I imagine that an alien world that is so argressive that it would blindly eliminate another alien world, would also be agressive towards its own inhabitants and be in constant war.
If only 1% of the students that are hired by Google are female but Google ends up with a 50% female work force, I think there's discrimination.
Sorry, that came out poorly. What I meant was, if only 1% of the students in the educational programs that Google hires from are female but Google ends up with a 50% female workforce.
I'd estimate that roughly 17% of my computer science classes in University were female and roughly 1% were black. I understand that Google doesn't ONLY hire people who studied computer science, but I think this could be a good representative sample.
What they should be doing is comparing these diversity statistics against how diverse their labour pool is. If only 1% of the students that are hired by Google are female but Google ends up with a 50% female work force, I think there's discrimination.
But really, I think society needs to do something about removing any barriers that exist that are preventing interested minorities from entering certain fields of study.
Nobody (that I know) thinks the fact that the world changing is the crisis. It's the rate at which the world is changing that is the problem. Sudden changes to the climate in the past have caused extinction events. I would call the possibility of entering another extinction event a crisis for sure.
I imagine that at least some humans would survive an extinction event, but I doubt a planet with a severely damaged ecosystem from such an event would be able to sustain the lives of 7 billion of us.
I can't speak to your jurisdiction, but seeing as most traffic laws are identical in North America, I'll use my own. In Ontario, the drivers handbook specifically states that passing on the right is permitted in multi-lane roads. As a side point it also states to change lanes when passing a bike.
If it is generally accepted that a car can pass a bike without changing lanes because there is enough space to do so, then that means that there is also enough space for me to pass on the right without changing lanes. If cars can't pass on the left unless they change lanes, then I can't and don't pass on the right without changing lanes.
Is this technically illegal to pass within the same lane? Sure, but seeing as the status quo allows it, it must not be that big of a deal. Is this unsafe? No. Because as I mentioned, there's clearly enough room to do so. Stop getting worked up about your need to go first through an intersection when you're going to pass the cyclist like 30 seconds later anyways. And if you're really just that upset by seeing other people break traffic laws, look at yourself first. Do you ever pass a bike in the same lane? Do you always come to a COMPLETE STOP at a stop sign ? (I don't mean a rolling stop) Do you ever go above the posted speed LIMIT?
Having rode my bike in the exact same conditions you're describing, I feel I should mention that one time early on I tried pulling over to let cars pass. The shoulder was covered in large gravel. To my surprise it was an extremely unstable surface to ride on with a road bike and I almost lost my balance and had to step down. I imagine that losing your balance so close to a highway could be even more dangerous than just riding close to edge of the road with more stability.
On top of that the gravel on unpaved shoulders tends to be covered in many sharp corners. Not sharp for a car tire, but for a bike tire could cause a flat without too much effort. Imagine driving in your car, disrupting traffic, and your only option to let the other cars by is to drive on nails.
But, if I'm in the right lane and a bike passes using the small space between me and the curb (not a designated bike lane), they're doing it illegally.
Perhaps in your jurisdiction this is illegal, but in most, as far as I can see, this is not illegal, even if it's not a designated bike lane. Think of it this way:
Ignore bikes for now, and consider a two lane road. You're in the right-hand lane approaching a line-up of cars in the left-hand lane who are waiting for someone up ahead to turn left. Do you stop in your lane so that you don't pass any of these cars on the right? No. So passing on the right is not out of the question when there are two lanes.
Now, if a car is in the right lane and approaches a bike traveling on the right-side of that lane and there is enough space in the lane most cars will pass that bike within the same lane (to the left of the bike), especially if there is no way to changes lanes to the left lane. I don't think cars are allowed to pass other cars within the same lane, even if it's a super wide lane. So that means that for the purposes of passing the bike, we must view the right-lane of the road as actually having two sub-lanes, one for cars, and one for bikes. If there are two lanes such as this, we could have the same scenario as described above except where the bike has the clear path in his/her lane.
Sounds just like when my 3 year old is asking me questions while I'm driving. He has no idea how to STFU. Yet, nowhere is it even remotely considered illegal to have talking children in the car while you're driving.
I honestly don't know how a person driving and talking on the phone who approaches a dangerous situation can't (and doesn't apparently?) just STOP TALKING, deal with the situation, then continue the conversation when the danger has passed.
you (like myself) are a man, and simply will never have this problem
Men have this problem too. Look at the field of nursing.
