Pretty far off-topic, I know, but late it's late in the thread: Germany has several other 'features' that I would highly recommend to any visitor:
1) Some of the best beer that I've ever had in my life (local breweries are very popular there, so there is much variety) - I discovered that I have a particular affinity for the "Dunkeles Hefe Weizen", a dark wheat beer that they serve only in 1/2 litre steins (don't mix this with the Autobahn, though) and which must, by law IIRC, be made only with 4 natural ingredients and contain no preservatives
2) Excellent (but expensive) food
3) Topless beaches ^-^ need I say more?
I would say that, in the context of driver safety, points 1 and 3 are very much doubtful as to helping safety, especially in combination. Driving after a few Dunkelbiere and goggling topless beaches along the way...;-)
Though I agree that they are selling points.;-))
Point 2, well, that's debatable...I'd say I have had much better food in, say, Oslo or Amsterdam or Utrecht. But maybe I'm hitting all the wrong restaurants in Germany. *sigh*
I wonder, do you think your sh!t smells better than the lowly plebes too?
Hm, no. I don't.
The two-second rule is a blanket concept, just like a speed limit is a blanket concept.
Ah, I see -- blanket concepts are evil. Let's get rid of both, then!
Unlike yourself, most human beings do not drive like a robot, and instead tend to take driving conditions into consideration.
Interesting. You claim to know a lot about my driving habits already. Are you psychic?
The two-second rule is all about giving yourself an extra safety net in the case of poor brakes or driver distraction, and can be an excellent rule to follow on single-lane streets with no medians, especially streets with parked cars.[...]
Everything you have written assumes that I suggest people use the two-second rule to the exclusion of all else. I never suggested anything of the kind. It is a rule of thumb that is easy to understand and use on-the-fly, and easy to explain to someone who's only had the usual drivers' training. And along with other good practices like the ones you list (look several cars ahead, check your mirrors every few seconds, etc. etc. etc.), by using the two-second rule, an inexperienced or intermediate driver can greatly reduce his/her risk of being in an accident. What's so terrible about that?
Cripes, someone points out a helpful way of driving safer, and gets jumped on. *shakesheadindisbelief*
Knock off the holier than thou attitude, that's the one thing I hate about most people who pass any sort of advanced driving test.
Wha? You yourself said you'd passed just such a test, and gave me grief that the two-second rule is a load of bunk (when it isn't, as you yourself said, as below:)
The two second rule is merely one arrow in the quiver of defensive driving techniques.
It's one arrow in the quiver -- so why dump it entirely?
Big deal, you passed the test, have you read RoadCraft?[...]
And now who's holier-than-thou?
Nowhere are you told how far behind someone are you supposed to drive, it is far too dependent on a wide range of variables, two seconds is an easy to remember, easy to implement plan. It is a very small part of defensive driving.
And in the context of talking to people who have not had any advanced training (meaning the majority of/. readers), the two-second rule is an ideal way of communicating a good driving technique. Guess what? It ain't perfect, but it works, especially if you aren't that familiar with the car and don't want to go calculating ideal braking distances in your head while driving.
Jeez, man, it's a rule of thumb, not an iron-clad eleveth commandment. Take it easy!
[...]
30kph an hour is roughly 25mph! I'm used to imperial so excuse my math if I'm off slightly. Using the formulas given by the UK Dept. of Transport. The reaction distance at 25mph is 25ft, the braking distance is ((25*25)/20) = 32ft total stopping distance is 57ft, given a maintained car with an alert driver on a reasonable road surface. The two second rule gives you 52ft, or so.
Like I said, it ain't perfect -- but it works as a good rule of thumb. The two-second bit is meant as a minimum distance at ideal conditions. A difference of five feet is pretty small in that context -- the idea being that you'd be driving at *more* than two seconds difference, which makes up for the margin of error.
You keep talking like I pulled the two-second bit out of my a**. This is something that is taught in drivers' training for a reason -- it's a quick and easily understood way of telling people a basic principe -- back off (and how much to back off).
[...]Defensive driving does not make you safe merely safer.
I never said anything to the contrary. The two-second rule doesn't by itself solve all problems with traffic -- but it can go a long way to get people to drive safer.
[...]
Getting bigger cars will not solve everything, in fact it would put me at greater risk! The reason for a new big car is that in accident crash tests the larger newer car nearly always comes out with the higher scores.
That is exactly my point -- all you are doing is entering into an arms race. It solves exactly zilch in the long run, indeed it makes driving all that much more dangerous with everyone driving cars with twice or three times the mass. (Not to mention the added danger to pedestrians and bicyclists...)
Two seconds behind the car in front of you ??? Are you sure about that. That is not alot of time. I driving instructor said 5 minimum.
Maybe it's different in Denmark, but I've done drivers' training in both Germany and the US, and in both places it's 2 seconds -- but that is the *minimum* recommended distance in ideal conditions. If it's rainy, foggy, dark or whatever, it goes up considerably.
Ah well, I never drive anyway, train, bus, bike or walking is more my still.
Actually, I also prefer the train, tram and bus to driving, but in many cases it just doesn't work without a car, even in Germany (where the public transport is as good as any).
Ever since I broke my wrist riding my bike in my teens, I've been leery of riding bikes in the city...just a phobia born of reckless car drivers who seem to ignore bike riders. *sigh*
I have driven in Germany many times, and can attest to fellow North Americans that the Germans take their driving far more seriously. They obey the speed limits right down to the km/hr.,
Uh, what part of Germany was that? I *rarely* see Germans pay much attention to the speed limit, unless of course they know there's a radar camera nearby (in which case they slow down for maybe a few seconds).
I've lived in Germany now for almost ten years (Hannover-Hamburg area) and speeding (and trying to run red lights) seems to be the national sport.
where they exist (secondary and city roads and many parts of the Autobahn), and on the stretches of Autobahn that are unregulated, they obey rules very carefully about slower traffic keeping to the right, proper signaling, passing etc.
