i wish that instead of innovating by making the phones as thin as a credit card, they did some common sense things to fix glaring problems: * siri sounds like a 50's robot, or a 90's speech synthesized robot. Apple has been surpassed here by goog, waze, alexa, pretty much anything I have heard. * the controls for cut, copy and paste are a PITA. * the layout of apple music is messy and difficult to use compared to google music and other similar apps. * battery life, duh. * apple maps is really bad about predicting travel times during trafficky rush hour conditions, like in LA. * I would love some better speaker phone clarity.
These are the ones off the top of my list. Any apple employees who read this, feel free to forward them to tim cook.
well most of what I know about guns I learned from 90's gangsta rap songs. I consider them the definitive information source.The day that everybody fixes the "10 items or less" signs is the day I care about mags/clips.
you always have to empty your pockets before going through the metal detector. And your bags get inspected (for things like crossbows). While you could probably sneak in a baggie of coke (for later, to celebrate), I doubt you could sneak in a crossbow under your shirt.
but who is a delegate and who is doing the vetting? delegates are chosen by private organizations in each state, through opaque processes. undoubtedly there will be nuts there.
if guns are disallowed then you can have metal detectors to inspect for illegal guns. how do you control illegal guns when anybody can bring a gun anyway? Will people be lining up at the door for a check of open carry permits?
I agree, this makes sense. Here's an interesting twist: due to car insurance, drivers face no financial liability except in extreme circumstances where your insurer tells you to eff off. however, pedestrians don't have ped insurance.
All the regulations were written around the idea that every driver would have car insurance (it's the law!), and it's not a life or death financial situation when you assign fault for an accident. Nobody's going bankrupt from a crash. But in the scenario above, would the ped be liable for 5, 6, or 7 figure damages? That seems like an absurd unintended outcome of the law.
I think it's unlikely that a reasonably attentive driver would hit a pedestrian stepping out between parked cars. On any road, there still needs to be room for somebody who just parked to open his door. if a driver is attentive for people who will open their door, then he's attentive for peds stepping out. if it's a really high speed road, then there will be plenty of buffer between the through lanes and the parked cars.
> A reasonably attentive driver doesn't have superhuman reflexes and the ability to change the laws of physics when maneuvering or braking a car.
I agree, which is why we have different regulations for avoidable and unavoidable collisions.
I don't like calling car crashes "accidents", because the word accident implies that it's nobody's fault.
21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. (d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
If a driver dashes onto the freeway and causes an unavoidable accident, the driver is not at fault. But if a pedestrian is walking distractedly, and causes an accident that the driver could have avoided, then the driver is at fault.
> If some idiot suddenly steps out into an road from between two cars or something, and you don't see them in time, and they didn't register your presence because they were staring down at a phone... well that person is at fault.
see the comment above about the reasonably attentive driver. If a driver gets into an accident because he's staring down at his phone, then the driver is not reasonably attentive.
> I'm sure you can think of several examples that would fit that description
Agreed that the particulars of the edge cases will influence decisions on fault. But absent extreme circumstances (driver has a gun to his head? Pedestrian with rocket pack?), what could a pedestrian be possibly doing that would not be detected and avoided by a reasonably attentive driver? Even if you're walking distractedly, you're only doing so at 2MPH and there would be plenty of time for a reasonably attentive driver to notice, brake, and/or steer around the pedestrian.
> If a distracted pedestrian, not obeying traffic laws gets mowed down, then that is on them, 100%. Driver walks away scot-free.
The law says that drivers yield to pedestrians, even jaywalkers. doesn't matter if they're distracted or not. In a pedestrian accident, the driver is at fault.
> If they cause an accident, they pay for damages, 100%. If they cause any financial hardship on anyone for their distractedness, they own it, 100%.
Not clear what you mean. typically when there is an accident, you asses the percent fault for each party and the monetary damages that occurred. Typically there is a payout according to these determinations.
