There are many cases where driving at, below, and above the speed limit are safest, even during perfect weather.
Let me stick to country roads, since that's what I drive on mostly.
Driving below the speed limit is safest when you're in an area with mennonites, farm vehicles, animal crossings, or hidden intersectionts. An experienced driver knows where these are and slows down accordingly.
Driving at the speed limit is called for in most other stretches of road.
Driving above the speed limit is called for during passing, when someone is riding your bumper and their passing would put you in jeopardy, or on roads without trees, people, intersections or anyrthing else in perfect weather (think plains). Also driving above the speed limit is necessary when there's true emergencies. I could think of more, but I'm tired.:-)
At least that's my reasoning as to how I prefer to drive. You could differ..
Better a strawman argument than no argument at all.
You have absolutely no case against what I've said so you simply decide to agree, then say I'm wrong because, in your opinion, I have a strawman argument.
That is weak, man. Weaker than water.
If you reply, I expect you to explain how your lack of english brought you to wrongly accuse me of driving above the speed limit.
Anything else is simply weak.
Not to mention that driving at the speed limit all the time in my province is DAMN dangerous. Have you ever heard of snow? I suppose not. But I'm surprised at that -- which country do you live in that has provinces but never dangerous driving conditions?
>I don't know about the USA, but in Canada, driving at twice the speed limit is a federal offense (dangerous driving).
Yo.
Maybe its just my province (Ontario) that understands what a Sunday Driver is. It seems to me I've heard it on serveral American and Canadian TV shows though.
A Sunday Driver is usually doing an unsafe and unacceptably slower amount than the posted limit (like going 10 km/h in an 80 zone).
It appears none of you understand the colloquialism "Sunday Driver".
Allow me to help you...
A Sunday Driver, a term in common use in Northern America, is one who is driving at less than 1/2 the speed limit. Normally a Sunday Driver is attempting to find a lost destination, or, worse than that, they are simply trying to look at the countryside. Generally, those who are not Sunday Drivers will yell such things as "Pull over if you want to read your map!" or "Take a picture, it'll last longer!".
Please engage your vocabulary prior to putting your mouth into gear, next time.
>You think the speed limit is too low? Then lobby to have it changed.
Unfortunately, people like you who don't have the wordiness required to properly reply to people's comments are always rallying against me.
I'd like to see a law that states that anything that isn't a huge farm vehicle (easy to see from miles away) must drive at least within 30 km/h of the posted limit. I'd like to take licenses away from drivers going under 10 km/h on any normal city or country lane when it would be safe to do the full speed limit.
But then again, perhaps with you on the road this wouldn't be the best ideea.
>As long as they make sure the penalties are fair, I don't see anything wrong with the concept.
Neither do I (to a certain degree), but I think a rider needs to be tacked onto that.
If you are going to charge a large penalty (over, say, $50) you should verbally and visually (as in a BIG RED SIGN IN ALL CAPS) warn the renter of just how much trouble they could be in.
I know you should read all of a contract, but in reality, we don't have time to read all of them, and we just assume that if a company has such an egregious policy that they'd let us know the "nice" way. (I mean, do you really want to be sued over your policy? Its just that much more airtight when you let the person know verbally as well as in the contract).
>People will start doing the friggin' speed limit. Sounds mighty good to me.
Might I reccomend a driver safety course?
You'll find all the major driver safety courses don't just suggest, but require you to drive at the same speed as everyone in your lane.
Not to do so is extremely unsafe, and after coming up to idiots sunday driving in the country at nearly twice their rate of speed, I completely agree. I'd rather meet someone blowing a red light than somone who thinks they need to do the speed limit all the time.
In Ontario, Canada, for driving, it certainly can be.
Because snow here can cover all sorts of signs and road markings, during this period, if you do not have every road's speed memorized, your job is to ensure you drive under the default speed limit (getting to this in a moment) and you drive safely (ie: If the snow isn't cleared from the road, you'd better be doing 10 km/h or less).
