Humm, not to brag about this, but since it was much the same scenario...
...
She was totally shocked (because I touched her fried egg-like breasts) and I said superfast I did it because we were about to be run over. And got away from there superfast, too.
...
Also, there was a disturbing sensation about touching such intimate parts of another person (probably made even more disturbing because they were so small and firm).
so let's say you were bragging, was it about you being super-fast or touching her intimate parts (egg-like breasts)?
Well, it's actually a fact that this person died walking and talking on a phone and walking under a truck, it's data. But, as to your point, it doesn't prove a theory, but it does answer your question:
The real question is to see whether this lower perception is acually any danger for pedestrians.
At least in this case lower perception caused their life, which fits the definition of being danger for that pedestrian.
So imagine you are the truck driver, you have waited your turn, made sure nobody was on your turning side, that there were no vehicles coming at the intersection that could collide with you and you start making a turn, you are almost done making it when someone walks into the side of your truck and you do not stop, continue going for another 2-3 meters while they have fallen and are crashed by the wheels.
Question: which way were you looking? Answer: you were looking to your left and straight ahead, but not to your right. After you have made sure that there was enough clear space at your right to make the turn and you started making it, you can assume that it is now responsibility of other actors on the road not to collide with your right side. Everyone was given plenty of warning of your turn and nobody was there when you started it. So now you have to look straight and somewhat to your left not to cross into the incoming traffic from intersection.
At this point someone is not looking and walking into the side of your truck and they fall and are ran over by the rear wheels. Verdict is: it's the pedestrian's fault, and it is correct. Too bad their fault caused them their life, but that's how it is. If you are a pedestrian, whether you are right or wrong, you will die if a truck runs over you, so really, it is your problem to make sure you don't step into or under one.
The truck was making the right turn, sorry and in this article they actually mention the cellphone. I just remembered this story from last year and thought it was quite appropriate.
well, here is a case of a dead woman from 2009
on
What Clown On a Unicycle?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
28 y.o. Toronto woman was killed by a 5 tonne delivery truck. She was on her phone and walked under the rear wheels of a truck, that was making a left turn. The driver could not have possibly seen her because of the truck length and the fact that he was making a left turn. She walked under the rear wheels herself because apparently she was unable to evaluate the situation around herself while on her cell phone.
Darwin award, obviously, but it shows a case where a pedestrian was a hazard (this time to herself) because she was so distracted.
(Score:1, Redundant) - I fully expected that:) but to be true, it's not redundant, it's just off-topic. (I fully expect the obvious consequence here also.)
Java - probably the worst language used on mobile devices to date.
and this:
>> 8. Platform Fragmentation
its a problem? come on - seriously. you deal with it. you design around it; thats where your years of experience really kicks in and allows you to build cross-platform applications without issues.
I think you have just created a comment that deserves to be assigned the 'redundant' score because it is redundant with itself.
Look:
Simplicity is hard.
- this is good.
Programming the Unix way requires a person to focus on radical simplicity.
- not too terrible just yet.
The benefits are huge.
- very good.
but now we see this one:
It's a lot easier to debug a 200 line program that takes data in on stdin and dumps it to stdout then it is to debug a class that you can only instantiate with your AbstractFactoryFactory.
- see? You have done it. You should have stuck to the short sentences - one point in, point out. But no, you had to go there and there you have it: the proverbial
then
.
It's eaiser to debug 200 lines of simple code THEN it is to debug a class etc. etc.
I don't have the moderator points right now, otherwise instead of leaving this comment here I would have done the correct thing. You know what it is.
I said it properly, too bad education is not really doing much good to anyone anymore, people should be able to distinguish various types of subtlety based on a written sentence, but there are quite a few who are just too dense.
I don't know what this 'Drumbeat' project is and also I am not sure what is Communincator exactly so obviously I must provide an opinion on this 'story'.
Really, whatever is written in the summary, I don't understand what they are talking about, can anyone translate into normal speak for the ununinitiateted?
What the hell are you talking about? We fly with cats regularly, the dog goes into a crate, because it is just too big (120 pounds) but we split the 4 cats between our flights, what are people supposed to do if they go for a few months here, few months there, leave the cats somewhere? Why? You make no sense at all.
Now, we just flew from Toronto to Frankfurt a few months ago, we had one cat with us, others were flying with other family members, the cat was sitting in its carrier under the seat. It's only possible in the business class though I think, I can't imaging taking them in economy. On that flight (15th of October) the plane turned around when it was already half an hour over the ocean and landed in St Jones. Apparently some passenger had some heart problem and they landed the plane. One flight attendant said he only saw this once before in his 20 years of work.
