
:) The only situation where that does not apply is on two lane roads (one direction each way). In those cases, pass me already!
I always like this argument, and I've heard it a lot : Basically, you are saying that by going less than 45 in a 45 zone *you* are a danger to the other people on the road (note : for a lot of people, going the speed limit is the same). How about this : if you can't safely drive around people who are driving slower than you, then maybe *you're* the one who isn't driving safely? If you can't safely avoid these other drivers, how the hell are you going to handle a deer, or a child (won't someone PLEASE think of the children?) or a sudden obstacle in your way?
I'll agree that people who drive slower might be catalizers (sp?) for dangerous driving behavior, but they aren't the direct cause. Unless of course you believe that the slower person is responsible for the state of mind of the other drivers, and that these other faster drivers can't really be held responsible for their state of mind
Oh, and before you call me a hypocrite, I do hate it when people drive 35 in a 45 zone. But hey, what's the safest way to drive? Get mad and try to drive into their pants? Or slow down, take a deep breath, and realize that I'll get to work 1 minute late ? I found that driving was much more enjoyable if I just take it easy and let them be
One last thing, after all I just said, please note that I do always take extra care never to be in a situation where I can slow down other drivers when possible. I don't do it for the tailgaters, I do it for me
Z.
> Someone who marvels at the fact that we are the only known piece of the universe that is aware of itself, and trying to figure itself out - who sees the universe as a conscious entity
.. breaks itself apart, investing its own consciousness in every form of life"
:p
Straight out from Delenn from Babylon 5 :
* "... we are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out."
* "We believe that the universe itself is conscious in a way we can never truly understand. It is engaged in a search for meaning. So it
From that, I can only conclude that you are not an atheist, but are actually a member of the religious cast of the Mimbari.
And from what I could glance on the internet on my short break, those lines (which I think are great btw) are actually 'Buddhist-flavored'...
Z.
> The same goes for many other laws that have existed for a long time - they exist because society as we know it could not survive without them, not because the government has mandated morality and ethics. However, many people dont see this (such as NIMF), and they are wrongly trying to mandate morality and ethics through law.
:p
Devil's advocate here (HA!) :
Maybe the NIMF believes that society as we know it cannot survive without laws protecting people against violent video games? Seriously, where do we draw the line? Murder? Theft ? 'Pirating' music ? Violent video games?
Note : society has managed to survive for a long time without solid law inforcement preventing murder, theft and pirates. Granted, it wasn't society *as we know it*, but it was a society nonetheless. Survival of the fittest? Who's to say which society will be better for humans in the long run?
Me? I vote for the "Star Trek society"
> If only such arrogance and desire to force their morality could be harnessed...
:)
And what makes you think that it isn't ?
Think about it
Zoom out and go a little north of the lake bed and you'll see evidence of multiple alien abduction sites!
> the theorists may *again* have to go back to the drawing board.
:)
:)
I don't think we have to worry about that too much. At least we don't have to erase everything
My thinking is, your "backup copy" will be damaged the same way that your DNA is damaged. How does the mutation detection mechanism work? By comparing the backup to the original? What if the backup is mutated? This hopefully can't be it. What if it detects "malfunctions" in the cell. Well, then it could copy the backup DNA on the new one, but which part do you copy? If you copy all of it you're still stuck with potential mutations. If you know which part to copy, there is still a chance (smaller, but still present) that your backup copy is damaged and that you'll also insert anoter (or the same) mutation back in the original.
Like other posters said, we need a RAID (RAIDNA?) for these corrections to be right most of the time.
I think I'll go RTFA
Actually, you are working the same amount of time each day (in SI unit hours, which haven't changed) but now each day is shorter. So your ratio of free-time/work-time is now lower, meaning you just had a pay-cut buddy.
Actually, it does. But it all depends on your reference point. You see, someone living at the equator is now moving a little slower than before (about 38 angstroms per second slower). Now, according to special relativity, this means that those people are now living shorter lives than their equivalent selves in a dimension where the earthquake didn't occur (I hope I'm not getting this wrong, I'm in a hurry). Granted, at a speed of about 147 m/s, the time dilatation is negligeable compared to the 2.68 micro seconds per day gain that we now have.
...)
(btw, I calculate my age using the length of a day, not those pesky SI seconds
Look at the time! Boy do those microseconds ever fly!
On the other hand, this means that we'll all technically live longer! .07 seconds of life. I wonder what I'll do with it ...
I've probably gained about
I always thought that things looked more and more like Earth-gov in Babylon 5 ... you know, with Night-Watch and all that crap. At least I've yet to see a "SCORCHED EARTH" message hidden in any of my GPS info :)
> So the question remains: how much are the "clamouring" types willing to pay? 1Million jobs? 2Million? 5M? 10M? 15% of GDP?
> That's the real question.
The other real question is : are you willing to pay the price of neglecting the effects of global warming?
How many people will have their lives changed significantly in the next 5, 10, 20 years because of global warming? How many people will die (if any, of course)? Will 1 million jobs be worth that? By the way, where did you get those numbers?
You also mention that kyoto "so vicious" to the US economy. Was that in the short term or in the long term? What do you think is more important for the actual president and vice-president ? I'm putting my vote on the short-term (4 years sounds about right). And finally, won't the effects of global warming be bad in the long term for the US/world economy?
Get all the facts before you decide on "how many US jobs global warming is worth". I sure don't think we have them all, that's why we need to pay attention and study the question carefully.
You forgot about Fltk http://www.fltk.org/ for your interfaces needs (free and portable) and Dev-C++ from Bloodshed software http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html which is a great IDE for windows (which is also free!). Of course, you don't get all the fonctionnality of Visual C++ in one package, but it does the job without problems (at least for me :)
Is that pixel dead or color stuck? Like another poster pointed out, a pink or red pixel in the middle of your screen just might be a tad annoying. On the other hand, your brain can probably 'fix' a dead pixel automagically :p
www.lasersquadnemesis.com
:) It's by the creators of XCOM and is basically XCOM with internet play (only much better). Sadly enough, it was so addictive I had to cancel my subscribtion. I wasn't strong enough not to look at my emails every half hour or so :)
:)
It just has to be one of the most addictive games out there
I never paced my emails though. I always found it frustating when the other players stopped for a day or for the weekend. When that happened, I just started other games and concentrated on those. I'd rather win or lose against an opponent that is giving me his/her 100%