In general, these are the limits in Canada unless otherwise marked (but IANAL, so please correct me):
- 15 km/h or less on semi-private roads
- 40 km/h or less in resdential zones
- 50 or 60 km/h or less on main streets (depends on the municipality)
- 80 km/h or less on country roads
- 90 km/h or less on all non-400 (or QEW) series highways/speed (unless marked)
- 100 km/h maximum on all 400 series / QEW highways.
Also note, I've been told by the occasional taxi driver that the lines on the road can often be regarded as "suggested" driving. However, this seems a little fishy to me and I wouldn't suggest you try this...
However, usually the only person who will excuse you for driving without seeing a sign/road marking is a police officer. You have no chance of getting it by a judge.
>You still havent addressed the fact that he is a dummy,
Ok shithead.
He's not a dummy because CDs are burned at CAV rather than CLV.
I will not explain those terms to you since you think you're such a fucking high and mighty man you should have already known it. Now take that penis out of your own ass, freak.
>By your logic, a fan would break down in a vacuum, when in reality it would just spin uselessly but with minimal effort
A fan operating in a vacuum would break down due to heat generation by the motor (in a vacuum the heat will go nowhere except dissipating in the fan itself).
Uhh, I didn't say ISA or Nubus or whateverthehellyoucallit is _better_, just that anyone with legacy cards gets screwed with a Mac, whereas with a PC, anyone with a little clue can save a couple of bucks on a soundcard, printer port, serial port, or even a SCSI board for a scanner if they get a Mobo with an ISA slot.
A lack of backward compatibility, especially when a proper design means it should cost almost nothing to implement, is a flaw, not a feature.
>And to top it off, today's Macs ARE PowerPC, dumbass.
Well, fuck you very much. I'm obviously no Mac afficando, but I do know I have better manners than you.
>If you need a serial port, you can get an adapter.
Which won't work for my applications. And won't work with (albeit outdated) older software.
Not to mention that the older busses, such as ISA are just so much simpler to hack with.
>How about because not everyone who uses a computer is a geek?
Geeks reccomend computers to non-geeks. Guess which type of computer wins? Not to mention that cool hardware is designed by geeks who would just rather work with a system that works with them, rather than against them.
Well, you really don't need to guess. By all reason, if you were to cut out artists from the equation, Mac is dead.
Oh, and companies like intel don't lie about the performance of their computers (well, in the case of PCs, CPUs) whereas Apple prefers to do the next best thing to lying -- finding one or two applications that are faster on your computer (mostly because they were designed on your computer) and say your entire computer is the best on earth.
Blech. Keep those overgrown (and damn HOT) plastic tissue boxes away from me. Give me a computer with quality RF sheilding and a proper heat extraction system anyday. Not to mention I prefer to buy a decent monitor and speakers for even my cheap systems. And not to mention that a majority of non-geeks I know like to have a good monitor and speakers. I thought we gave up on built in monitors during the TRS-80 and PET days?
[And yes, I know you can buy Macs without built in monitors, I just think its insane that it often costs more to get one without a monitor than with!]
>Sometimes it seems they're the ONLY company who won't compromise ideals in favor of cost; that's why their designs are so successful.
You do know why they are the ONLY company who won't "compromise ideals" in favor of cost?
Because they have their proprietary hardware locked up tighter than a new game console. Once you're stuck with a mac, you don't have a lot of choice if you want to stay mac, so you buy one of their overpriced designs and voila! apple remains successful. The only time apple opened their designs up enough to let other companies make them they got eaten alive so they closed it right up again, probably for good this time.
This strategy is a very good way of making a lot of money from a relatively small amount of actual customers. Another company that uses this exact same strategy is Microsoft.
Why anyone would like to buy a closed Open-Source OS on welded shut hardware beats the heck out of me...
Maybe its just me, but I think it totally SUCKS that cards from a Mac II won't work on any modern Mac at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure cards mean for PowerPC Macs won't work on modern Macs either (anyone care to let me know on that one?) That type of design choice blows chunks. At least I can find (with a little trouble) a PC motherboard that supports an ISA slot knowing I can add an extra serial port (for example) for just $2.