In the case of a car accident, the driver is 100% at fault because of the law above. In the case of another type of accident, like a pedestrian is walking while distracted, and bumps into a ladder, knocking it over, and the ladder guy is injured, the pedestrian is at fault and should pay.
> Oh, but wait. That requires a society that recognizes personal responsibility and this is the US we are talking about here.
the rub that complicates these typical scenarios is the lawyer tax. regardless of who wins or loses, both parties pay a hefty lawyer tax, and the more complex and drawn out the litigation, the greater is the tax. This may cause the parties to negotiate responsibility and payments, regardless of who is at fault. Thus the american justice system is born.
No, more like a "papers, please" kind of stop. "Texting while walking? Well now I'm going to stop and detain you, check your ID, immigration status, and frisk you for any contraband." I bet a good amount of money that the vast majority people cited for texting while walking are poor blacks and latinos.
It's a shame these hackers didn't attack the Flint water treatment plant two years ago, they could have turned the water treatment back on and saved everyone from lead poisoning.
the thing that universities do best is fundamental research into expanding the world of academic knowledge. poaching peeps away from that hurts the mission of universities.
basically, a "used" digital-only game has zero value. there is zero cost associated with producing a "new" digital copy, so there's no margin to be earned in buying a used version and reselling it. Basically the purpose of MS' proposal is to give you a bit of credit to spend on new shizz, and take out of commission any previously-purchased games that are competing for a shopper's time.
if I were a commercial pilot, I would poke fun a bit, and when the plane was taking off I would poke my head out of the cockpit and say hey does anybody know how to use this thing?
this is why it's so dangerous to create a "one-time unlock key", even if it stays in apple's possession rather than going to the FBI. Once exists, it will become the hottest industrial espionage target. NOMORESECRETS
Slashdot Mirror
why? ever hear of responsibility? taking responsibility for their actions? drivers have all the power in any driver/ped interaction.
> Redbox Plans To Launch New Streaming Service 'Redbox Digital'
They should call it RedTube.
i wish that instead of innovating by making the phones as thin as a credit card, they did some common sense things to fix glaring problems:
* siri sounds like a 50's robot, or a 90's speech synthesized robot. Apple has been surpassed here by goog, waze, alexa, pretty much anything I have heard.
* the controls for cut, copy and paste are a PITA.
* the layout of apple music is messy and difficult to use compared to google music and other similar apps.
* battery life, duh.
* apple maps is really bad about predicting travel times during trafficky rush hour conditions, like in LA.
* I would love some better speaker phone clarity.
These are the ones off the top of my list. Any apple employees who read this, feel free to forward them to tim cook.
well most of what I know about guns I learned from 90's gangsta rap songs. I consider them the definitive information source.The day that everybody fixes the "10 items or less" signs is the day I care about mags/clips.
you always have to empty your pockets before going through the metal detector. And your bags get inspected (for things like crossbows). While you could probably sneak in a baggie of coke (for later, to celebrate), I doubt you could sneak in a crossbow under your shirt.
I once got my face bashed in cuz I referred to mags as clips.
but who is a delegate and who is doing the vetting? delegates are chosen by private organizations in each state, through opaque processes. undoubtedly there will be nuts there.
if guns are disallowed then you can have metal detectors to inspect for illegal guns. how do you control illegal guns when anybody can bring a gun anyway? Will people be lining up at the door for a check of open carry permits?
I agree, this makes sense. Here's an interesting twist: due to car insurance, drivers face no financial liability except in extreme circumstances where your insurer tells you to eff off. however, pedestrians don't have ped insurance.
All the regulations were written around the idea that every driver would have car insurance (it's the law!), and it's not a life or death financial situation when you assign fault for an accident. Nobody's going bankrupt from a crash. But in the scenario above, would the ped be liable for 5, 6, or 7 figure damages? That seems like an absurd unintended outcome of the law.
I think it's unlikely that a reasonably attentive driver would hit a pedestrian stepping out between parked cars. On any road, there still needs to be room for somebody who just parked to open his door. if a driver is attentive for people who will open their door, then he's attentive for peds stepping out. if it's a really high speed road, then there will be plenty of buffer between the through lanes and the parked cars.
