I am not so sure about consistency of typing style across every keyboard. Some keyboards buttons are bounced nicely and that made me feel like typing faster. Some aren't that great and frustrated me which in turn slows me down or causes stop-and-go effect on my typing style. Also, different keyboard layout affects the way I type because I need to adjust my fingers (especially my right pinky) to reach certain button/character. I also like to use num-pad to enter numbers rather than the number button on the top row (and most laptops don't have the num-pad). Recently, I bought a new keyboard and the 'Enter' button shape is different from the old one plus the backslash button is moved 1 row down (right in front of the 'Enter' button). As a result, I kept hitting backslash button instead of the 'Enter' even though I am trying to be more careful.
Even though one could have similar typing style, I doubt that it is always the same on every keyboard. If this authentication system can detect that, it is great; otherwise, it could be a big failure instead.
Could you define the word public web in your post? It seems that many people think that a web page/site which allows to be viewed by anyone is so called public. Is this your meaning?
I am not sure what you are disagree about? Is it about the tax code should be complex? Or the country (U.S.) should make tax laws simply?
To me, the GP is talking about the company he is working for. The company is attempt to make money by lobbying the tax code to be very complex. As a result, laymen would need to find a way to file taxes -- hire a CPA or use tax software. The company will earn more revenue from people buying its software. Is it bad to make tax code more complex? I think it is. However, there is no agreement or disagreement in what they are doing because to me it has only one answer -- it is bad (exploitation of the system).
I agree... Another loop hole in the laws and someone (big company) is abusing it...
The "penalty of perjury" language appears to only apply to the question of whether or not the person filing the takedown actually represents the party they claim to represent -- and not whether the file is infringing at all, or even whether or not the file's copyright is held by the party being represented. And, in the lawsuit, Warner Bros. is relying on that to try to avoid getting hit with a perjury claim.
Political scientists often talk about dyads, by which we simply mean groups of two.... If we did this for every possible dyad, we could compare the frequency of dyads and get a sense of how often countries’ negotiating positions overlap.
I hope the above quote from the TFA may answer what you are looking for when you look at the chart on the TFA...
You've obviously never taken high doses of certain hallucinogens. Or if you had, you somehow completely missed one of the main benefits: insight into yourself and your relationship to the world around you. Ability to see problems for what they are, and often cope with them better.
I have never taken any kind of hallucinogens and I will never do that even a slightest. Though, I am uncertain on your claim about the main benefits.
Hallucinogen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen ) has 2 main effects -- dissociatives and deliriants. From what you claim, it looks like you are talking about dissociative effect -- detach self from surrounding environment. Hallucination is not equal to truth or fact even though there may be some relation (just may be), so the insight you are talking about is not equal to seeing the truth of relation of self and the world. The part of seeing and dealing with problems better is doubtful to me. I would love to see a study (if any) on this part because the result of the study would either confirm or reject your claim. As of now, your claim is highly doubtfully reliable.
sending people home empty handed (which leaves them unhappy so they go looking for a 'better' doctor)?
For that part, the word 'better doctor' is very subjective to the patient. Many patients look for 'magic pills' that immediately relieve their symptoms. How many people do you know that take pain relief pills whenever they have a headache rather than attempt to relax and rest first? Of course, there could be serious cases involved, but I doubt that is the majority. Therefore 'unhappy' does not imply 'find a better doctor' because the 'better' could become 'worse' under circumstances (including short or long term effect). I would suggest "which leaves them unhappy so they go looking for a doctor who pleases them better" instead (which means the doctor may or may not really help the patients).
At $72m (£45m), the mission is comparatively cheap, but some commentators have still questioned whether a country with one of the highest rankings for childhood malnutrition in the world should be spending millions on a mission to the Red Planet.
If you are talking about this budget, then it does not really mean anything. This is the budget for this testing project but is not comparable to a real project. When it comes to a real project, launching is only a small part and cost for the whole project. Yes, the country benefit for this test, but is it really worth to put a lot more money into another program for a real thing? That is my big question...
Which makes a good argument for a flat sales tax instead of an income tax. That way a rich guy buying an island and a yacht pays a lot more in tax than most of the 99%.
And what hard evidence do you have to prove that, under the same circumstance as now, it will guarantee that he will not screw other shareholders if the tax is changed to a flat sales tax instead of an income tax?