That I agree with -- indeed it's often a shock to be back in the States and drive there, where passing on the right is pretty much normal (even if it's technically illegal).
OTOH it's not that big a deal, since the speed differential between any given car and the average speed is *far* lower (cars in the States drive about 70 +/- 10 mph; in Germany it's about 85 +/- 30 mph because of varying speed limits by type of vehicle) so passing on the right isn't that big a deal.
North American driving looks very sloppy in comparison. The sections of the Autobahn that are unregulated are (by comparison to here) beautifully engineered, built and maintained (flat, smooth, properly banked turns, etc.).
Yup, it never ceases to amaze me how perfectly built the Autobahnen are. But OTOH think about it this way: with the high speeds, you *have* to have a perfect surface -- otherwise the car would go flying at the first pothole (or take out the whole suspension).
Interesting curiosities: I was told that in Germany, if you come up behind another car and want him to move over, you can be charged for flashing your lights at him and that you can also be successfully sued for giving another driver the middle finger gesture.
Yes, both are true. Honking or flashing your lights at someone to get them to pull over is called "Nötigung" (basically means "forcing") and is punishable by law. Tailgating is also considered a mild form of Nötigung. In both cases you're encouraged to take down the license plate and turn them in (though I don't know if the plaintiff gets anything for doing it).
However, the converse is also true. If you're in the left lane and only doing 80 kph, others can sue you for blocking the road.
Using the finger is an offense in Germany on or off the road, actually, as is insulting someone (calling someone an a**hole is subject to fines). This results in rather interesting twists of conversation -- Germans have gotten rather good at verbally assaulting and insulting people without ever actually calling them anything...
Having passed the advanced drivers test in the UK I can assure you that hardly anybody drives the two second rule in the UK and now I am in the states I know nobody does it here. The UK drives at about one second gaps and the Us less than that.
In some areas of the US, yes, that's true. But not all. And the question was, how far apart do cars drive from one another? Well, they are supposed to drive two seconds apart. What they really do is of course another issue entirely.
Yes, I stick to the two-second rule anyway. (It's called defensive driving.)
The problem is at motor/highway speed two seconds leaves enough of a gap for some dofus to pull into. There goes you're breaking distance and you're wonderful two second rule. Fall back and the next dofus does the same. Repeat ad nauseum until you get a clue that nobody else respects you're breaking distance.
Yes, people do jump in front of me -- but they also jump in front of you when you only leave one second (or less!). The point is, why not leave yourself and them enough space to do it safely?
Additionally, if you follow the two-second rule, once they jump in front of you, they will already be farther away from you than otherwise -- so you don't have to brake (just let off the gas a little). And if you don't have to brake, neither do the people behind you, and behind them, and so on (the good old accordion effect).
As an added bonus, you'll run far less risk of rear-ending someone -- and the driver who rear-ends another car is almost always at fault and has to pay the damages. So not only do you save risk in terms of safety, you save risk financially as well.
The key to safe driving is to be courteous, don't hurry and keep your distance (the two-second rule is to guide you in that). If you take the attitude that everyone else is automatically a doofus, and that it's your right to tailgate and drive over the speed limit, then you're clearly driving aggressively and contributing to the problem.
As an aside, I just *love* it when I see people getting out of their wrecked cars (where they had been speeding and tailgating) after rear-ending or spinning out or whatever, and protesting to the cops "I'm a really safe driver! All my friends say so!"
On crowded roads the two second rule is not possible to implement.
The hell it is. All you have to do is back off.
If traffic is only moving at 30 kph, like in a traffic jam, then the two-second rule says you should be 16m away from the next car -- a little more than two car lengths. That's not really that much. If you're only moving 10 kph, then it's about 5m. BFD.
Instead you pay far more attention to what's going on around you constantly have the escape route planned.
And guess what? The two-second rule gives you a built-in escape route automatically and buys you some split-seconds in which to make a decision when things get critical. That can mean the difference between a close call and a totalled car (and injuries).
It also helps to have the largest newest vehicle you can afford.
Ah. I see. Peace through superior firepower...yes, let's all get bigger cars! That'll solve everything!
Well, I don't know about germany, but here in america we certanly driver closer then 170 meters! Perhaps 170 decimeters:P
Ever learn the two-second rule for driving? The trick is, you're supposed to always be at least two seconds behind the car in front of you, three or four seconds if the roads are slippery or it's raining or dark (or all three).
You measure this by using bridges, signs, etc. as benchmarks -- wait until the car in front of you has passed the landmark, count "one-onethousand two-onethousand", and only then should you reach the same landmark. If you pass it beforehand, you're too close.
So suppose you're driving 120 kph (the usual speed limit on the Autobahn, if there is one defined). 120 kph ~= 33 m/s. So by the two-second rule, you'd have to be at least 67m away from the car in front of you.
Suppose you're doing a more typical speed on the Autobahn (even when there's a speed limit, it usually is roundly ignored). Most people drive around 140 kph (though you usually are getting run over by Mercedes and BMWs doing 200). That's a minimum distance of about 78m, assuming it's a bright sunny day with dry roads.
If it's raining, you should double that; near or below freezing, at least double that again; low visibility, double that once more. IOW if it's raining, freezing and foggy, you probably shouldn't be on the road at all.;-)
Seriously, if you follow the two-second rule and keep in mind that you're supposed to double it in some circumstances, you're never rear-end anyone, and probably never get rear-ended either (since the person behind you *also* has more warning as a result).
You could be watching Friends, with a little "Pampers" ad on the bottom. This would allow for even more commercial time, and they could sell the time to sync to various moments in a program. (e.g Rachel is playing with the baby, roll the Pampers ad. They are in the coffeehouse, roll the Starbucks ad)
And all I'd have to do to block ads is take a strip of black construction paper and tape it to the bottom of the screen. Voila! Uninterrupted commercial-free TV!