I recall my wife telling me about the 2 guys in her nursing class. All the girls thought that they must be gay for going into nursing, because guys just don't go into nursing. And out of a class of around 200 students, there only being 2 guys was a pretty telling statistic. Once they found out that one of them was straight, they instantly all got creeped out by him, which is one hostile environment for a guy.
What's worse, is that she ended up in the field of labour and delivery. A new male nurse just started in the post partem area (where they go after the baby is born), and they all immediately thought this guy was gay too. Then they found out that he was straight and now they're all weirded out that a straight guy CHOSE to go into the unit where he helps new mothers breastfeed all day.
Now personally, I'd never WANT to go into nursing, but maybe I've just been conditioned into thinking that it's a woman's job? Probably it's just that I'd rather go into something I'm interested in.
you really can't compare driving on snow to driving on a sheet of ice
I'll admit, I didn't RTFA since I had heard news reports about this on my local radio station. And those combined with this summary only mentioned snow. So, I wasn't talking about driving on ice. But now, let me talk about that.
Folks far north rarely get the kind of ice that occasionally causes snarls in the southeastern US
Just this month we had freezing rain. And I would not say that we "rarely" get it.
But nobody can drive in these ice conditions in a typical 2wd car that has no winter tires
My car, in fact, matches your 2wd and no winter tires description (it's not required by law in Ontario to have them). The winter experience I was talking about would have us AVOID driving in these ice conditions, but, it still is possible, if you give yourself enough time to stop. The key is to never use your brakes (only coast) and turn your wheel as little as possible. This requires a lot of patience, which is why I would rather avoid driving until the salt trucks have gone by.
But as I was saying, we would bounce back from these conditions quicker, since we have loads of salt trucks to deal with it. So, I feel for Atlanta, I really do.
Being a Canadian, I feel I should weigh in on this topic.
When you say that Canadians will drive in much worse conditions, that's only partially true. In the winter, we have salt trucks and snow plows going (seemingly) constantly. So, the 2-3 inches of snow dumped on Atlanta would have been cleared simply because we're prepared for that kind of snow. Also, Canadians are well experienced in dealing with snowy roads so we would have faired better for that reason too.
Don't be so hard on Atlanta, this is quite a lot like what happens to us every year on the first snow fall, BEFORE the salt trucks and plows have gotten out and before people have remembered what it's like to drive in the winter.
What sucks for them is that they can't recover as quickly as we can due to lack of experience and infrastructure.
P/2013 P5 has been ejecting dust periodically for at least five months. Astronomers believe it is possible the asteroid's rotation rate increased to the point where its surface started flying apart.
All they said was, "At least five months". If we worked backwards, how big would this asteroid have been, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years ago?
You seem like you know what you're talking about, so I'll ask you...
Why is it not possible that dark matter is simply just a hell of a lot of things like planets, comets, asteroids, gas or dust? Why can't these things exist outside of galaxies?
I really hope someone on here can explain what I'm missing here...
Why is it not possible that "dark matter" is not simply just regular matter like asteroids, comets, planets, nebulae, and neutrinos?
I mean, they're discovering exoplanets at an alarming rate lately and we're still discovering asteroids and comets in our own solar system. Extrapolating these findings to all the other stars out there has got to add up to something substantial, right?
What about stars that have exploded and spewed their contents across the universe? Would not these contents become dark after they cool, thereby making them invisible to us? That would be the entire mass of a star that we couldn't see, right? And there's got to be billions upon billions of these, depending on how far away into the past we're looking, right?
Then there are neutrinos, which we know exist because we can detect them, but do we really know how many of them are out there?
Surely, the mass of all of these normal types of matter would add up to something substantial... right?
if the cyclists behaved like the vehicles that they are classified as
This is one big problem I have with the law. I think it's a mistake to classify bikes in the same class as cars. There are many pertinent differences between the two. Such as:
Cyclists have greater visibility, since they are closer to the front end of their "vehicle", and they do not have the frame of a car blocking their view
Cyclists do not pose the same threat to people or objects, should a collision occur
Car drivers do not need to put their foot on the road when coming to a complete stop to prevent the car from tipping over
The top speed of the average cyclist is slower than the 'school zone' speed limit for cars. A limit that is designed to allow the driver enough time to react to children suddenly on the road
Cyclists cannot hit bumps, holes, or cracks in the road that cars can safely drive over without popping their tires (happened to me the other day, in fact)
Cyclists cannot ride on gravel without instability and the threat of crashing.
Not that this is done often, but a cyclist can quickly get off and walk their bike allowing the possibility for a cyclist to be legally treated as a pedestrian and thereby legally circumventing traffic laws.