People act like training is some magical thing. Training is nothing more than guided experience on a schedule. Intelligent people, it may surprise you, have experiences all the time, and being intelligent they can process those experiences into a useful understanding, gasp, without formal training!
I am sorry but I feel that I should jump into this. It is all depended on what the "training" is. Please do not compare this type of training with any kind of computer cert training. The traning the GP is talking about involved more physical & mental than computer cert trainings. You are operating something which directly involves life safety. If you make a mistake, you could harm yourself (and may be others), and the worst case scenario is death (to you and others). And by the way, most of the "computer certifications" are junk because you could simply read them yourself if you have a capability in the subjects.
I have lots of technical certs which I know a lot of people train for with classes and whatever, but I never took classes or read any books. I had enough unscheduled, unguided real world experience to just get the certs. Training isn't magical, it doesn't represent an exclusive path to knowledge and ability, so stop patronizing people.
You are correct that training is "not magical" that "represent an exclusive path to knowledge," but you also made an assumption that all training are the same, which is incorrect. To me training is a summary and short cut of whatever subject is being trained. It could give new ideas, tips, and/or tricks to those who are new to the subject. For those who are already familiar to the subject, training may or may not be helpful (but one could still learn something new if the one is seeking). An extensive training is to give as much info and/or practice to trainees under a certain length of time whether or not trainees are capable to work on the trained subject. That's my two cents.
This is why it's so important to document your code. Once the compiler reads your comments it will understand your intent and decide whether you or your code is unstable.
What? Do you think a compiler reads human readable comments? Do you really know what a "compiler" is? From what you said, I highly doubt you know what this topic is all about.
Speaking of this article, to me, it is talking about a software (STACK http://css.csail.mit.edu/stack/ ) implemented by MIT researchers that could detect bugs from complied codes. These bugs are from optimization in compilers -- remove undefined behavior from the original code while compiling the code. As a result, the compiled code could have security holes.
HAH I actually AM related to Ben Franklin =) Great*4 uncle on my mom's side, to hear her tell the tale.
I am sorry, but it still proves nothing but rather a hear say. Until you can show any hard evidence (such as DNA proof), it could still be false regarding the GP reasoning -- false claim to be related to a historically important person.
But it all depends on what sort of sensitive you mean. Sensitive as in higher resolution or sensitive as in "Ow! Don't pinch that!". Pinching my foreskin doesn't hurt as much as trying to pinch some other parts.
I think you are associating the sensitivity with pain. I am not sure that the sensitivity in this topic is actually about pain...
since if they wouldn't watch the common channels, criminals wouldn't need to find better ways to communicate
Depends on how you define "better ways" to communicate for criminals. It may be a simple solution, but have you ever heard of the old say "if you want to hide a leaf hide it in a forest"? In other words, they do not need to use other ways of communication but rather disguise their communication in the 99.999% you are talking about.
I could agree with your terminology for the word 'Undocumented' (and there are more reasons for that), but that is not the point for this article. It seems that the article is mentioning the majority -- those who immigrated into the country (may be legal at first) and now are illegal (most likely by intention). To me, the intention of the word used in the article is to attempt to avoid discrimination but it raises other questions. The GP post shows that the word used is less aggressive, underrated, and sort of misleading, and that I could agree with as well.
Anyway, I do not have a strong feeling toward either word, so I cannot make further comment on the word used in the article.
While waiting for a left hand turn, I had my car stopped in the traffic lane; guy behind me hit my car. Did he hit it because it was stationary? No. He hit it because he was leaning over his seat fishing around in the back seat playing with his toddler in her car seat.
You are going off and be too specific. Your example applies only to those that are negligent to the road; besides, is the person texting while waiting to make a left turn? If you want to be specific, how about this one. There is a traffic light on a road that is right at the bottom of a hill about 100 feet. The road has 40 mph speed limit. You come up the hill and are going down, and at the same time the light just turns green. There is a car sitting right in front of the light, and the driver is actually texting and doesn't know that the light has turned green. You are driving in the same lane as that car. You don't know that the person doesn't realize that the light turns green, so what is your anticipation? Of course, you would think that the car is going to move. Let say you are cautious so you slow down but intend not to be completely stopped. But then the car in front of you does not move at all and you eventually hit the car in front of you because you couldn't brake on time. Legally, you are totally at fault because you couldn't stop. What's about ethical? You were cautious but were NOT cautious enough. The person who is in the car in the front, on the other hand, is obviously neglect things around him/her.