And no TiVo hacking needed, either!
Then suddenly black construction paper is banned by the DMCA...
If you really think you want go up to the ISS, remember that there is no broadband Net access up there, and therefore no access to pr0n -- and even worse, there's no pizza delivery.
Better yet, Mozilla ought to use the text in the ALT attribute. At least in the context of an IMG element, the TITLE attribute is redundant.
There *is* a difference. ALT tags are a boon to making websites ready for Lynx and text-only browsers for the disabled. So if you have a graphic button that says "Home", consider these two variants:
<img src="home.png" width="100" height="20" border="0" alt="This button takes you to the homepage">
<img src="home.png" width="100" height="20" border="0" alt="Home" title="This button takes you to the homepage">
The first tag (which is what you suggest) would be a little awkward in a text browser, since "This button takes you to the homepage" would show up (when "Home" would do).
The second would look idiotic in Mozilla, since the tooltip would just say "Home" (well, duh), but it would work in Lynx and other text browsers.
The third is ideal, because everyone gets what they need -- Mozilla's tooltip would say "This button takes you to the homepage", but the text browsers see just "Home".
You forget (or did you read the article and the links provided?) that the Reg does have evidence of other e-mails, some of which are also harshly worded.
If you read the original e-mail (posted on Heise.de in German), the tone of voice in the original is not far off from their translated version. Indeed, they adopted a tone of voice that German bureaucrats *love* to adopt. Very imperious, arrogant and pointed, but at the same time they stay (as a German would say) "sachlich", meaning "factual" or "sticking to the facts". German bureaucrats love to insult you between the lines, while being able to claim that they were 'only' making statements of fact.
Ah, another German that perfectly describes EMI's e-mail: "Scheinheilig". Means something like "holier-than-thou". And another word that most people will recognize: "Schadenfreude".
In meagre defense of EMI, the person who e-mailed them to complain about their CD was at times a little rude (see the Heise post) -- but that does not excuse the snotty response they sent him back.
I think I'm going to boycott EMI and BMG music from now on. Which is sad, since Beatles CDs are published by EMI, if I remember right, but I have quite a few Beatles CDs anyway (and plenty of cassettes).
I'm not mad so much because I want to copy or rip CDs (though I do it sometimes for my own use), but what *really* ticks me off is the attitude that it's somehow my responsibility to make their damned crippled CD work in my Red Book standard (!) player, and if I can't do it, then I must be some kind of idiot.
OTOH most of the music I tend to buy is usually marked "Nice Price" and is in the discount bins 'cos they were popular 10-20 years ago (man, I feel old). *sigh*
I doubt The Man would bother copy-handicapping them...
Oddly enough, my bank's online banking site (Deutsche Bank) actually works better with Mozilla and Chimera than with IE. They even warn IE users to upgrade because of security holes and recommend Netscape or Mozilla. The site also seems to work fine with other alternative browsers, so long as they support SSL standards (OmniWeb and so on).
I do remember a brief period when I had problems with Mozilla (and had to use IE), but that seems to be more because they are constantly tinkering with their online banking system rather than a plan to exclude a browser (the site is constantly being changed and for the most part improved).
Hey, the online banking site even runs on WebObjects from Apple, so I guess they believe in alternatives. *g*
You're apparently referring to none other than Freiherr Gravenreuth, a lawyer in Munich. That was one of the more spectacular suits he's done, apparently. He seems to be able to dance on the line of what's legal and what's not and get away with it.
There is an interesting FAQ about Graventreuth (in German) that you might want to read.
Cheers,
Ethelred (who's glad he has legal insurance and a good lawyer)
In Germany, and I believe in other EU countries, there is a law against mass lawsuits clearly designed to get money -- this is called an "Abmahnwelle" in Germany (literally means "wave of suits"). If some lawyer or company tried something like this, they'd get reprimanded and possibly even disbarred in Germany.
An example: about a year ago, a couple of clients of mine got notice of a lawsuit from some newly founded organization claiming to protect consumers; the clients' websites were supposedly in violation of an obscure and archaic bit of German law (basically they failed to note specifically on the site that information sent via an e-mail form is stored -- well, duh). Because of the "potential damage to consumers" due to "infringements on their privacy" (i.e. the theoretical number of consumers who could use the site was astronomical), the suit was valued by their lawyers at a high amount, thus theoretically forcing the clients to pay a minimum amount of damages to the organization if they chose to settle.
Word got around quickly that just about anyone with an e-commerce site got just such a letter, complaints were filed against said lawyer, and the lawyer got seriously shat on (and the suits were withdrawn) and the organization was dissolved.
At my first job, with a company of 7 people, we assumed that when the ad agency did our web site they would be taking pictures of us- especially because the founders considered themselves quite good-looking. But the ad agency used stock photos- they said they ALWAYS used stock photos, and seemed surprised that we thought we'd be photographed. They may have used the stock photo because the day they decided to do it, the PR rep had spilled coffee on herself, or for any number of other minor reasons. It's SOP for an ad company.
I used to work in a couple of marketing/design agencies, and still work self-employed in design and marketing. I'd say it is highly unusual to use stock art to represent real people, especially if the people involved are officers of the company -- after all, corporate partners are most likely going to meet these people eventually, so it would make a strange impression on visitors to see that the people don't look like that at all.
I really wonder what your old employer's agency was thinking (smoking?). Using stock art for testimonials is already questionable (people these days are cynical and intelligent enough to notice the difference), using stock art to represent employees and officers is downright stupid.
This is, by the way, why the Apple Switch ads are so effective. The people look believable (especially Ellen Feiss;-) ) mainly because they aren't rehearsed, look "average" and so on. As a result, they are more likely to be listened to that some celebrity or photo model. Maybe they are faked, but if so, it's a hell of a good fake.