Cyclists have a natural concern with conserving momentum, which is a major deterrent against slowing/stopping. This is due to the amount of energy required to get the bike going again. The amount of energy required for a driver to speed up after slowing/stopping is negligible.
Cyclists don't require a license to drive, so if they fail to follow the laws of the road, there is no threat of demerit points (if that's in your state, at least)
I'm not sure how the law should treat cyclists differently, but to lump cyclists and car drivers under all of the the same rules doesn't make sense. Personally I like the stoppage laws in Idaho for cyclists.
I don't dispute that you have encountered bad cyclists. However, to generalize all cyclists as bad drivers is not correct.
The fact of the matter is, there are bad drivers on bikes just the same as there are bad drivers on the road.
The bias happens when people encounter a bad driver in another demographic, they attribute the bad quality to that demographic (ie. their a bad driver because they're old, or their Asian, or they're a cyclist). But when they encounter a bad driver in their own demographic, they make excuses (ie. they must be having a bad day, or their wife is in labor, or they have diarrhea and need to get to a bathroom immediately, etc.)
Also, the good drivers get ignored because they don't stick out and as a result the positive examples never get attributed to any particular demographic.
We all do this to some extent, I believe, because it's in our nature, but that doesn't mean that it is correct.
Having followed the "Time" comic from the start, I am amazed that this level of detail was put into the artwork. But what amazes me even more, is that fans such as you have managed to connect the dots!
In the name of dumbing everything down to a level where *literally* a four-year-old can handle the thing.... That also is *literally* the intelligence level of a chimp!!
And if you can, it's mind-boggingly convoluted and unless somebody actively tells you, you can't even find it!! (Try deleting somebody on Skype for iOS. Try moving an icon on a different screen on iOS. Where's the fucking menu, so I can see what I can actually do? Where's the labels so I can tell what the damn symbol means and avoid wrecking something? Holding your finger on any icon for x seconds until they wiggle? Hidden double-taps under special conditions? Hidden *areas* where you have to drag and hold something for x seconds, *under special conditions*?? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME??)
I see a contradiction here, unless you're implying that you *literally* have the intelligence level of a chip.
We should do a Slashdot survey and see if the proportion is roughly the same on here as it is in TFA.
I've often been quite interested to learn if it's just a few loud people or just a lot of people on either side of this argument, since it seems to come up so frequently on here.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine that an alien world that is so argressive that it would blindly eliminate another alien world, would also be agressive towards its own inhabitants and be in constant war.
Oh wait, that's earth... Kill the aliens!
If only 1% of the students that are hired by Google are female but Google ends up with a 50% female work force, I think there's discrimination.
Sorry, that came out poorly. What I meant was, if only 1% of the students in the educational programs that Google hires from are female but Google ends up with a 50% female workforce.
I'd estimate that roughly 17% of my computer science classes in University were female and roughly 1% were black. I understand that Google doesn't ONLY hire people who studied computer science, but I think this could be a good representative sample.
What they should be doing is comparing these diversity statistics against how diverse their labour pool is. If only 1% of the students that are hired by Google are female but Google ends up with a 50% female work force, I think there's discrimination.
But really, I think society needs to do something about removing any barriers that exist that are preventing interested minorities from entering certain fields of study.
Nobody (that I know) thinks the fact that the world changing is the crisis. It's the rate at which the world is changing that is the problem. Sudden changes to the climate in the past have caused extinction events. I would call the possibility of entering another extinction event a crisis for sure.
I imagine that at least some humans would survive an extinction event, but I doubt a planet with a severely damaged ecosystem from such an event would be able to sustain the lives of 7 billion of us.
I can't speak to your jurisdiction, but seeing as most traffic laws are identical in North America, I'll use my own. In Ontario, the drivers handbook specifically states that passing on the right is permitted in multi-lane roads. As a side point it also states to change lanes when passing a bike.
If it is generally accepted that a car can pass a bike without changing lanes because there is enough space to do so, then that means that there is also enough space for me to pass on the right without changing lanes. If cars can't pass on the left unless they change lanes, then I can't and don't pass on the right without changing lanes.
Is this technically illegal to pass within the same lane? Sure, but seeing as the status quo allows it, it must not be that big of a deal. Is this unsafe? No. Because as I mentioned, there's clearly enough room to do so. Stop getting worked up about your need to go first through an intersection when you're going to pass the cyclist like 30 seconds later anyways. And if you're really just that upset by seeing other people break traffic laws, look at yourself first. Do you ever pass a bike in the same lane? Do you always come to a COMPLETE STOP at a stop sign ? (I don't mean a rolling stop) Do you ever go above the posted speed LIMIT?