Your reasoning extends logically to absurdity. Your reasoning makes me partially responsible for murder if I leave a bicycle on the sidewalk and an inattentive jogger watching some other jogger's tits trips over my bicycle and breaks his braincase open on the pavement, killing himself.
Again, another specific example that has only one node which supports your argument. Anyway yes, you are responsible. Are you living alone in a middle of no where? I would agree if you live in a middle of no where, but then someone walked pass your property line (but not in yours), got into an accident, and killed himself. Why? Because there is no expectation of anyone to come by. But you live in a place where others live as well. Humans are social animal. You need to at least be careful about consequences of whatever you do that may interfere others. You have rights and others have too. Why do you think there are rules? Why do some rules not become laws?
I have nearly done this several times because the sidewalk in my city is uneven; perhaps the city would be responsible for injury if someone trips on the uneven, poorly maintained pavement.
That answer why you have been arguing about it. It is because you DO NOT WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE for what you have been doing. If you want to push the responsibility to the city, you need to think a bit further. Maybe it is you who are the resident of the city that do NOT pay enough taxes to the city, so the city does not have budget to maintain the sidewalk. Or it is you who do NOT go to complaint to the city bill to allow budgeting for the side walk maintenance, so they do nothing about it. You know about the road, but you choose not to do anything because you do NOT see any benefits of doing so. Is it absurd? Maybe, but it is all possible if your reasoning is possible because it is as much absurd.
It seems that if you don't see it, it doesn't exist. And even though your action is directly related to the situation, you are not involved if anything bad happens. But an opposite reaction may occur if a good thing happens instead.
Maybe people should be able to sue if they slip on the sidewalk in front of my house because I didn't come out to apply salt to the walkway.
Oh yes, you could be sued in Canada if you do not shuffle and/or apply salt on the sidewalk in front of your house when it is snow. I believe you could be sued in the U.S. as well. The law is good in nature, but sadly it is easily abusable.
Agree that the post is ambiguous. Anyway, nice arguing with you.;)
You do NOT listen or try to distinguish differences between unavoidable and avoidable but rather attempt to give unsupportable reasons to back up your opinion -- disable car is the same as not move the car at a light while texting. A simple question to you. What is the first thing to do when your car fails to move while you are on the road? Would you turn the emergency light on -- signal other cars coming from behind? And please stop arguing that the accident may happen while you are trying to start the car because it is an EXTREME case. With your "most common case" is unlikely to be seen on a traffic light as many as sitting and texting while on the red light. Why? How high the odd is that a car would all the sudden stop right when the traffic light turns green? And then how high the odd is between turning the emergency light on and a car rams behind? More likely, there is already a car waiting behind honking.
Also, if the person who has the disabled car turns the emergency light on, the person does NOT contribute to the cause of the accident because the person has done what the person is supposed to do -- ATTEMPTED to prevent the accident.
The sit & text is a common case for this issue because these people are knowingly and able to move the car but choose to sit there paying attention on the cellphone without giving a signal to others. In other words, the car CAN MOVE but the driver CHOOSE NOT TO. As I said many times now, legally the person who hit the other car is completely at fault, but ethically the person who sits in the car texting contributes to the cause.
That's what I said 'generalization'. A car stopped at a traffic light does NOT have any signal letting those who are coming from behind know that the car is being stopped. A disabled vehicle, most of the time, has a signal as I mentioned earlier. These situations cannot be compared because they are too much different.
The guy texting at the light was obstructing traffic; you cannot imply any guilt here for a collision resulting in death. You can imply guilt for being an obstruction to traffic--an annoyance.... The guy sitting at the light playing with his phone has no legitimate reason to be in the way, and is an obstruction and a public nuisance; he is not responsible for some other guy ramming into his car at speed or any consequences thereof.
I did not say that the person in the stopped car is guilty. I was not clear in my previous reply; you need to separate legal and ethical here. The annoyance is actually a good indication in this case. The implication that GP mentioned may be correct about "disrupted traffic for no good cause."
The ideology of "when one does nothing, the one should not have any responsibility toward any situation" is not always correct. In this case, that is what you are thinking about. By doing nothing (sitting at the light in the middle of the street without an indication of car disability) could actually contribute to the accident regardless reasons from the person at fault -- ignorant, anticipation, negligence, surprise, health issue, etc.
Legally, yes the one who hits is completely at fault. Ethically, the one who stands without a good cause is still a part of the whole situation and should be responsible.