Quoth the article: Instant-messaging buddies are grouped to reflect their hierarchy in the company, or where they're logged in. E-mails, instant messages and Web pages can be grouped into "Info Clusters" and then e-mailed or quickly turned into a Web site.
Nah, this is more like "Metropolis" or "Brave New World" -- where everyone knows their place in the Great Corporation, and the technology is there primarily to enforce that hierarchy (oh, good Ford!).
Maybe MS should have been more honest and obvious and referred to the managers in the "widget factory" as Betas, with the bosses Alphas. And handed out lots of soma. Orgy-porgy...
So much for the Internet flattening out society. Looks like MS wants it to be the tool for The Man to keep us peons where we belong.
...to think of the GM Futurama from the 1940 and 1964 World's Fairs? (Take a look at this site and this one for a little about their "future vision".) Or how about the movie "Metropolis" from Fritz Lang? At least Metropolis didn't try to predict the future -- just to be a work of art. MS's thing just strikes me as bald-faced marketing just like GM's Futurama was.
In the 1960s, Ford said we'd be driving atomic-powered cars in 20 years. In the 1930s, just about everyone assumed we'd all have our private helicopter or airplane by 1980. (Imagine the air congestion and accidents with that...soccer moms flying their SUV-copters.) And we're still waiting on our Mr. Fusion powerplants...
Yogi Berra said it best. "It's tough to make predictions. Especially about the future."
Quoth Ballmer: It's not like Novell, it isn't going to run out of money--it started off bankrupt, in a way.
*laugh* Ballmer only seems to see things in terms of money. It should be painfully obvious that Linux didn't start off "bankrupt", it started off free, which is hardly the same thing.
Quoth kalidasa: StarOffice did not start out as a free product, iirc. And as for IBM promoting Linux, how is that any different from HP and Dell promoting Microsoft.
It isn't, of course -- well, there's one crucial difference. MS doesn't get any money out of it.
And does the first paragraph, as the Register asked, mean that Microsoft accepts liability for their own software?
They keep dancing around that issue. They have, one the one hand, tried with EULAs and so on to get out of liability -- but they are also starting to realize that that lack of responbility has meant that they release shoddy software and have no immediate need to fix it. But now their reputation for less-than-good software is starting to come around and bite them in the *ss. A symptom is all the buzz that Linux and UN*X is getting. So they are starting to acknowledge *moral*, as opposed to *legal*, liability for their software products ("Trustworthy Computing").
Which could be dangerous, 'cos you can't have it both ways, really. Eventually someone's going to start suing the bejeezus out of them, once some NT-based thing goes blooey and costs someone a fortune...
This reminds me of an old sci-fi book, which I think was called "The Whole Ball of Wax"...
Just found the name: "The Big Ball of Wax: A Story of Tomorrow's Happy World", by Shepherd Mead, written before 1954. Apparently it's been out of print for ages. *sigh*
Sounds like Pepsi's grasping at straws for marketing ideas.
This reminds me of an old sci-fi book, which I think was called "The Whole Ball of Wax" (I have forgotten the author's name and an Amazon and Google search got me nowhere). The book was set sometime in the late 20th century (written in the 1960s), when the "constellation Pepsi-Cola wheeled in the sky" -- supposedly Pepsi had made an artificial constellation out of satellites equipped with huge mirrors. The story also had a forerunner of virtual reality (and very much like Tekwar from William Shatner), where people donned a headset to experience recorded sensations. It also oddly echoed (foresaw?) a lot of things about society in America today, even if a lot of the details were wrong (vidphones and that sort of thing).
I last read the book years ago -- borrowed it from my aunt and uncle about 20 years ago -- but have no idea if the book is still available anywhere. Even when I borrowed it, it was old...
I also had to think of one old Pepsi commercial from the 1980s. Even as a diehard Coke and RC drinker, I was still amused by it: in the commercial, you see a bunch of students from the distant future being led around an archaeological dig by a professor; the "excavation" is of a 20th century family home. The prof rattles on about how rare it is to find a house from this era totally intact, and he enthusiastically shows an "ancient" TV set, stereo, etc. (all the while explaining to the students what they were for, while you see the students sipping from Pepsi cans).
At the end, a student spots a glass thing in the dirt, picks it up and shows it to the prof, asking, "Hey, Professor, what's this?"
Turns out to be a 16 oz. Coke bottle. The prof looks totally dumbfounded and murmurs, "I have no idea..."
The other way is to set up an appointment to actually speak, face to face, with your congressperson. It actually happens.
Yup, that does work. I went and met my Congressman, Bruce Vento (since deceased), to talk to him about a couple of issues -- he was on the Banking Committee and was in hearings about new banknotes, so I talked to him about that, and also about the IT industry. We talked for a good 20 minutes in his office, face-to-face, nobody else there.
I also got to talk to my Senator's chief of staff -- getting to meet your Senator is pretty hard, but the chief of staff is the next best thing (talked to him about the same issues as well as immigration issues because of my wife).
An aside: this goes both ways. I was very happy that Vento and Wellstone's chief of staff met me and took a fair amount of time to talk (about 20 minutes each); both took notes and I got pretty detailed responses by mail later. That was good. So I didn't feel at all bad about voting for them -- I was glad that they at least seemed to care about what I was talking about.
The "other" Senator from Minnesota at the time was Rod Grams. His office wouldn't even give me the time of day. I probably wouldn't have voted for the twit anyway, but that really needlessly insulted a potential voter (and he's no longer in office;-> ).
All you have to do is look in the phone book, call your congresscritter's office, ask for an appointment (but tell them in advance what you want to talk about so they don't think it's a prank), and they will usually take the time to meet you. Maybe even bring some fellow constituents along to drive the point home.