PC design gives you choice, Mac design bonds you in chains and crazy glue (mostly minus the glue).
>You wouldn't buy a DVD player that wouldn't play your CDs, would you?
Ummm. The answer is a resounding "YES I would buy a DVD only player if it were cheap enough."
Enough DVD players have trouble reading my burned CDs that I simply don't trust them to do it reliably, and don't even bother looking for that as a feature. Its not like a CD player is particularly expensive!
>though Intel is slightly more underhanded about theirs. Ie, people are encouraged to run 64 bit stuff, because the 32 bit stuff on Itanium will run as slow as a wet week.
I think its about time to deny people wearing glasses from entering the plane too.
I mean, is it so unthinkable that the edges of their the glass in their glasses has been ground down to a fine knife-like edge?
And to think of the danger I've put myself in when I sat on a flight next to a guy wearing glasses. Thank god he didn't speak the "language of the terrorists" (heard this one on a news station just lately...).
Protected disks are designed not to work in anything but a simple, everyday, CD Player. The specs for most all of these (except the esoteric, and walkman style, both of which the RIAA couldn't care about) say they run the disc at 1x only. Unless you're trying to build in shock protection, there's no need to ever spin the disc at over that rate (except maybe for fast forwarding, but I still don't think that's done like this).
Most drives can't have their ripping speed set AFAIK, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose read about what a hack ripping really is anyways.
I do know that I had some fun with an old 5 1/4" Full Height HDD and a 3-phase grinder once.
Did you know that you can spin hard drives like that up fast enough (mostly safely) to actually make the centripetal force cause the drive to stand up on a corner for a bit! FUN FUN FUN! More fun than jumping off a moving bike to see how far it will go before it falls over (or hits something). Even more fun than trying to roll a quarter completely down the college hallway during late hours!
(and no, even with the stress the grinder put on the platters and the high speeds nothing "exploded"... but someone did mention to me I should have worn protective gear anyways.)
>as having the phone actually right next to your ear like that all the time would probably give you cancer.
Well, first off, the radio radiation given off by cellphones is extremely small, to say the least, and because its so small its extremely difficult to prove that there's any link between cellphone use and cancer that actually involves the use of the cellphone, and not the lifestyle of people who can afford cellphones.
Next, a portable phone like this would probably come under the sub 100 mW transmission laws in the US. Cellphones transmit 700 mW to 3000 mW of power, which means that if (for example) 1 sq in. of your face were exposed to the radio waves, you would have to hold the cellphone over 3 inches from your face. This makes a huge difference.
So don't worry about getting cancer from your portable phone. It just isn't powerful enough to matter!
>I would like to know where you get the statistics that the majority of artists make the majorty of money by touring, because it just isn't true.
Simple.
Slashdot linked to some interesting stories on the current payola type racket employed by the RIAA, which reeks of the old payola racket they've been in deep trouble for before!
The way it works right now is that virtually every single artist loses their shirt in the biz. By loses their shirt, I mean the artist actually pays to have people profit on his/her album.
Making $180 sounds a hell of a lot better than losing cash!
I hope that explains how the majority of money is made by touring!
Slashdot Mirror
>But more often than not, a wearable computer is really a wearable invitation for a well deserved ass kicking.
You know, I felt the same when they used the brick phone in Lethal Weapon, but shortly after, they were the rage.
I guess it'll take another good movie using wearable computing before it takes off.
The Hardware Bible by Winn L. Rosch. (Its cheap too!)
:-)
Why?
I'm tired of working with programmers who can't deal with whats inside a computer. It drives me insane!
Reading and trying a bit of this puts you in my extra good books too.
There are many cases where driving at, below, and above the speed limit are safest, even during perfect weather.
:-)
Let me stick to country roads, since that's what I drive on mostly.
Driving below the speed limit is safest when you're in an area with mennonites, farm vehicles, animal crossings, or hidden intersectionts. An experienced driver knows where these are and slows down accordingly.
Driving at the speed limit is called for in most other stretches of road.