It is 100% the responsibility of the driver who collided with the obstruction for colliding with a non-moving obstruction.
I agree with this completely.
The person sitting at a light could be cited for obstruction of traffic; however that does not move the blame for the collision onto him.
I think you are a bit off mark from the intention of the GP. No, the blame is still with the person who collides, but that does not take away the responsibility of the person who obstructs the traffic. In other words, the person who blocks the traffic is still a part of the cause.
A person sitting at a light being a dufus could easily be a disabled car, a cop car, a deer, a construction worker, a driver experiencing a heart attack,....
I think you attempt to generalize all cases. In other words, you mix normal cases (majority and very often) with extreme cases (rare). In a normal situation, there would be at least a signal (i.e. emergency lights, warning lights, etc) to let those who are coming know that the car is unable to move. Often times, the car is pulled to the side of the road and is still with a signal.
Electronic devices do nothing to airplanes during take-off and landing.
Hmm... "Does not happen" is NOT equal to "do nothing." You should at least be more cautious rather than assume the result. Please do not be ignorant. Read the possible effect on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft and try to understand why the rule is there. It does not matter at all if nothing happens. It does matter if it happens even once. Your assumption from a few experience is not creditable.
There usually are rules for any situation that involves life safety. The rules usually are there NOT for usual cases, but it is for extreme cases that are not worth to let them happen. It is very simple to understand and should be followed.
As soon as I did the iOS7 update, I noticed that you could access the camera from the lock screen
That feature has been included even before iOS7. I could already access the camera in my phone (4S) with only iOS5.x by turning the lock screen on and then swipe the camera icon upward to open the camera functionality. I could also access all pictures taken from this session of the camera as well. However, I cannot access any other pictures taken outside of the session. In other words, other pictures that are already in the photo gallery before turning the camera functionality on from the locked screen are inaccessible unless I unlock the phone. This is NOT a NEW feature.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not so sure about consistency of typing style across every keyboard. Some keyboards buttons are bounced nicely and that made me feel like typing faster. Some aren't that great and frustrated me which in turn slows me down or causes stop-and-go effect on my typing style. Also, different keyboard layout affects the way I type because I need to adjust my fingers (especially my right pinky) to reach certain button/character. I also like to use num-pad to enter numbers rather than the number button on the top row (and most laptops don't have the num-pad). Recently, I bought a new keyboard and the 'Enter' button shape is different from the old one plus the backslash button is moved 1 row down (right in front of the 'Enter' button). As a result, I kept hitting backslash button instead of the 'Enter' even though I am trying to be more careful.
Even though one could have similar typing style, I doubt that it is always the same on every keyboard. If this authentication system can detect that, it is great; otherwise, it could be a big failure instead.
And it took you 12 hours to finish reading the alphabet book???
Could you define the word public web in your post? It seems that many people think that a web page/site which allows to be viewed by anyone is so called public. Is this your meaning?
I am not sure what you are disagree about? Is it about the tax code should be complex? Or the country (U.S.) should make tax laws simply?
To me, the GP is talking about the company he is working for. The company is attempt to make money by lobbying the tax code to be very complex. As a result, laymen would need to find a way to file taxes -- hire a CPA or use tax software. The company will earn more revenue from people buying its software. Is it bad to make tax code more complex? I think it is. However, there is no agreement or disagreement in what they are doing because to me it has only one answer -- it is bad (exploitation of the system).
The "penalty of perjury" language appears to only apply to the question of whether or not the person filing the takedown actually represents the party they claim to represent -- and not whether the file is infringing at all, or even whether or not the file's copyright is held by the party being represented. And, in the lawsuit, Warner Bros. is relying on that to try to avoid getting hit with a perjury claim.
Political scientists often talk about dyads, by which we simply mean groups of two. ... If we did this for every possible dyad, we could compare the frequency of dyads and get a sense of how often countries’ negotiating positions overlap.
I hope the above quote from the TFA may answer what you are looking for when you look at the chart on the TFA...
You've obviously never taken high doses of certain hallucinogens. Or if you had, you somehow completely missed one of the main benefits: insight into yourself and your relationship to the world around you. Ability to see problems for what they are, and often cope with them better.
I have never taken any kind of hallucinogens and I will never do that even a slightest. Though, I am uncertain on your claim about the main benefits.