Much harder to ignore a gaggle of constituents in your office than a lousy e-mail or postcard, and makes a bigger impression because you took the time to go there and meet them.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty far off-topic, I know, but late it's late in the thread: Germany has several other 'features' that I would highly recommend to any visitor:
1) Some of the best beer that I've ever had in my life (local breweries are very popular there, so there is much variety) - I discovered that I have a particular affinity for the "Dunkeles Hefe Weizen", a dark wheat beer that they serve only in 1/2 litre steins (don't mix this with the Autobahn, though) and which must, by law IIRC, be made only with 4 natural ingredients and contain no preservatives
2) Excellent (but expensive) food
3) Topless beaches ^-^ need I say more?
I would say that, in the context of driver safety, points 1 and 3 are very much doubtful as to helping safety, especially in combination. Driving after a few Dunkelbiere and goggling topless beaches along the way... ;-)
Though I agree that they are selling points. ;-))
Point 2, well, that's debatable...I'd say I have had much better food in, say, Oslo or Amsterdam or Utrecht. But maybe I'm hitting all the wrong restaurants in Germany. *sigh*
Cheers,
Ethelred
I wonder, do you think your sh!t smells better than the lowly plebes too?
Hm, no. I don't.
The two-second rule is a blanket concept, just like a speed limit is a blanket concept.
Ah, I see -- blanket concepts are evil. Let's get rid of both, then!
Unlike yourself, most human beings do not drive like a robot, and instead tend to take driving conditions into consideration.
Interesting. You claim to know a lot about my driving habits already. Are you psychic?
The two-second rule is all about giving yourself an extra safety net in the case of poor brakes or driver distraction, and can be an excellent rule to follow on single-lane streets with no medians, especially streets with parked cars.[...]
Everything you have written assumes that I suggest people use the two-second rule to the exclusion of all else. I never suggested anything of the kind. It is a rule of thumb that is easy to understand and use on-the-fly, and easy to explain to someone who's only had the usual drivers' training. And along with other good practices like the ones you list (look several cars ahead, check your mirrors every few seconds, etc. etc. etc.), by using the two-second rule, an inexperienced or intermediate driver can greatly reduce his/her risk of being in an accident. What's so terrible about that?
Cripes, someone points out a helpful way of driving safer, and gets jumped on. *shakesheadindisbelief*
Cheers,
Ethelred
Knock off the holier than thou attitude, that's the one thing I hate about most people who pass any sort of advanced driving test.
Wha? You yourself said you'd passed just such a test, and gave me grief that the two-second rule is a load of bunk (when it isn't, as you yourself said, as below:)
The two second rule is merely one arrow in the quiver of defensive driving techniques.
It's one arrow in the quiver -- so why dump it entirely?
Big deal, you passed the test, have you read RoadCraft?[...]
And now who's holier-than-thou?
Nowhere are you told how far behind someone are you supposed to drive, it is far too dependent on a wide range of variables, two seconds is an easy to remember, easy to implement plan. It is a very small part of defensive driving.
And in the context of talking to people who have not had any advanced training (meaning the majority of /. readers), the two-second rule is an ideal way of communicating a good driving technique. Guess what? It ain't perfect, but it works, especially if you aren't that familiar with the car and don't want to go calculating ideal braking distances in your head while driving.
Jeez, man, it's a rule of thumb, not an iron-clad eleveth commandment. Take it easy!
[...]
30kph an hour is roughly 25mph! I'm used to imperial so excuse my math if I'm off slightly. Using the formulas given by the UK Dept. of Transport. The reaction distance at 25mph is 25ft, the braking distance is ((25*25)/20) = 32ft total stopping distance is 57ft, given a maintained car with an alert driver on a reasonable road surface. The two second rule gives you 52ft, or so.
Like I said, it ain't perfect -- but it works as a good rule of thumb. The two-second bit is meant as a minimum distance at ideal conditions. A difference of five feet is pretty small in that context -- the idea being that you'd be driving at *more* than two seconds difference, which makes up for the margin of error.
You keep talking like I pulled the two-second bit out of my a**. This is something that is taught in drivers' training for a reason -- it's a quick and easily understood way of telling people a basic principe -- back off (and how much to back off).
[...]Defensive driving does not make you safe merely safer.
I never said anything to the contrary. The two-second rule doesn't by itself solve all problems with traffic -- but it can go a long way to get people to drive safer.
[...]
Getting bigger cars will not solve everything, in fact it would put me at greater risk! The reason for a new big car is that in accident crash tests the larger newer car nearly always comes out with the higher scores.
That is exactly my point -- all you are doing is entering into an arms race. It solves exactly zilch in the long run, indeed it makes driving all that much more dangerous with everyone driving cars with twice or three times the mass. (Not to mention the added danger to pedestrians and bicyclists...)
Cheers,
Ethelred
Two seconds behind the car in front of you ??? Are you sure about that. That is not alot of time. I driving instructor said 5 minimum.
Maybe it's different in Denmark, but I've done drivers' training in both Germany and the US, and in both places it's 2 seconds -- but that is the *minimum* recommended distance in ideal conditions. If it's rainy, foggy, dark or whatever, it goes up considerably.
Ah well, I never drive anyway, train, bus, bike or walking is more my still.
Actually, I also prefer the train, tram and bus to driving, but in many cases it just doesn't work without a car, even in Germany (where the public transport is as good as any).
Ever since I broke my wrist riding my bike in my teens, I've been leery of riding bikes in the city...just a phobia born of reckless car drivers who seem to ignore bike riders. *sigh*
Cheers,
Ethelred
I have driven in Germany many times, and can attest to fellow North Americans that the Germans take their driving far more seriously. They obey the speed limits right down to the km/hr.,
Uh, what part of Germany was that? I *rarely* see Germans pay much attention to the speed limit, unless of course they know there's a radar camera nearby (in which case they slow down for maybe a few seconds).