Having rode my bike in the exact same conditions you're describing, I feel I should mention that one time early on I tried pulling over to let cars pass. The shoulder was covered in large gravel. To my surprise it was an extremely unstable surface to ride on with a road bike and I almost lost my balance and had to step down. I imagine that losing your balance so close to a highway could be even more dangerous than just riding close to edge of the road with more stability.
On top of that the gravel on unpaved shoulders tends to be covered in many sharp corners. Not sharp for a car tire, but for a bike tire could cause a flat without too much effort. Imagine driving in your car, disrupting traffic, and your only option to let the other cars by is to drive on nails.
But, if I'm in the right lane and a bike passes using the small space between me and the curb (not a designated bike lane), they're doing it illegally.
Perhaps in your jurisdiction this is illegal, but in most, as far as I can see, this is not illegal, even if it's not a designated bike lane. Think of it this way:
Ignore bikes for now, and consider a two lane road. You're in the right-hand lane approaching a line-up of cars in the left-hand lane who are waiting for someone up ahead to turn left. Do you stop in your lane so that you don't pass any of these cars on the right? No. So passing on the right is not out of the question when there are two lanes.
Now, if a car is in the right lane and approaches a bike traveling on the right-side of that lane and there is enough space in the lane most cars will pass that bike within the same lane (to the left of the bike), especially if there is no way to changes lanes to the left lane. I don't think cars are allowed to pass other cars within the same lane, even if it's a super wide lane. So that means that for the purposes of passing the bike, we must view the right-lane of the road as actually having two sub-lanes, one for cars, and one for bikes. If there are two lanes such as this, we could have the same scenario as described above except where the bike has the clear path in his/her lane.
What about in organisms that do asexual reproduction? How do they generate a new genetic structure for their offspring?
If you take your eyes of the road for any amount of time at all you *are* distracted, and a hazard to others.
And yet you are supposed to check your mirrors, and blind spots (while changing lanes) so as not to be a hazard to others.
Sounds just like when my 3 year old is asking me questions while I'm driving. He has no idea how to STFU. Yet, nowhere is it even remotely considered illegal to have talking children in the car while you're driving.
I honestly don't know how a person driving and talking on the phone who approaches a dangerous situation can't (and doesn't apparently?) just STOP TALKING, deal with the situation, then continue the conversation when the danger has passed.
you (like myself) are a man, and simply will never have this problem
Men have this problem too. Look at the field of nursing.
I recall my wife telling me about the 2 guys in her nursing class. All the girls thought that they must be gay for going into nursing, because guys just don't go into nursing. And out of a class of around 200 students, there only being 2 guys was a pretty telling statistic. Once they found out that one of them was straight, they instantly all got creeped out by him, which is one hostile environment for a guy.
What's worse, is that she ended up in the field of labour and delivery. A new male nurse just started in the post partem area (where they go after the baby is born), and they all immediately thought this guy was gay too. Then they found out that he was straight and now they're all weirded out that a straight guy CHOSE to go into the unit where he helps new mothers breastfeed all day.
Now personally, I'd never WANT to go into nursing, but maybe I've just been conditioned into thinking that it's a woman's job? Probably it's just that I'd rather go into something I'm interested in.
you really can't compare driving on snow to driving on a sheet of ice
I'll admit, I didn't RTFA since I had heard news reports about this on my local radio station. And those combined with this summary only mentioned snow. So, I wasn't talking about driving on ice. But now, let me talk about that.
Folks far north rarely get the kind of ice that occasionally causes snarls in the southeastern US
Just this month we had freezing rain. And I would not say that we "rarely" get it.
But nobody can drive in these ice conditions in a typical 2wd car that has no winter tires
My car, in fact, matches your 2wd and no winter tires description (it's not required by law in Ontario to have them). The winter experience I was talking about would have us AVOID driving in these ice conditions, but, it still is possible, if you give yourself enough time to stop. The key is to never use your brakes (only coast) and turn your wheel as little as possible. This requires a lot of patience, which is why I would rather avoid driving until the salt trucks have gone by.
But as I was saying, we would bounce back from these conditions quicker, since we have loads of salt trucks to deal with it. So, I feel for Atlanta, I really do.
Being a Canadian, I feel I should weigh in on this topic.
