2 years ago we had a vendor stop by to demo some software. He was prepared to either use our Internet connection, or fallback to his 3G flip-phone via tethering.
He said that he used the 3G tethering for a while without issue. But a couple of months prior AT&T disabled his data plan because they found out he was tethering without paying the for the plan. Of course they did this a few hours before one of his demonstrations and he had to get them to enable it ASAP.
Even he said "I don't know how they detected it since I'm just downloading data."
It's funny because what is happening in Japan is exactly why Nuclear Power is SAFE!
An earthquake 7 times more powerful than the biggest it was built for hit, and all that happened to the reactors that didn't shut down cleanly was a small amount of radioactive noble gases, which decay within minutes. Even if the cores DO melt, they're safely contained in... wait for it... containment chambers!
People don't realize the amount of engineering that goes into nuclear to make it safe.
Hey, I know it. But Joe Sixpack is gonna say "But look at their problems now, I don't want that here." Bla bla bla
But nuclear power still has the stigma of Chernobyl. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going to scream NO at the top of their lungs and most will probably point at Japan's current situation and say "You see why it's a bad idea".
Again, I'm all for more nuke plants. It's cleaner than coal, and going heavily into solar + wind is a pipe dream. Instead of pumping tons of crud into the air I'm fine with some barrels of toxic waste so long as they don't cut costs on the storage.
We used to watch this every day after school back in the 60's. So did we run around gouging eyes, ripping out hair or the old favorite, whacking with a plank on the head? No. I remember my mom teaching us, "This just a comedy film, don't really do this to each other, or someone is going to get hurt."
I think violent crime is a sign of more deeper social problems, that are more difficult to address. It's just easier to blame it on video games as a scapegoat.
I think the whole Video Games = Violence is complete nonsnse.
But to play devil's advocate, the analogy of watching violent TV shows as a kid isn't entirely valid in my opinion.
In a game, YOU'RE doing things. Some games gets your aggression levels up either by plot or by an aggravating level. I recall a NASCAR race where they stuck cameras in the face of a popular driver IMMEDIATELY after a tense race; he'd barely gotten out of the car. In his aggression he dropped a curse word and people went ape.
It's affecting you more than just watching someone poke someone else in the eye. Maybe some films are so captivating they do similar things to you as a game, but for the most part it's not a fair comparison.
Now, it's up to US to not do something illegal or stupid for those few minutes while because or blood pressure is up a little or have a little more adrenaline in our veins.
The three seem fairly distinct to me. You probably just need a better monitor... or some color calibration performed on the one you have. But anyway... for reference, the top "sky blue" line is Comcast, middle is Cable One and bottom is CenturyTel.
I can tell some of them apart, it just takes me longer. Is that Cablevision or Charter? Is that CableOne or CenturyTel? I just have to judge them for a second to figure out. At least they're not close to each other or criss-cross.
I'm a big fan of colors + patterns; such as solid vs dashed.
There's Verizon FiOS and Verizon DSL. Is the measurement for FiOS, DSL, or both?.
I'm wondering that too. I have a hard time believing that Fios is lower than *some* of those up there considering the speed offerings they have.
I'm on a 50 megabit Fios connection right now, and from my regular download speeds it looks like I'm getting that speed for the sites that can support it.
A few years ago I was on 3 megabit DSL, though I hear their DSL can hit 15 or 20 megabit with their residential versions.
Granted, it's possible streaming is throttled or can otherwise not take advantage of the full (or near-full) stream.
I was in Walmart a month ago looking for two CD's that I wanted to purchase. Neither was particularly obscure, and both were recent (released within the last year). They had neither, and actually I couldn't believe how small their selection was compared to what it used to be. I understand the convenience of downloading via Walmart or Amazon, but what I can't understand is why people wouldn't actually want to have a bit-perfect digital copy on physical medium as a back up.
In my case I only buy about 10-20 songs a year; usually only 1-2 songs per CD. So that's about $13-$25 USD a year, the cost of 1-2 CDs
If I wanted the CD versions of my annual purchase, that would be $100-$200 per year. Sure, I'd get a better bitrate and rip it via a lossless codec. But that's a fair amount more money each year.
I could use a CD wallet so they don't take up as much room. But why bother?
I've only purchased about 2 CDs in the last 7 years or so, because they were albums I really liked. IE, I *really* enjoyed the music and I wanted to listen to most/all of the songs on a regular basis.
US history is particularly subject to ret-conning, at least in the US. That's because a lot of folks can't stomach the idea that their country was founded on the very intentional and institutionalized genocide of one group of people and the enslavement of another.
I don't know about you, but my education covered all of that stuff and made me sick. Sure, they didn't teach us the gruesome details in Kindergarten but the shameful acts of our country were drilled into our heads.
Perhaps your school was big on white-washing or revisionism, but we were learning that stuff in grade school.
If you're not going to read your forum... don't have one. It's really that simple.
Tough call. Forums are a community experience, just because you're not going to be monitoring them heavily doesn't mean that people won't benefit. For some of the game forums I post to, I'll often get another player to answer my question fairly quickly... which a developer/supporter might respond to days later. And sometimes the community responses completely remove the need for an official response (often because the question was already asked-and-answered by a developer some weeks ago).
With the internet, there is simply too much noise. Haters and trolls will fill even the common "Bug Report" or "Tech Support" forums, let alone a "Suggestion Box" forum. So suggestion forums and such are often pretty lame.
Then, to be honest, you have people that are either stupid or want the product to be something else entirely. I recall seeing long threads in a forum about how a new TV show was stupid... it should have been done this way (completely different plot / theme with a genre shift).
So, flat out state that you'll monitor bugs and tech support issues but the rest you'll only occasionally review.