Driving above the speed limit is called for during passing, when someone is riding your bumper and their passing would put you in jeopardy, or on roads without trees, people, intersections or anyrthing else in perfect weather (think plains). Also driving above the speed limit is necessary when there's true emergencies. I could think of more, but I'm tired.
At least that's my reasoning as to how I prefer to drive. You could differ..
>In my province, you *can* be ticketed for driving too slow.
With a little investigation, I know what province you are in.
Now I know you are an idiot.
I've been through the rocky mountains. There are many, many, many times when driving at the speed limit is absolutely not called for.
But you advocate driving at it all the time. You advocate crashes and death.
Keep that opinion to yourself, that's what I'd do.
>Your Sunday Driver argument is purely strawman.
Better a strawman argument than no argument at all.
You have absolutely no case against what I've said so you simply decide to agree, then say I'm wrong because, in your opinion, I have a strawman argument.
That is weak, man. Weaker than water.
If you reply, I expect you to explain how your lack of english brought you to wrongly accuse me of driving above the speed limit.
Anything else is simply weak.
Not to mention that driving at the speed limit all the time in my province is DAMN dangerous. Have you ever heard of snow? I suppose not. But I'm surprised at that -- which country do you live in that has provinces but never dangerous driving conditions?
>I don't know about the USA, but in Canada, driving at twice the speed limit is a federal offense (dangerous driving).
Yo.
Maybe its just my province (Ontario) that understands what a Sunday Driver is. It seems to me I've heard it on serveral American and Canadian TV shows though.
A Sunday Driver is usually doing an unsafe and unacceptably slower amount than the posted limit (like going 10 km/h in an 80 zone).
Oh well... HTH.
It appears none of you understand the colloquialism "Sunday Driver".
Allow me to help you...
A Sunday Driver, a term in common use in Northern America, is one who is driving at less than 1/2 the speed limit. Normally a Sunday Driver is attempting to find a lost destination, or, worse than that, they are simply trying to look at the countryside. Generally, those who are not Sunday Drivers will yell such things as "Pull over if you want to read your map!" or "Take a picture, it'll last longer!".
Please engage your vocabulary prior to putting your mouth into gear, next time.
>You think the speed limit is too low? Then lobby to have it changed.
Unfortunately, people like you who don't have the wordiness required to properly reply to people's comments are always rallying against me.
I'd like to see a law that states that anything that isn't a huge farm vehicle (easy to see from miles away) must drive at least within 30 km/h of the posted limit. I'd like to take licenses away from drivers going under 10 km/h on any normal city or country lane when it would be safe to do the full speed limit.
But then again, perhaps with you on the road this wouldn't be the best ideea.
Try this next time.
:-)
Does a similar job, but its intended for the task, so it works even better.
>As long as they make sure the penalties are fair, I don't see anything wrong with the concept.
Neither do I (to a certain degree), but I think a rider needs to be tacked onto that.
If you are going to charge a large penalty (over, say, $50) you should verbally and visually (as in a BIG RED SIGN IN ALL CAPS) warn the renter of just how much trouble they could be in.
I know you should read all of a contract, but in reality, we don't have time to read all of them, and we just assume that if a company has such an egregious policy that they'd let us know the "nice" way. (I mean, do you really want to be sued over your policy? Its just that much more airtight when you let the person know verbally as well as in the contract).
>People will start doing the friggin' speed limit. Sounds mighty good to me.
Might I reccomend a driver safety course?
You'll find all the major driver safety courses don't just suggest, but require you to drive at the same speed as everyone in your lane.
Not to do so is extremely unsafe, and after coming up to idiots sunday driving in the country at nearly twice their rate of speed, I completely agree. I'd rather meet someone blowing a red light than somone who thinks they need to do the speed limit all the time.
>Ignorance is not a permissible defense anyway.
In Ontario, Canada, for driving, it certainly can be.
Because snow here can cover all sorts of signs and road markings, during this period, if you do not have every road's speed memorized, your job is to ensure you drive under the default speed limit (getting to this in a moment) and you drive safely (ie: If the snow isn't cleared from the road, you'd better be doing 10 km/h or less).
