So, next time I someone standing by the side of the road who might be planning to cross it, and I'm driving my car, I'm supposed to honk at them? Or stop? That's utterly loopy.
Vehicles –noisy or not –have the same legal obligations: they're supposed to yield to pedestrians when pedestrians are crossing the road legally. Crossing the road legally involves looking for oncoming vehicles unless there is a traffic light or sign which requires them to stop regardless of pedestrians. There is nothing whatsoever in this arrangement that involves the pedestrian hearing the vehicle.
Incorrect. Bicycles are not required to watch for pedestrians on the sidewalk who might be trying to cross the street, and alert them. Those audible signals are for when you're approaching someone from behind, where they cannot be expected to see you.
What did they think.... that the teachers would sit around discussing what questions they would include on the test, and maybe state the answers aloud? I've never hung out in a teacher's staff room, but I would imagine that if they talk about school matters at all (rather than who they liked on Swedish Idol last night, or whatever), they're complaining to each other about lousy students, bad working conditions, etc. These girls deserve to be left back because of how naive their plan was in the first place.
If you own a mobile phone and/or GPS, what reason is there not to take it?
The same reason I don't bring my iPod, my laptop, or a Gameboy: I don't want to bring it. I don't want a gizmo leading me by the hand down the trail; I want to figure it out myself. As for the phone, I know and understand the risks, and in my judgment there's acceptable. You know, you can also cite examples of people who've fallen and can't get up, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start carrying one of those damn alert things around with me Just In Case.
If they had shown actual screen shots, no one would have bought the things.;)
But seriously, in those days I saw the box art as similar to the painted covers on the paperbacks I was buying: a visual to feed your imagination, showing what the characters and setting "really" looked like. I didn't expect the latest Asimov or Niven book to be fully illustrated comics, and I didn't expect Atari or C64 games to be fully-rendered movies.
with the advancement in tools to help us navigate more effectivily, who really wants to take an old school map with them.
{raises hand}
When I'm on a road trip, I'll use the GPS on my phone to help me figure out where I am and where I want to go. But I still bring a map, because I know better than to trust a wireless electronic gizmo.
When I'm backpacking, the only post-industrial technology I want with me are the synthetic materials used in my gear, and my camera.
I think that the ability to properly assess the challenge of an unfamiliar situation is pretty much a hallmark of intelligence. Learning from experience is just operant conditioning; chimps and dogs and mice do that. Applying one's limited knowledge to unfamiliar situations takes higher-level abstract thinking, and if you aren't able to do that... that's stupidity. Much as the beginning of wisdom is realizing that you aren't wise, the beginning of intelligence is recognizing the limits of what you know. Actual intelligence is overcoming that.
Thereby ensuring that only those who can afford this kind of small-pool high-risk insurance are permitted to use the parks. Not an idea I can get behind.
"Enabling" in this context means to allow and passively encourage, by removing obstacles and trying to compensate for it. It's like "enabling an alcoholic" by making excuses for them, calling in sick for them, cleaning up their puke for them, etc. "Enabling stupidity" doesn't mean "making people stupid".
Last fall, a group of hikers in the Grand Canyon called in rescue helicopters three times by pressing the emergency button on their satellite location device. When rangers arrived the second time, the hikers complained that their water supply tasted salty.
If I had been one of the rangers, those idiots wouldn't have had the device to use a third time. "Sorry, you can't have this. We're going now."
Wizard World conventions are carnivals. Avoid at all costs.
Comics columnist Rich Johnston was there, and asked The Blag about him being at a "comic con": whether it was because he saw a future for himself as a "comic" or as a "con". The Blag caught the joke, and laughed it off, apparently still certain of his own invulnerability.
with a sitting US president who is politically the farthest to the left ever
You mean the guy whose biggest legislative initiative could have been titled the Insurance Company Revitalization Act is to the left of Jimmy-the-Peacenik Carter? Left of Lyndon "Great Society" Johnson? Franklin "New Deal" Roosevelt? Sounds like someone here slept through history class.
What? Next you'll be arguing that it's possible that Roman Polanski is both a child-abusing rapist and a great filmmaker, that Bill Clinton is both a skilled chief executive and diplomat and a horn-dog, that Oscar Wilde was both a pederast and a great playwright, that D.W. Griffiths was both an innovative director and a racist. And we all know that's simply not possible!