I've lived in Germany now for almost ten years (Hannover-Hamburg area) and speeding (and trying to run red lights) seems to be the national sport.
where they exist (secondary and city roads and many parts of the Autobahn), and on the stretches of Autobahn that are unregulated, they obey rules very carefully about slower traffic keeping to the right, proper signaling, passing etc.
That I agree with -- indeed it's often a shock to be back in the States and drive there, where passing on the right is pretty much normal (even if it's technically illegal).
OTOH it's not that big a deal, since the speed differential between any given car and the average speed is *far* lower (cars in the States drive about 70 +/- 10 mph; in Germany it's about 85 +/- 30 mph because of varying speed limits by type of vehicle) so passing on the right isn't that big a deal.
North American driving looks very sloppy in comparison. The sections of the Autobahn that are unregulated are (by comparison to here) beautifully engineered, built and maintained (flat, smooth, properly banked turns, etc.).
Yup, it never ceases to amaze me how perfectly built the Autobahnen are. But OTOH think about it this way: with the high speeds, you *have* to have a perfect surface -- otherwise the car would go flying at the first pothole (or take out the whole suspension).
Interesting curiosities: I was told that in Germany, if you come up behind another car and want him to move over, you can be charged for flashing your lights at him and that you can also be successfully sued for giving another driver the middle finger gesture.
Yes, both are true. Honking or flashing your lights at someone to get them to pull over is called "Nötigung" (basically means "forcing") and is punishable by law. Tailgating is also considered a mild form of Nötigung. In both cases you're encouraged to take down the license plate and turn them in (though I don't know if the plaintiff gets anything for doing it).
However, the converse is also true. If you're in the left lane and only doing 80 kph, others can sue you for blocking the road.
Using the finger is an offense in Germany on or off the road, actually, as is insulting someone (calling someone an a**hole is subject to fines). This results in rather interesting twists of conversation -- Germans have gotten rather good at verbally assaulting and insulting people without ever actually calling them anything...
Cheers,
Ethelred
Feeding the troll...
Are you for real?
Er, well, yes...
Having passed the advanced drivers test in the UK I can assure you that hardly anybody drives the two second rule in the UK and now I am in the states I know nobody does it here. The UK drives at about one second gaps and the Us less than that.
In some areas of the US, yes, that's true. But not all. And the question was, how far apart do cars drive from one another? Well, they are supposed to drive two seconds apart. What they really do is of course another issue entirely.
Yes, I stick to the two-second rule anyway. (It's called defensive driving.)
The problem is at motor/highway speed two seconds leaves enough of a gap for some dofus to pull into. There goes you're breaking distance and you're wonderful two second rule. Fall back and the next dofus does the same. Repeat ad nauseum until you get a clue that nobody else respects you're breaking distance.
Yes, people do jump in front of me -- but they also jump in front of you when you only leave one second (or less!). The point is, why not leave yourself and them enough space to do it safely?
Additionally, if you follow the two-second rule, once they jump in front of you, they will already be farther away from you than otherwise -- so you don't have to brake (just let off the gas a little). And if you don't have to brake, neither do the people behind you, and behind them, and so on (the good old accordion effect).
As an added bonus, you'll run far less risk of rear-ending someone -- and the driver who rear-ends another car is almost always at fault and has to pay the damages. So not only do you save risk in terms of safety, you save risk financially as well.
The key to safe driving is to be courteous, don't hurry and keep your distance (the two-second rule is to guide you in that). If you take the attitude that everyone else is automatically a doofus, and that it's your right to tailgate and drive over the speed limit, then you're clearly driving aggressively and contributing to the problem.
As an aside, I just *love* it when I see people getting out of their wrecked cars (where they had been speeding and tailgating) after rear-ending or spinning out or whatever, and protesting to the cops "I'm a really safe driver! All my friends say so!"
On crowded roads the two second rule is not possible to implement.
The hell it is. All you have to do is back off.
If traffic is only moving at 30 kph, like in a traffic jam, then the two-second rule says you should be 16m away from the next car -- a little more than two car lengths. That's not really that much. If you're only moving 10 kph, then it's about 5m. BFD.
Instead you pay far more attention to what's going on around you constantly have the escape route planned.
And guess what? The two-second rule gives you a built-in escape route automatically and buys you some split-seconds in which to make a decision when things get critical. That can mean the difference between a close call and a totalled car (and injuries).
It also helps to have the largest newest vehicle you can afford.
Ah. I see. Peace through superior firepower...yes, let's all get bigger cars! That'll solve everything!
Cheers,
Ethelred
Well, I don't know about germany, but here in america we certanly driver closer then 170 meters! Perhaps 170 decimeters :P
Ever learn the two-second rule for driving? The trick is, you're supposed to always be at least two seconds behind the car in front of you, three or four seconds if the roads are slippery or it's raining or dark (or all three).
You measure this by using bridges, signs, etc. as benchmarks -- wait until the car in front of you has passed the landmark, count "one-onethousand two-onethousand", and only then should you reach the same landmark. If you pass it beforehand, you're too close.
So suppose you're driving 120 kph (the usual speed limit on the Autobahn, if there is one defined). 120 kph ~= 33 m/s. So by the two-second rule, you'd have to be at least 67m away from the car in front of you.
Suppose you're doing a more typical speed on the Autobahn (even when there's a speed limit, it usually is roundly ignored). Most people drive around 140 kph (though you usually are getting run over by Mercedes and BMWs doing 200). That's a minimum distance of about 78m, assuming it's a bright sunny day with dry roads.
If it's raining, you should double that; near or below freezing, at least double that again; low visibility, double that once more. IOW if it's raining, freezing and foggy, you probably shouldn't be on the road at all. ;-)
Seriously, if you follow the two-second rule and keep in mind that you're supposed to double it in some circumstances, you're never rear-end anyone, and probably never get rear-ended either (since the person behind you *also* has more warning as a result).