This was night time and what I find unacceptable was that they decided to wait for some local handlers to come to work and unload the luggage of that passenger. We stood there for 3 hours and while they unloaded the luggage of that one passenger, they also lost our bag, a bunch of people missed their connecting flights, people missed appointments. This was ridiculous. I agree, the sick person needs to go to the hospital, but what the hell is with all this unloading of luggage, they should have unloaded it in the next airport and taken it back to St Jones or wherever that passenger ended up.
We had to wait for the bag for 3 weeks, it only came back because we made a pretty good list of the contents and it was over 10K CAD, so I guess it made sense for the airline to find it. It came back with handles that had tags on them ripped off, it was obviously stolen by the airport people. Later we realized some things were missing, but what are you going to do?
Cats in carriers are your problem that sit under seats without touching anyone? How about stupid airlines, who can't figure out how to handle such situations at all? Was a bag of that one person more important than all the connecting flights and other stuff of the people on board of the plane?
Epicycles had terrible predicting power, they had to be adjusted constantly and the adjustments required made the epicycle idea mostly unusable. At the same time when epicycles were in use others suggested that the idea can be simplified if the Earth is not taken to be the center (or halfway from the center to be precise) but if the Sun was to be the center of motion. This did not catch on until much later.
Epicycles were never a scientific theory, they were an idea based on a preconceived notion that the Earth is the center and everything else rotates around it, then the observed data was fit to support this 'fact'.
You are making it sound as if the 'problems are quite easily solved', but there is no solution to the simple fact: unless you see me pick up the drone, I didn't pick it up.
There is no way anyone will be trusting a 'drone' with that kind of money.
unless there is a way to ensure that a drone will make it into the right hands there won't be too many of these things filled with anything of any real value floating around. It's just impossible to make a deal this way, what one sides sends a drone full of cocaine, while the other sends a drone full of greenback or some other currency?
Makes no sense, how do you ever prove that the package made it to the right hands and that money must be paid? It's ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Humm, not to brag about this, but since it was much the same scenario...
...
She was totally shocked (because I touched her fried egg-like breasts) and I said superfast I did it because we were about to be run over. And got away from there superfast, too.
...
Also, there was a disturbing sensation about touching such intimate parts of another person (probably made even more disturbing because they were so small and firm).
so let's say you were bragging, was it about you being super-fast or touching her intimate parts (egg-like breasts)?
Well, it's actually a fact that this person died walking and talking on a phone and walking under a truck, it's data. But, as to your point, it doesn't prove a theory, but it does answer your question:
The real question is to see whether this lower perception is acually any danger for pedestrians.
At least in this case lower perception caused their life, which fits the definition of being danger for that pedestrian.
Any more questions?
It is obviously about the clown suit, if the professor didn't have one, the student wouldn't know from which end to start and where to finish ;)
So imagine you are the truck driver, you have waited your turn, made sure nobody was on your turning side, that there were no vehicles coming at the intersection that could collide with you and you start making a turn, you are almost done making it when someone walks into the side of your truck and you do not stop, continue going for another 2-3 meters while they have fallen and are crashed by the wheels.
Question: which way were you looking? Answer: you were looking to your left and straight ahead, but not to your right. After you have made sure that there was enough clear space at your right to make the turn and you started making it, you can assume that it is now responsibility of other actors on the road not to collide with your right side. Everyone was given plenty of warning of your turn and nobody was there when you started it. So now you have to look straight and somewhat to your left not to cross into the incoming traffic from intersection.
At this point someone is not looking and walking into the side of your truck and they fall and are ran over by the rear wheels. Verdict is: it's the pedestrian's fault, and it is correct. Too bad their fault caused them their life, but that's how it is. If you are a pedestrian, whether you are right or wrong, you will die if a truck runs over you, so really, it is your problem to make sure you don't step into or under one.
The truck was making the right turn, sorry and in this article they actually mention the cellphone. I just remembered this story from last year and thought it was quite appropriate.
28 y.o. Toronto woman was killed by a 5 tonne delivery truck. She was on her phone and walked under the rear wheels of a truck, that was making a left turn. The driver could not have possibly seen her because of the truck length and the fact that he was making a left turn. She walked under the rear wheels herself because apparently she was unable to evaluate the situation around herself while on her cell phone.
Darwin award, obviously, but it shows a case where a pedestrian was a hazard (this time to herself) because she was so distracted.
So MDK is out and Tetris is in?
(Score:1, Redundant) - I fully expected that :) but to be true, it's not redundant, it's just off-topic. (I fully expect the obvious consequence here also.)