When you say that Canadians will drive in much worse conditions, that's only partially true. In the winter, we have salt trucks and snow plows going (seemingly) constantly. So, the 2-3 inches of snow dumped on Atlanta would have been cleared simply because we're prepared for that kind of snow. Also, Canadians are well experienced in dealing with snowy roads so we would have faired better for that reason too.
Don't be so hard on Atlanta, this is quite a lot like what happens to us every year on the first snow fall, BEFORE the salt trucks and plows have gotten out and before people have remembered what it's like to drive in the winter.
What sucks for them is that they can't recover as quickly as we can due to lack of experience and infrastructure.
I wonder if a similar thing happens when playing video games?
I'm not sure why they should be trying to "convince the public" either - they should be convincing those that are handing out the anti-biotics.
In Mexico, many (if not all) antibiotics are over-the-counter. If this remains true, it is definitely the Mexican public that need to be convinced.
I wonder how many other countries sell antibiotics without prescriptions?
P/2013 P5 has been ejecting dust periodically for at least five months. Astronomers believe it is possible the asteroid's rotation rate increased to the point where its surface started flying apart.
All they said was, "At least five months". If we worked backwards, how big would this asteroid have been, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years ago?
You seem like you know what you're talking about, so I'll ask you...
Why is it not possible that dark matter is simply just a hell of a lot of things like planets, comets, asteroids, gas or dust? Why can't these things exist outside of galaxies?
This is an honest question
I really hope someone on here can explain what I'm missing here...
Why is it not possible that "dark matter" is not simply just regular matter like asteroids, comets, planets, nebulae, and neutrinos?
I mean, they're discovering exoplanets at an alarming rate lately and we're still discovering asteroids and comets in our own solar system. Extrapolating these findings to all the other stars out there has got to add up to something substantial, right?
What about stars that have exploded and spewed their contents across the universe? Would not these contents become dark after they cool, thereby making them invisible to us? That would be the entire mass of a star that we couldn't see, right? And there's got to be billions upon billions of these, depending on how far away into the past we're looking, right?
Then there are neutrinos, which we know exist because we can detect them, but do we really know how many of them are out there?
Surely, the mass of all of these normal types of matter would add up to something substantial... right?
if the cyclists behaved like the vehicles that they are classified as
This is one big problem I have with the law. I think it's a mistake to classify bikes in the same class as cars. There are many pertinent differences between the two. Such as:
I'm not sure how the law should treat cyclists differently, but to lump cyclists and car drivers under all of the the same rules doesn't make sense. Personally I like the stoppage laws in Idaho for cyclists.
I don't dispute that you have encountered bad cyclists. However, to generalize all cyclists as bad drivers is not correct.
The fact of the matter is, there are bad drivers on bikes just the same as there are bad drivers on the road.
The bias happens when people encounter a bad driver in another demographic, they attribute the bad quality to that demographic (ie. their a bad driver because they're old, or their Asian, or they're a cyclist). But when they encounter a bad driver in their own demographic, they make excuses (ie. they must be having a bad day, or their wife is in labor, or they have diarrhea and need to get to a bathroom immediately, etc.)
Also, the good drivers get ignored because they don't stick out and as a result the positive examples never get attributed to any particular demographic.
We all do this to some extent, I believe, because it's in our nature, but that doesn't mean that it is correct.
Having followed the "Time" comic from the start, I am amazed that this level of detail was put into the artwork. But what amazes me even more, is that fans such as you have managed to connect the dots!
Thank you so much for sharing!
This is seriously one of the best comments I've read on Slashdot on this topic. It's a shame that you aren't modded higher.
In the name of dumbing everything down to a level where *literally* a four-year-old can handle the thing. ... That also is *literally* the intelligence level of a chimp!!
And if you can, it's mind-boggingly convoluted and unless somebody actively tells you, you can't even find it!! (Try deleting somebody on Skype for iOS. Try moving an icon on a different screen on iOS. Where's the fucking menu, so I can see what I can actually do? Where's the labels so I can tell what the damn symbol means and avoid wrecking something? Holding your finger on any icon for x seconds until they wiggle? Hidden double-taps under special conditions? Hidden *areas* where you have to drag and hold something for x seconds, *under special conditions*?? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME??)
I see a contradiction here, unless you're implying that you *literally* have the intelligence level of a chip.
We should do a Slashdot survey and see if the proportion is roughly the same on here as it is in TFA.
I've often been quite interested to learn if it's just a few loud people or just a lot of people on either side of this argument, since it seems to come up so frequently on here.
If people incorrectly call Native Americans, "Indians", what would they call Native Indians?