> A reasonably attentive driver doesn't have superhuman reflexes and the ability to change the laws of physics when maneuvering or braking a car.
I agree, which is why we have different regulations for avoidable and unavoidable collisions.
I don't like calling car crashes "accidents", because the word accident implies that it's nobody's fault.
oh yeah you're right. reading fail.
It probably varies by state. In CA,
21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of
using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly
leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path
of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a
marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall
reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to
the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of
the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from
the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian
within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection.
If a driver dashes onto the freeway and causes an unavoidable accident, the driver is not at fault. But if a pedestrian is walking distractedly, and causes an accident that the driver could have avoided, then the driver is at fault.
> If some idiot suddenly steps out into an road from between two cars or something, and you don't see them in time, and they didn't register your presence because they were staring down at a phone... well that person is at fault.
see the comment above about the reasonably attentive driver. If a driver gets into an accident because he's staring down at his phone, then the driver is not reasonably attentive.
> I'm sure you can think of several examples that would fit that description
Agreed that the particulars of the edge cases will influence decisions on fault. But absent extreme circumstances (driver has a gun to his head? Pedestrian with rocket pack?), what could a pedestrian be possibly doing that would not be detected and avoided by a reasonably attentive driver? Even if you're walking distractedly, you're only doing so at 2MPH and there would be plenty of time for a reasonably attentive driver to notice, brake, and/or steer around the pedestrian.
I think it's the american people who end up paying the fine.
drivers have a responsibility to not hit pedestrians, even jaywalkers.
sidewalks are for regular walking, not for fancy walking!
> If a distracted pedestrian, not obeying traffic laws gets mowed down, then that is on them, 100%. Driver walks away scot-free.
The law says that drivers yield to pedestrians, even jaywalkers. doesn't matter if they're distracted or not. In a pedestrian accident, the driver is at fault.
> If they cause an accident, they pay for damages, 100%. If they cause any financial hardship on anyone for their distractedness, they own it, 100%.
Not clear what you mean. typically when there is an accident, you asses the percent fault for each party and the monetary damages that occurred. Typically there is a payout according to these determinations.
In the case of a car accident, the driver is 100% at fault because of the law above. In the case of another type of accident, like a pedestrian is walking while distracted, and bumps into a ladder, knocking it over, and the ladder guy is injured, the pedestrian is at fault and should pay.
> Oh, but wait. That requires a society that recognizes personal responsibility and this is the US we are talking about here.
the rub that complicates these typical scenarios is the lawyer tax. regardless of who wins or loses, both parties pay a hefty lawyer tax, and the more complex and drawn out the litigation, the greater is the tax. This may cause the parties to negotiate responsibility and payments, regardless of who is at fault. Thus the american justice system is born.
No, more like a "papers, please" kind of stop. "Texting while walking? Well now I'm going to stop and detain you, check your ID, immigration status, and frisk you for any contraband." I bet a good amount of money that the vast majority people cited for texting while walking are poor blacks and latinos.
You have a small mind. Community colleges are for education. Universities are for expanding knowledge.
It's a shame these hackers didn't attack the Flint water treatment plant two years ago, they could have turned the water treatment back on and saved everyone from lead poisoning.
the thing that universities do best is fundamental research into expanding the world of academic knowledge. poaching peeps away from that hurts the mission of universities.
basically, a "used" digital-only game has zero value. there is zero cost associated with producing a "new" digital copy, so there's no margin to be earned in buying a used version and reselling it. Basically the purpose of MS' proposal is to give you a bit of credit to spend on new shizz, and take out of commission any previously-purchased games that are competing for a shopper's time.
if I were a commercial pilot, I would poke fun a bit, and when the plane was taking off I would poke my head out of the cockpit and say hey does anybody know how to use this thing?
this is why it's so dangerous to create a "one-time unlock key", even if it stays in apple's possession rather than going to the FBI. Once exists, it will become the hottest industrial espionage target. NOMORESECRETS