Cheers,
Ethelred
You could be watching Friends, with a little "Pampers" ad on the bottom. This would allow for even more commercial time, and they could sell the time to sync to various moments in a program. (e.g Rachel is playing with the baby, roll the Pampers ad. They are in the coffeehouse, roll the Starbucks ad)
And all I'd have to do to block ads is take a strip of black construction paper and tape it to the bottom of the screen. Voila! Uninterrupted commercial-free TV!
And no TiVo hacking needed, either!
Then suddenly black construction paper is banned by the DMCA...
Cheers,
Ethelred
If you really think you want go up to the ISS, remember that there is no broadband Net access up there, and therefore no access to pr0n -- and even worse, there's no pizza delivery.
Cheers,
Ethelred
There *is* a difference. ALT tags are a boon to making websites ready for Lynx and text-only browsers for the disabled. So if you have a graphic button that says "Home", consider these two variants:
<img src="home.png" width="100" height="20" border="0" alt="This button takes you to the homepage">
and
<img src="home.png" width="100" height="20" border="0" alt="Home">
and
<img src="home.png" width="100" height="20" border="0" alt="Home" title="This button takes you to the homepage">
The first tag (which is what you suggest) would be a little awkward in a text browser, since "This button takes you to the homepage" would show up (when "Home" would do).
The second would look idiotic in Mozilla, since the tooltip would just say "Home" (well, duh), but it would work in Lynx and other text browsers.
The third is ideal, because everyone gets what they need -- Mozilla's tooltip would say "This button takes you to the homepage", but the text browsers see just "Home".
Cheers,
Ethelred
You forget (or did you read the article and the links provided?) that the Reg does have evidence of other e-mails, some of which are also harshly worded.
If you read the original e-mail (posted on Heise.de in German), the tone of voice in the original is not far off from their translated version. Indeed, they adopted a tone of voice that German bureaucrats *love* to adopt. Very imperious, arrogant and pointed, but at the same time they stay (as a German would say) "sachlich", meaning "factual" or "sticking to the facts". German bureaucrats love to insult you between the lines, while being able to claim that they were 'only' making statements of fact.
Ah, another German that perfectly describes EMI's e-mail: "Scheinheilig". Means something like "holier-than-thou". And another word that most people will recognize: "Schadenfreude".
In meagre defense of EMI, the person who e-mailed them to complain about their CD was at times a little rude (see the Heise post) -- but that does not excuse the snotty response they sent him back.
I think I'm going to boycott EMI and BMG music from now on. Which is sad, since Beatles CDs are published by EMI, if I remember right, but I have quite a few Beatles CDs anyway (and plenty of cassettes).
I'm not mad so much because I want to copy or rip CDs (though I do it sometimes for my own use), but what *really* ticks me off is the attitude that it's somehow my responsibility to make their damned crippled CD work in my Red Book standard (!) player, and if I can't do it, then I must be some kind of idiot.
OTOH most of the music I tend to buy is usually marked "Nice Price" and is in the discount bins 'cos they were popular 10-20 years ago (man, I feel old). *sigh*
I doubt The Man would bother copy-handicapping them...
Cheers,
Ethelred
"Aethelred, aren't you ready yet!?"
Booooo! Hissssss!
/me throws tomatoes at the stage
(Not to worry, my sense of humor is worse. *g*)
Ethelred, Ethelred
Spent his life bed
With one shoe off and one shoe on
Greatly loved by everyone
Cheers,
Ethelred
Cheers,
Ethelred
I do remember a brief period when I had problems with Mozilla (and had to use IE), but that seems to be more because they are constantly tinkering with their online banking system rather than a plan to exclude a browser (the site is constantly being changed and for the most part improved).
Hey, the online banking site even runs on WebObjects from Apple, so I guess they believe in alternatives. *g*
Cheers,
Ethelred
There is an interesting FAQ about Graventreuth (in German) that you might want to read.
Cheers,
Ethelred (who's glad he has legal insurance and a good lawyer)
No law is perfect. He seems to be able to cruise just below the radar and get away with it.
Cheers,
Ethelred
In Germany, and I believe in other EU countries, there is a law against mass lawsuits clearly designed to get money -- this is called an "Abmahnwelle" in Germany (literally means "wave of suits"). If some lawyer or company tried something like this, they'd get reprimanded and possibly even disbarred in Germany.
An example: about a year ago, a couple of clients of mine got notice of a lawsuit from some newly founded organization claiming to protect consumers; the clients' websites were supposedly in violation of an obscure and archaic bit of German law (basically they failed to note specifically on the site that information sent via an e-mail form is stored -- well, duh). Because of the "potential damage to consumers" due to "infringements on their privacy" (i.e. the theoretical number of consumers who could use the site was astronomical), the suit was valued by their lawyers at a high amount, thus theoretically forcing the clients to pay a minimum amount of damages to the organization if they chose to settle.
Word got around quickly that just about anyone with an e-commerce site got just such a letter, complaints were filed against said lawyer, and the lawyer got seriously shat on (and the suits were withdrawn) and the organization was dissolved.
Anything like this in the US?
Cheers,
Ethelred
I used to work in a couple of marketing/design agencies, and still work self-employed in design and marketing. I'd say it is highly unusual to use stock art to represent real people, especially if the people involved are officers of the company -- after all, corporate partners are most likely going to meet these people eventually, so it would make a strange impression on visitors to see that the people don't look like that at all.
I really wonder what your old employer's agency was thinking (smoking?). Using stock art for testimonials is already questionable (people these days are cynical and intelligent enough to notice the difference), using stock art to represent employees and officers is downright stupid.