Hallucinogen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen ) has 2 main effects -- dissociatives and deliriants. From what you claim, it looks like you are talking about dissociative effect -- detach self from surrounding environment. Hallucination is not equal to truth or fact even though there may be some relation (just may be), so the insight you are talking about is not equal to seeing the truth of relation of self and the world. The part of seeing and dealing with problems better is doubtful to me. I would love to see a study (if any) on this part because the result of the study would either confirm or reject your claim. As of now, your claim is highly doubtfully reliable.
sending people home empty handed (which leaves them unhappy so they go looking for a 'better' doctor)?
For that part, the word 'better doctor' is very subjective to the patient. Many patients look for 'magic pills' that immediately relieve their symptoms. How many people do you know that take pain relief pills whenever they have a headache rather than attempt to relax and rest first? Of course, there could be serious cases involved, but I doubt that is the majority. Therefore 'unhappy' does not imply 'find a better doctor' because the 'better' could become 'worse' under circumstances (including short or long term effect). I would suggest "which leaves them unhappy so they go looking for a doctor who pleases them better" instead (which means the doctor may or may not really help the patients).
At $72m (£45m), the mission is comparatively cheap, but some commentators have still questioned whether a country with one of the highest rankings for childhood malnutrition in the world should be spending millions on a mission to the Red Planet.
If you are talking about this budget, then it does not really mean anything. This is the budget for this testing project but is not comparable to a real project. When it comes to a real project, launching is only a small part and cost for the whole project. Yes, the country benefit for this test, but is it really worth to put a lot more money into another program for a real thing? That is my big question...
Tea *Party* members wanted only to delay Obamacare for a year until it actually worked. Now they look like geniuses.
Hmm... Define the word work please...
Which makes a good argument for a flat sales tax instead of an income tax. That way a rich guy buying an island and a yacht pays a lot more in tax than most of the 99%.
And what hard evidence do you have to prove that, under the same circumstance as now, it will guarantee that he will not screw other shareholders if the tax is changed to a flat sales tax instead of an income tax?
People act like training is some magical thing. Training is nothing more than guided experience on a schedule. Intelligent people, it may surprise you, have experiences all the time, and being intelligent they can process those experiences into a useful understanding, gasp, without formal training!
I am sorry but I feel that I should jump into this. It is all depended on what the "training" is. Please do not compare this type of training with any kind of computer cert training. The traning the GP is talking about involved more physical & mental than computer cert trainings. You are operating something which directly involves life safety. If you make a mistake, you could harm yourself (and may be others), and the worst case scenario is death (to you and others). And by the way, most of the "computer certifications" are junk because you could simply read them yourself if you have a capability in the subjects.
I have lots of technical certs which I know a lot of people train for with classes and whatever, but I never took classes or read any books. I had enough unscheduled, unguided real world experience to just get the certs. Training isn't magical, it doesn't represent an exclusive path to knowledge and ability, so stop patronizing people.
You are correct that training is "not magical" that "represent an exclusive path to knowledge," but you also made an assumption that all training are the same, which is incorrect. To me training is a summary and short cut of whatever subject is being trained. It could give new ideas, tips, and/or tricks to those who are new to the subject. For those who are already familiar to the subject, training may or may not be helpful (but one could still learn something new if the one is seeking). An extensive training is to give as much info and/or practice to trainees under a certain length of time whether or not trainees are capable to work on the trained subject. That's my two cents.
This is why it's so important to document your code. Once the compiler reads your comments it will understand your intent and decide whether you or your code is unstable.
What? Do you think a compiler reads human readable comments? Do you really know what a "compiler" is? From what you said, I highly doubt you know what this topic is all about.
Speaking of this article, to me, it is talking about a software (STACK http://css.csail.mit.edu/stack/ ) implemented by MIT researchers that could detect bugs from complied codes. These bugs are from optimization in compilers -- remove undefined behavior from the original code while compiling the code. As a result, the compiled code could have security holes.
HAH I actually AM related to Ben Franklin =) Great*4 uncle on my mom's side, to hear her tell the tale.
I am sorry, but it still proves nothing but rather a hear say. Until you can show any hard evidence (such as DNA proof), it could still be false regarding the GP reasoning -- false claim to be related to a historically important person.
But it all depends on what sort of sensitive you mean. Sensitive as in higher resolution or sensitive as in "Ow! Don't pinch that!". Pinching my foreskin doesn't hurt as much as trying to pinch some other parts.