If they are that reckless, do you think they will suddenly become thoughtful just because somebody tried to get some money out of them? Fines are like bribes: you pay them and you go out and keep doing whatever you want.
The only way to get people to stop doing _____ is to make ______ socially unacceptable. As long as you live in a culture where traffic laws are a joke, no one will take them seriously. You need your community to support your position. You need to make it scandalous to drive dangerously.
There are often serious fines for speeding in the US. People do it anyways, because it's only money. Hardly anyone will criticize you, or make fun of you for driving 75mph on a 55mph road. The fines do no good; they are a joke. Every meaningful advance in traffic safety here has come because of education. People explained why wearing seatbelts was a good idea. Why talking on the phone or texting while driving is unsafe. Some people still do it, but they are criticized for it. They are ashamed to admit they do it. Until that is true where you live, your efforts to simply ask for money from those who drive dangerously - like you're selling them a license to kill - will accomplish nothing.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a student attending a private (or public for that matter) university who didn't have a computer capable of running Portal at minimal settings.
I'm tempted to enroll just so I can win a nice comfy settlement over their failure to accommodate my lack of post-Missile-Command gaming skillz, a result of reaching puberty in the late 1970s, and never looking back. And if that fails, my friend with cerebral palsy is sure to clean up... in court.
A little more seriously... surely they can't be assuming (as I'm sure most of the nerds here are) that anyone under the age of 25 has grown up with a controller in their hand. In my tech-support work, I've met a lot of people (mostly women, but not all) who, despite having been born after the Carter administration, who are about as familiar with gaming as most readers of this site are with cooking (without a microwave). Some people, regardless of their generation hate computers, and that includes game consoles. Expecting them to know how to navigate a video game that's put on their {ahem} "reading" list is going to be problematic.
Slashdot Mirror
So, next time I someone standing by the side of the road who might be planning to cross it, and I'm driving my car, I'm supposed to honk at them? Or stop? That's utterly loopy.
Vehicles –noisy or not –have the same legal obligations: they're supposed to yield to pedestrians when pedestrians are crossing the road legally. Crossing the road legally involves looking for oncoming vehicles unless there is a traffic light or sign which requires them to stop regardless of pedestrians. There is nothing whatsoever in this arrangement that involves the pedestrian hearing the vehicle.
Incorrect. Bicycles are not required to watch for pedestrians on the sidewalk who might be trying to cross the street, and alert them. Those audible signals are for when you're approaching someone from behind, where they cannot be expected to see you.
The people who can't see well enough to know when a hybrid or electric is coming shouldn't be relying on their hearing to know when it's safe.
Can't we just train pedestrians to look both ways?
What did they think.... that the teachers would sit around discussing what questions they would include on the test, and maybe state the answers aloud? I've never hung out in a teacher's staff room, but I would imagine that if they talk about school matters at all (rather than who they liked on Swedish Idol last night, or whatever), they're complaining to each other about lousy students, bad working conditions, etc. These girls deserve to be left back because of how naive their plan was in the first place.
The same reason I don't bring my iPod, my laptop, or a Gameboy: I don't want to bring it. I don't want a gizmo leading me by the hand down the trail; I want to figure it out myself. As for the phone, I know and understand the risks, and in my judgment there's acceptable. You know, you can also cite examples of people who've fallen and can't get up, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start carrying one of those damn alert things around with me Just In Case.
If they had shown actual screen shots, no one would have bought the things. ;)
But seriously, in those days I saw the box art as similar to the painted covers on the paperbacks I was buying: a visual to feed your imagination, showing what the characters and setting "really" looked like. I didn't expect the latest Asimov or Niven book to be fully illustrated comics, and I didn't expect Atari or C64 games to be fully-rendered movies.
He probably can't afford to have that diagnosed.
{raises hand}
When I'm on a road trip, I'll use the GPS on my phone to help me figure out where I am and where I want to go. But I still bring a map, because I know better than to trust a wireless electronic gizmo.
When I'm backpacking, the only post-industrial technology I want with me are the synthetic materials used in my gear, and my camera.