In general, these are the limits in Canada unless otherwise marked (but IANAL, so please correct me):
- 15 km/h or less on semi-private roads
- 40 km/h or less in resdential zones
- 50 or 60 km/h or less on main streets (depends on the municipality)
- 80 km/h or less on country roads
- 90 km/h or less on all non-400 (or QEW) series highways/speed (unless marked)
- 100 km/h maximum on all 400 series / QEW highways.
Also note, I've been told by the occasional taxi driver that the lines on the road can often be regarded as "suggested" driving. However, this seems a little fishy to me and I wouldn't suggest you try this...
However, usually the only person who will excuse you for driving without seeing a sign/road marking is a police officer. You have no chance of getting it by a judge.
Just FYI...
>Though I disagree with the laws that are set forth in this country I still abide by them until they are seen for what they are and removed.
I wouldn't think that way if I were you.
In a city near where I live I'm not allowed to take a pee. God, that sucks. Fortunately, I don't have much reason to go there.
Not to mention in that guy's home city he's not allowed to eat Ice Cream on Bank Street on Sundays.
>You still havent addressed the fact that he is a dummy,
Ok shithead.
He's not a dummy because CDs are burned at CAV rather than CLV.
I will not explain those terms to you since you think you're such a fucking high and mighty man you should have already known it. Now take that penis out of your own ass, freak.
>By your logic, a fan would break down in a vacuum, when in reality it would just spin uselessly but with minimal effort
A fan operating in a vacuum would break down due to heat generation by the motor (in a vacuum the heat will go nowhere except dissipating in the fan itself).
>Nubus vs. PCI or AGP? No friggin contest!
Uhh, I didn't say ISA or Nubus or whateverthehellyoucallit is _better_, just that anyone with legacy cards gets screwed with a Mac, whereas with a PC, anyone with a little clue can save a couple of bucks on a soundcard, printer port, serial port, or even a SCSI board for a scanner if they get a Mobo with an ISA slot.
A lack of backward compatibility, especially when a proper design means it should cost almost nothing to implement, is a flaw, not a feature.
>And to top it off, today's Macs ARE PowerPC, dumbass.
Well, fuck you very much. I'm obviously no Mac afficando, but I do know I have better manners than you.
>If you need a serial port, you can get an adapter.
Which won't work for my applications. And won't work with (albeit outdated) older software.
Not to mention that the older busses, such as ISA are just so much simpler to hack with.
>How about because not everyone who uses a computer is a geek?
Geeks reccomend computers to non-geeks. Guess which type of computer wins? Not to mention that cool hardware is designed by geeks who would just rather work with a system that works with them, rather than against them.
Well, you really don't need to guess. By all reason, if you were to cut out artists from the equation, Mac is dead.
Oh, and companies like intel don't lie about the performance of their computers (well, in the case of PCs, CPUs) whereas Apple prefers to do the next best thing to lying -- finding one or two applications that are faster on your computer (mostly because they were designed on your computer) and say your entire computer is the best on earth.
Blech. Keep those overgrown (and damn HOT) plastic tissue boxes away from me. Give me a computer with quality RF sheilding and a proper heat extraction system anyday. Not to mention I prefer to buy a decent monitor and speakers for even my cheap systems. And not to mention that a majority of non-geeks I know like to have a good monitor and speakers. I thought we gave up on built in monitors during the TRS-80 and PET days?
[And yes, I know you can buy Macs without built in monitors, I just think its insane that it often costs more to get one without a monitor than with!]
>Sometimes it seems they're the ONLY company who won't compromise ideals in favor of cost; that's why their designs are so successful.
You do know why they are the ONLY company who won't "compromise ideals" in favor of cost?
Because they have their proprietary hardware locked up tighter than a new game console. Once you're stuck with a mac, you don't have a lot of choice if you want to stay mac, so you buy one of their overpriced designs and voila! apple remains successful. The only time apple opened their designs up enough to let other companies make them they got eaten alive so they closed it right up again, probably for good this time.