I think you are associating the sensitivity with pain. I am not sure that the sensitivity in this topic is actually about pain...
since if they wouldn't watch the common channels, criminals wouldn't need to find better ways to communicate
Depends on how you define "better ways" to communicate for criminals. It may be a simple solution, but have you ever heard of the old say "if you want to hide a leaf hide it in a forest"? In other words, they do not need to use other ways of communication but rather disguise their communication in the 99.999% you are talking about.
I could agree with your terminology for the word 'Undocumented' (and there are more reasons for that), but that is not the point for this article. It seems that the article is mentioning the majority -- those who immigrated into the country (may be legal at first) and now are illegal (most likely by intention). To me, the intention of the word used in the article is to attempt to avoid discrimination but it raises other questions. The GP post shows that the word used is less aggressive, underrated, and sort of misleading, and that I could agree with as well.
Anyway, I do not have a strong feeling toward either word, so I cannot make further comment on the word used in the article.
While waiting for a left hand turn, I had my car stopped in the traffic lane; guy behind me hit my car. Did he hit it because it was stationary? No. He hit it because he was leaning over his seat fishing around in the back seat playing with his toddler in her car seat.
You are going off and be too specific. Your example applies only to those that are negligent to the road; besides, is the person texting while waiting to make a left turn? If you want to be specific, how about this one. There is a traffic light on a road that is right at the bottom of a hill about 100 feet. The road has 40 mph speed limit. You come up the hill and are going down, and at the same time the light just turns green. There is a car sitting right in front of the light, and the driver is actually texting and doesn't know that the light has turned green. You are driving in the same lane as that car. You don't know that the person doesn't realize that the light turns green, so what is your anticipation? Of course, you would think that the car is going to move. Let say you are cautious so you slow down but intend not to be completely stopped. But then the car in front of you does not move at all and you eventually hit the car in front of you because you couldn't brake on time. Legally, you are totally at fault because you couldn't stop. What's about ethical? You were cautious but were NOT cautious enough. The person who is in the car in the front, on the other hand, is obviously neglect things around him/her.
Your reasoning extends logically to absurdity. Your reasoning makes me partially responsible for murder if I leave a bicycle on the sidewalk and an inattentive jogger watching some other jogger's tits trips over my bicycle and breaks his braincase open on the pavement, killing himself.
Again, another specific example that has only one node which supports your argument. Anyway yes, you are responsible. Are you living alone in a middle of no where? I would agree if you live in a middle of no where, but then someone walked pass your property line (but not in yours), got into an accident, and killed himself. Why? Because there is no expectation of anyone to come by. But you live in a place where others live as well. Humans are social animal. You need to at least be careful about consequences of whatever you do that may interfere others. You have rights and others have too. Why do you think there are rules? Why do some rules not become laws?
I have nearly done this several times because the sidewalk in my city is uneven; perhaps the city would be responsible for injury if someone trips on the uneven, poorly maintained pavement.
That answer why you have been arguing about it. It is because you DO NOT WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE for what you have been doing. If you want to push the responsibility to the city, you need to think a bit further. Maybe it is you who are the resident of the city that do NOT pay enough taxes to the city, so the city does not have budget to maintain the sidewalk. Or it is you who do NOT go to complaint to the city bill to allow budgeting for the side walk maintenance, so they do nothing about it. You know about the road, but you choose not to do anything because you do NOT see any benefits of doing so. Is it absurd? Maybe, but it is all possible if your reasoning is possible because it is as much absurd.
It seems that if you don't see it, it doesn't exist. And even though your action is directly related to the situation, you are not involved if anything bad happens. But an opposite reaction may occur if a good thing happens instead.
Maybe people should be able to sue if they slip on the sidewalk in front of my house because I didn't come out to apply salt to the walkway.
Oh yes, you could be sued in Canada if you do not shuffle and/or apply salt on the sidewalk in front of your house when it is snow. I believe you could be sued in the U.S. as well. The law is good in nature, but sadly it is easily abusable.
Agree that the post is ambiguous. Anyway, nice arguing with you. ;)
If I understand correctly about the definition of circadian rhythm -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm -- it does not relate to what you are talking about here. If you are talking about an article at University of California -- http://www.ucop.edu/sciencetoday/article/18885 -- then I may be related but I still believe that it is a bit off topic.