This:
>> 6. Java--Thanks, But I'll Take It from Here
Java - probably the worst language used on mobile devices to date.
and this:
>> 8. Platform Fragmentation
its a problem? come on - seriously. you deal with it. you design around it; thats where your years of experience really kicks in and allows you to build cross-platform applications without issues.
Java is the answer to platform fragmentation.
I think you have just created a comment that deserves to be assigned the 'redundant' score because it is redundant with itself.
Look:
Simplicity is hard.
- this is good.
Programming the Unix way requires a person to focus on radical simplicity.
- not too terrible just yet.
The benefits are huge.
- very good.
but now we see this one:
It's a lot easier to debug a 200 line program that takes data in on stdin and dumps it to stdout then it is to debug a class that you can only instantiate with your AbstractFactoryFactory.
- see? You have done it. You should have stuck to the short sentences - one point in, point out. But no, you had to go there and there you have it: the proverbial
then
.
It's eaiser to debug 200 lines of simple code THEN it is to debug a class etc. etc.
I don't have the moderator points right now, otherwise instead of leaving this comment here I would have done the correct thing. You know what it is.
No, you are just way too late, someone actually edited the text of the summary and fixed the spelling.
Which one was the typo, the Communioncator, Communincator or the ununinitiateted?
I said it properly, too bad education is not really doing much good to anyone anymore, people should be able to distinguish various types of subtlety based on a written sentence, but there are quite a few who are just too dense.
Right, now that you have gone on some weird tangent, how about the actual explanation on this Communincator thingy?
hahahahahaaaa :)) I am dying here. Just look at my sig.
I don't know what this 'Drumbeat' project is and also I am not sure what is Communincator exactly so obviously I must provide an opinion on this 'story'.
Really, whatever is written in the summary, I don't understand what they are talking about, can anyone translate into normal speak for the ununinitiateted?
What the hell are you talking about? We fly with cats regularly, the dog goes into a crate, because it is just too big (120 pounds) but we split the 4 cats between our flights, what are people supposed to do if they go for a few months here, few months there, leave the cats somewhere? Why? You make no sense at all.
Now, we just flew from Toronto to Frankfurt a few months ago, we had one cat with us, others were flying with other family members, the cat was sitting in its carrier under the seat. It's only possible in the business class though I think, I can't imaging taking them in economy. On that flight (15th of October) the plane turned around when it was already half an hour over the ocean and landed in St Jones. Apparently some passenger had some heart problem and they landed the plane. One flight attendant said he only saw this once before in his 20 years of work.
This was night time and what I find unacceptable was that they decided to wait for some local handlers to come to work and unload the luggage of that passenger. We stood there for 3 hours and while they unloaded the luggage of that one passenger, they also lost our bag, a bunch of people missed their connecting flights, people missed appointments. This was ridiculous. I agree, the sick person needs to go to the hospital, but what the hell is with all this unloading of luggage, they should have unloaded it in the next airport and taken it back to St Jones or wherever that passenger ended up.
We had to wait for the bag for 3 weeks, it only came back because we made a pretty good list of the contents and it was over 10K CAD, so I guess it made sense for the airline to find it. It came back with handles that had tags on them ripped off, it was obviously stolen by the airport people. Later we realized some things were missing, but what are you going to do?
Cats in carriers are your problem that sit under seats without touching anyone? How about stupid airlines, who can't figure out how to handle such situations at all? Was a bag of that one person more important than all the connecting flights and other stuff of the people on board of the plane?
Epicycles had terrible predicting power, they had to be adjusted constantly and the adjustments required made the epicycle idea mostly unusable. At the same time when epicycles were in use others suggested that the idea can be simplified if the Earth is not taken to be the center (or halfway from the center to be precise) but if the Sun was to be the center of motion. This did not catch on until much later.
Epicycles were never a scientific theory, they were an idea based on a preconceived notion that the Earth is the center and everything else rotates around it, then the observed data was fit to support this 'fact'.
what kind of a computer response would you get by tightening your anal sphincter?
Are you the one on the right, or the cool one?
This Jeffrey guy would have impressed me more if instead of a beer belly to carry the beer he used the winerack to do it.
So no vegetarians will be flying then I suppose?
You are making it sound as if the 'problems are quite easily solved', but there is no solution to the simple fact: unless you see me pick up the drone, I didn't pick it up.
There is no way anyone will be trusting a 'drone' with that kind of money.
unless there is a way to ensure that a drone will make it into the right hands there won't be too many of these things filled with anything of any real value floating around. It's just impossible to make a deal this way, what one sides sends a drone full of cocaine, while the other sends a drone full of greenback or some other currency?
Makes no sense, how do you ever prove that the package made it to the right hands and that money must be paid? It's ridiculous.