I think that the ability to properly assess the challenge of an unfamiliar situation is pretty much a hallmark of intelligence. Learning from experience is just operant conditioning; chimps and dogs and mice do that. Applying one's limited knowledge to unfamiliar situations takes higher-level abstract thinking, and if you aren't able to do that... that's stupidity. Much as the beginning of wisdom is realizing that you aren't wise, the beginning of intelligence is recognizing the limits of what you know. Actual intelligence is overcoming that.
Thereby ensuring that only those who can afford this kind of small-pool high-risk insurance are permitted to use the parks. Not an idea I can get behind.
"Enabling" in this context means to allow and passively encourage, by removing obstacles and trying to compensate for it. It's like "enabling an alcoholic" by making excuses for them, calling in sick for them, cleaning up their puke for them, etc. "Enabling stupidity" doesn't mean "making people stupid".
If I had been one of the rangers, those idiots wouldn't have had the device to use a third time. "Sorry, you can't have this. We're going now."
"...simply share the URL".
<sarcasm>No, I don't see how that could possibly be abused.</sarcasm>
No, he was not found guilty.
To clarify with parentheses:
You said "found (not guilty)" which is incorrect.
I said "not (found guilty)" which is correct.
The hung jury/mistrial means his guilt on the 23 counts is currently indeterminate. Schrödinger's catbox has not been successfully opened.
Airlifting Obama out of Chicagoland to Washington was a rescue mission.
Wizard World conventions are carnivals. Avoid at all costs.
Comics columnist Rich Johnston was there, and asked The Blag about him being at a "comic con": whether it was because he saw a future for himself as a "comic" or as a "con". The Blag caught the joke, and laughed it off, apparently still certain of his own invulnerability.
You mean the guy whose biggest legislative initiative could have been titled the Insurance Company Revitalization Act is to the left of Jimmy-the-Peacenik Carter? Left of Lyndon "Great Society" Johnson? Franklin "New Deal" Roosevelt? Sounds like someone here slept through history class.
What? Next you'll be arguing that it's possible that Roman Polanski is both a child-abusing rapist and a great filmmaker, that Bill Clinton is both a skilled chief executive and diplomat and a horn-dog, that Oscar Wilde was both a pederast and a great playwright, that D.W. Griffiths was both an innovative director and a racist. And we all know that's simply not possible!
You've already failed. If you don't have popular support for what you're trying to do, no technology is going to help you.
Naive nonsense.
If they are that reckless, do you think they will suddenly become thoughtful just because somebody tried to get some money out of them? Fines are like bribes: you pay them and you go out and keep doing whatever you want.
The only way to get people to stop doing _____ is to make ______ socially unacceptable. As long as you live in a culture where traffic laws are a joke, no one will take them seriously. You need your community to support your position. You need to make it scandalous to drive dangerously.
There are often serious fines for speeding in the US. People do it anyways, because it's only money. Hardly anyone will criticize you, or make fun of you for driving 75mph on a 55mph road. The fines do no good; they are a joke. Every meaningful advance in traffic safety here has come because of education. People explained why wearing seatbelts was a good idea. Why talking on the phone or texting while driving is unsafe. Some people still do it, but they are criticized for it. They are ashamed to admit they do it. Until that is true where you live, your efforts to simply ask for money from those who drive dangerously - like you're selling them a license to kill - will accomplish nothing.
"i don't really like the french"
Translation: "I'm one of the Fox-watching retards who jumped on the 'freedom fries' bandwagon several years ago."
Which Linux distros does it run on?
I'm tempted to enroll just so I can win a nice comfy settlement over their failure to accommodate my lack of post-Missile-Command gaming skillz, a result of reaching puberty in the late 1970s, and never looking back. And if that fails, my friend with cerebral palsy is sure to clean up... in court.
A little more seriously... surely they can't be assuming (as I'm sure most of the nerds here are) that anyone under the age of 25 has grown up with a controller in their hand. In my tech-support work, I've met a lot of people (mostly women, but not all) who, despite having been born after the Carter administration, who are about as familiar with gaming as most readers of this site are with cooking (without a microwave). Some people, regardless of their generation hate computers, and that includes game consoles. Expecting them to know how to navigate a video game that's put on their {ahem} "reading" list is going to be problematic.
Mod parent up. He gets it. This is a social problem, and requires a social solution.
ORGANIZE.