This is, by the way, why the Apple Switch ads are so effective. The people look believable (especially Ellen Feiss ;-) ) mainly because they aren't rehearsed, look "average" and so on. As a result, they are more likely to be listened to that some celebrity or photo model. Maybe they are faked, but if so, it's a hell of a good fake.
Cheers,
Ethelred
*drumroll*
Gerald Holmes.
Well, maybe it wasn't him. He would have done a better job.
Cheers,
Ethelres
Quoth the article: Instant-messaging buddies are grouped to reflect their hierarchy in the company, or where they're logged in. E-mails, instant messages and Web pages can be grouped into "Info Clusters" and then e-mailed or quickly turned into a Web site.
Nah, this is more like "Metropolis" or "Brave New World" -- where everyone knows their place in the Great Corporation, and the technology is there primarily to enforce that hierarchy (oh, good Ford!).
Maybe MS should have been more honest and obvious and referred to the managers in the "widget factory" as Betas, with the bosses Alphas. And handed out lots of soma. Orgy-porgy...
So much for the Internet flattening out society. Looks like MS wants it to be the tool for The Man to keep us peons where we belong.
Cheers,
Ethelred
In the 1960s, Ford said we'd be driving atomic-powered cars in 20 years. In the 1930s, just about everyone assumed we'd all have our private helicopter or airplane by 1980. (Imagine the air congestion and accidents with that...soccer moms flying their SUV-copters.) And we're still waiting on our Mr. Fusion powerplants...
Yogi Berra said it best. "It's tough to make predictions. Especially about the future."
Cheers,
Ethelred
*laugh* Ballmer only seems to see things in terms of money. It should be painfully obvious that Linux didn't start off "bankrupt", it started off free, which is hardly the same thing.
Quoth kalidasa: StarOffice did not start out as a free product, iirc. And as for IBM promoting Linux, how is that any different from HP and Dell promoting Microsoft.
It isn't, of course -- well, there's one crucial difference. MS doesn't get any money out of it.
And does the first paragraph, as the Register asked, mean that Microsoft accepts liability for their own software?
They keep dancing around that issue. They have, one the one hand, tried with EULAs and so on to get out of liability -- but they are also starting to realize that that lack of responbility has meant that they release shoddy software and have no immediate need to fix it. But now their reputation for less-than-good software is starting to come around and bite them in the *ss. A symptom is all the buzz that Linux and UN*X is getting. So they are starting to acknowledge *moral*, as opposed to *legal*, liability for their software products ("Trustworthy Computing").
Which could be dangerous, 'cos you can't have it both ways, really. Eventually someone's going to start suing the bejeezus out of them, once some NT-based thing goes blooey and costs someone a fortune...
Cheers,
Ethelred
Just found the name: "The Big Ball of Wax: A Story of Tomorrow's Happy World", by Shepherd Mead, written before 1954. Apparently it's been out of print for ages. *sigh*
FWIW some people apparently claim that this book is the origin of the saying "the whole ball of wax" (cf. http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-who5.htm). Go figure.
Anyway...
Cheers,
Ethelred
This reminds me of an old sci-fi book, which I think was called "The Whole Ball of Wax" (I have forgotten the author's name and an Amazon and Google search got me nowhere). The book was set sometime in the late 20th century (written in the 1960s), when the "constellation Pepsi-Cola wheeled in the sky" -- supposedly Pepsi had made an artificial constellation out of satellites equipped with huge mirrors. The story also had a forerunner of virtual reality (and very much like Tekwar from William Shatner), where people donned a headset to experience recorded sensations. It also oddly echoed (foresaw?) a lot of things about society in America today, even if a lot of the details were wrong (vidphones and that sort of thing).
I last read the book years ago -- borrowed it from my aunt and uncle about 20 years ago -- but have no idea if the book is still available anywhere. Even when I borrowed it, it was old...
I also had to think of one old Pepsi commercial from the 1980s. Even as a diehard Coke and RC drinker, I was still amused by it: in the commercial, you see a bunch of students from the distant future being led around an archaeological dig by a professor; the "excavation" is of a 20th century family home. The prof rattles on about how rare it is to find a house from this era totally intact, and he enthusiastically shows an "ancient" TV set, stereo, etc. (all the while explaining to the students what they were for, while you see the students sipping from Pepsi cans).
At the end, a student spots a glass thing in the dirt, picks it up and shows it to the prof, asking, "Hey, Professor, what's this?"
Turns out to be a 16 oz. Coke bottle. The prof looks totally dumbfounded and murmurs, "I have no idea..."
Cheers,
Ethelred
Yup, that does work. I went and met my Congressman, Bruce Vento (since deceased), to talk to him about a couple of issues -- he was on the Banking Committee and was in hearings about new banknotes, so I talked to him about that, and also about the IT industry. We talked for a good 20 minutes in his office, face-to-face, nobody else there.
I also got to talk to my Senator's chief of staff -- getting to meet your Senator is pretty hard, but the chief of staff is the next best thing (talked to him about the same issues as well as immigration issues because of my wife).
An aside: this goes both ways. I was very happy that Vento and Wellstone's chief of staff met me and took a fair amount of time to talk (about 20 minutes each); both took notes and I got pretty detailed responses by mail later. That was good. So I didn't feel at all bad about voting for them -- I was glad that they at least seemed to care about what I was talking about.
The "other" Senator from Minnesota at the time was Rod Grams. His office wouldn't even give me the time of day. I probably wouldn't have voted for the twit anyway, but that really needlessly insulted a potential voter (and he's no longer in office ;-> ).
All you have to do is look in the phone book, call your congresscritter's office, ask for an appointment (but tell them in advance what you want to talk about so they don't think it's a prank), and they will usually take the time to meet you. Maybe even bring some fellow constituents along to drive the point home.
Much harder to ignore a gaggle of constituents in your office than a lousy e-mail or postcard, and makes a bigger impression because you took the time to go there and meet them.
Cheers,
Ethelred