This strategy is a very good way of making a lot of money from a relatively small amount of actual customers. Another company that uses this exact same strategy is Microsoft.
Why anyone would like to buy a closed Open-Source OS on welded shut hardware beats the heck out of me...
Maybe its just me, but I think it totally SUCKS that cards from a Mac II won't work on any modern Mac at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure cards mean for PowerPC Macs won't work on modern Macs either (anyone care to let me know on that one?) That type of design choice blows chunks. At least I can find (with a little trouble) a PC motherboard that supports an ISA slot knowing I can add an extra serial port (for example) for just $2.
PC design gives you choice, Mac design bonds you in chains and crazy glue (mostly minus the glue).
Just my 2 cents on Macs...
>You wouldn't buy a DVD player that wouldn't play your CDs, would you?
Ummm. The answer is a resounding "YES I would buy a DVD only player if it were cheap enough."
Enough DVD players have trouble reading my burned CDs that I simply don't trust them to do it reliably, and don't even bother looking for that as a feature. Its not like a CD player is particularly expensive!
Anyways, enough with that rant...
>though Intel is slightly more underhanded about theirs. Ie, people are encouraged to run 64 bit stuff, because the 32 bit stuff on Itanium will run as slow as a wet week.
Man, I've never heard that one before...
>Uhh, please explain.
:-)
His computer is obviously a 386 DX-40. Well, I suppose it _could_ be a 486 DX-100 but with speed like that you wouldn't have time for slashdot.
Don't forget that CDs spin backwards in Australia.
I agree.
I think its about time to deny people wearing glasses from entering the plane too.
I mean, is it so unthinkable that the edges of their the glass in their glasses has been ground down to a fine knife-like edge?
And to think of the danger I've put myself in when I sat on a flight next to a guy wearing glasses. Thank god he didn't speak the "language of the terrorists" (heard this one on a news station just lately...).
Protected disks are designed not to work in anything but a simple, everyday, CD Player. The specs for most all of these (except the esoteric, and walkman style, both of which the RIAA couldn't care about) say they run the disc at 1x only. Unless you're trying to build in shock protection, there's no need to ever spin the disc at over that rate (except maybe for fast forwarding, but I still don't think that's done like this).
Most drives can't have their ripping speed set AFAIK, which shouldn't surprise anyone whose read about what a hack ripping really is anyways.
I don't know about that...
I do know that I had some fun with an old 5 1/4" Full Height HDD and a 3-phase grinder once.
Did you know that you can spin hard drives like that up fast enough (mostly safely) to actually make the centripetal force cause the drive to stand up on a corner for a bit! FUN FUN FUN! More fun than jumping off a moving bike to see how far it will go before it falls over (or hits something). Even more fun than trying to roll a quarter completely down the college hallway during late hours!
(and no, even with the stress the grinder put on the platters and the high speeds nothing "exploded"... but someone did mention to me I should have worn protective gear anyways.)
>as having the phone actually right next to your ear like that all the time would probably give you cancer.
Well, first off, the radio radiation given off by cellphones is extremely small, to say the least, and because its so small its extremely difficult to prove that there's any link between cellphone use and cancer that actually involves the use of the cellphone, and not the lifestyle of people who can afford cellphones.
Next, a portable phone like this would probably come under the sub 100 mW transmission laws in the US. Cellphones transmit 700 mW to 3000 mW of power, which means that if (for example) 1 sq in. of your face were exposed to the radio waves, you would have to hold the cellphone over 3 inches from your face. This makes a huge difference.
So don't worry about getting cancer from your portable phone. It just isn't powerful enough to matter!
>I would like to know where you get the statistics that the majority of artists make the majorty of money by touring, because it just isn't true.
Simple.
Slashdot linked to some interesting stories on the current payola type racket employed by the RIAA, which reeks of the old payola racket they've been in deep trouble for before!
The way it works right now is that virtually every single artist loses their shirt in the biz. By loses their shirt, I mean the artist actually pays to have people profit on his/her album.
Making $180 sounds a hell of a lot better than losing cash!
I hope that explains how the majority of money is made by touring!