You do NOT listen or try to distinguish differences between unavoidable and avoidable but rather attempt to give unsupportable reasons to back up your opinion -- disable car is the same as not move the car at a light while texting. A simple question to you. What is the first thing to do when your car fails to move while you are on the road? Would you turn the emergency light on -- signal other cars coming from behind? And please stop arguing that the accident may happen while you are trying to start the car because it is an EXTREME case. With your "most common case" is unlikely to be seen on a traffic light as many as sitting and texting while on the red light. Why? How high the odd is that a car would all the sudden stop right when the traffic light turns green? And then how high the odd is between turning the emergency light on and a car rams behind? More likely, there is already a car waiting behind honking.
Also, if the person who has the disabled car turns the emergency light on, the person does NOT contribute to the cause of the accident because the person has done what the person is supposed to do -- ATTEMPTED to prevent the accident.
The sit & text is a common case for this issue because these people are knowingly and able to move the car but choose to sit there paying attention on the cellphone without giving a signal to others. In other words, the car CAN MOVE but the driver CHOOSE NOT TO. As I said many times now, legally the person who hit the other car is completely at fault, but ethically the person who sits in the car texting contributes to the cause.
There could be a disabled vehicle there too
That's what I said 'generalization'. A car stopped at a traffic light does NOT have any signal letting those who are coming from behind know that the car is being stopped. A disabled vehicle, most of the time, has a signal as I mentioned earlier. These situations cannot be compared because they are too much different.
The guy texting at the light was obstructing traffic; you cannot imply any guilt here for a collision resulting in death. You can imply guilt for being an obstruction to traffic--an annoyance. ... The guy sitting at the light playing with his phone has no legitimate reason to be in the way, and is an obstruction and a public nuisance; he is not responsible for some other guy ramming into his car at speed or any consequences thereof.
I did not say that the person in the stopped car is guilty. I was not clear in my previous reply; you need to separate legal and ethical here. The annoyance is actually a good indication in this case. The implication that GP mentioned may be correct about "disrupted traffic for no good cause."
The ideology of "when one does nothing, the one should not have any responsibility toward any situation" is not always correct. In this case, that is what you are thinking about. By doing nothing (sitting at the light in the middle of the street without an indication of car disability) could actually contribute to the accident regardless reasons from the person at fault -- ignorant, anticipation, negligence, surprise, health issue, etc.
Legally, yes the one who hits is completely at fault. Ethically, the one who stands without a good cause is still a part of the whole situation and should be responsible.
It is 100% the responsibility of the driver who collided with the obstruction for colliding with a non-moving obstruction.
I agree with this completely.
The person sitting at a light could be cited for obstruction of traffic; however that does not move the blame for the collision onto him.
I think you are a bit off mark from the intention of the GP. No, the blame is still with the person who collides, but that does not take away the responsibility of the person who obstructs the traffic. In other words, the person who blocks the traffic is still a part of the cause.
A person sitting at a light being a dufus could easily be a disabled car, a cop car, a deer, a construction worker, a driver experiencing a heart attack, ....
I think you attempt to generalize all cases. In other words, you mix normal cases (majority and very often) with extreme cases (rare). In a normal situation, there would be at least a signal (i.e. emergency lights, warning lights, etc) to let those who are coming know that the car is unable to move. Often times, the car is pulled to the side of the road and is still with a signal.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Electronic devices do nothing to airplanes during take-off and landing.
Hmm... "Does not happen" is NOT equal to "do nothing." You should at least be more cautious rather than assume the result. Please do not be ignorant. Read the possible effect on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft and try to understand why the rule is there. It does not matter at all if nothing happens. It does matter if it happens even once. Your assumption from a few experience is not creditable.
There usually are rules for any situation that involves life safety. The rules usually are there NOT for usual cases, but it is for extreme cases that are not worth to let them happen. It is very simple to understand and should be followed.
5 only? How many people in the real world have 5 fingers? As far as I remember, the Simpsons have 8 which is still more than 5!
As soon as I did the iOS7 update, I noticed that you could access the camera from the lock screen
That feature has been included even before iOS7. I could already access the camera in my phone (4S) with only iOS5.x by turning the lock screen on and then swipe the camera icon upward to open the camera functionality. I could also access all pictures taken from this session of the camera as well. However, I cannot access any other pictures taken outside of the session. In other words, other pictures that are already in the photo gallery before turning the camera functionality on from the locked screen are inaccessible unless I unlock the phone. This is NOT a NEW feature.