I purposely use the word Fantastic. At one point, there was no distinction between Science Fiction and Fantasy. They were labeled under the same category, and thus a story where a hero used a rocket ship to visit Mars was treated the same as some hero entering an enchanted forest to slay a dragon.
It took a while for them to make a distinction, with sci fi fans arguing that there is a difference. And the major distinction was attempting to use science to explain the mechanism of a "fantastic" plot device. It didn't have to be perfect or valid, but the fact that someone is saying "this cloak is bending light around you using a proprietary substance called quicksilver" is science fiction while someone leaving it as "this cloak hides you from men's souls" is fantasy.
Star Trek TNG is considered science fiction, correct? I'm not arguing whether the techno-babble made it good or bad sci fi, merely that it's science fiction. Everything out there labels it as such, yet by your rant you claim it shouldn't be. Many even find TNG to be a good example of sci fi because the long-term CORE scientific elements use a lot of real advanced theory: warp fields, gravity wells, subspace, etc.
Star Wars isn't science fiction? Really? Ask any non-purist scifi fan whether it's science fiction. Look at just about every label out there in book stores and video stores. It takes place in space, using space ships and fighters, firing lasers, discussing other planets and life. Sci Fi. Yet it had sound and fireballs in the near-vacuum of space, something known in the 1970s during it's writing to be impossible.
Yes, 2010 is primarily a Disaster Movie. However since the main antagonist (end of the world) is explained in some psuedo-science, it qualifies a little bit as science fiction.
Two things - 1. I don't even know how 2012 is considered a sci-fi at all. 2. If NASA indeed decides to use lasers, they should just go ahead and melt all of John Cusack's roles till date.
Scientific accuracy is not a requirement of a science fiction story, only that the mechanics of the fantastic elements are attempted to be explained away via science instead of accepting that it is some mystical event (like the result of breaking a religious artifact or something). A lot science is very unsound when a SF writer puts in a throw-away sentence or paragraph to explain floating cities, faster-than-light travel, time travel, teleportation, etc. Those things might be possible and sometimes the writer uses scientific journals to justify their tech, but sometimes they just throw in techno-babble.
Heck, in Star Trek TNG sometimes they just made up techno babble to explain away the plot device of the week and/or its solution. And Star Wars is full of scientific issues, yet they're considered science fiction.
2012's main plot device was caused by a fantastic event, which the writers tried to explain away. It wasn't like the goal of the film was trying to "fix" the earth via "heavy neutrinos" or some other such nonsense, so it's not even a big deal. It was just an explanation of the story's catalyst and antagonist.
The story of 2012 was in "the world is ending in catastrophe, how far would you go to save your estranged family."
I'm not saying I loved the film, but I'm willing to look the other way for scientific flaws. I mean, a decent percentage of the slashdot community loves Star Wars (IV-VI) even though it's full of flaws.
Our ancient hunter gatherer ancestors would assume that something that weighs 2tons and his hurtling at you at 60mph should be making some sort of noise. So you see such a thing out of the corner of your eye, and your defense mechanisms decide it's probably an optical illusion due to the silence
Even a fully electric car, at 60MpH is making a lot of noise. Road noise. That makes up a large percentage of the noise generated by a car and tends to even drown out most of the engine noise unless the car is revving/accelerating. I was watching a special a couple of years back about noise pollution and didn't realize that fact.
So yes, noise IS an important part. Which is why someone with a hearing disability has to take a little extra care over an average person when in public.
So the only place it's really a danger is when the car is doing like 5-10 MpH in a parking lost: slow enough so the road noise is drowned out by ambient noise.
If a company wants to put it in. Fine. Even if every company decides to put it in.
But the government saying "You MUST do it" just seems silly.
"A biker can turn on a dime, stop on a dime, and swerve in the blink of an eye."
What? Have you ever ridden a bike?
I haven't ridden much in the last 3 years, even then it was just quiet roads.
The "fall" is part of my "stop on a dime" thing. Though last I recall, stopping @ 25 MpH (without crashing) is shorter on a bike than, say, an SUV.
I witnessed this last year.
I was in my sedan was a couple of cars back, the road wasn't super fast.
Anyway, a biker fell (I don't know if it was braking, mechanical, etc). I just know he went over the handle bars.
Even falling + sliding, it was a shorter distance than the SUV behind him could handle. The guy had to brake+swerve the heck around to avoid squishing the cyclist.
Fortunately the cyclist seemed OK and got appeared to continue riding a short while later.
I'm just saying... it's a rare occurrence but it happens.
Also people (such as a lower post) mention turning (like a 90-degree turn).
I tend to mean changing lanes. From what I've experienced, you're much more nimble changing lanes on a bicycle than a large car.
In the end, all of this talk detracts from the overall theme of my original post.
If you're only relying on Engine noise (outside of a parking lot or if you're blind), then you're in danger. Between road noise and general noise pollution you don't tend to hear it. Visual cues are always needed, and unfortunately I often see people ignoring visual cues.
If the companies want to put the feature in (due to user testing and such) then I'm for it. But I just find it silly that the government require it.
I should elaborate on the "agility" thing since it reads a little snotty...
What I meant to say was:
A pedestrian not paying attention and walking along with traffic can take 2 steps to their left without looking behind them. In the time it takes to steps the driver now has a person appear without warning, and perhaps without enough time to stop.
A biker can turn on a dime, stop on a dime, and swerve in the blink of an eye.
Therefore, the "more agile" object should also take great care before performing such a maneuver. Don't just rely on ears of what you "think" is behind you, but look.
But still, in the end a car driver needs to exhibit great situational awareness to keep an eye out for these things.
And your example isn't lop-sided enough. I would venture to say that for every pedestrian hit because they weren't paying attention, there's probably like 10-20 who were hit because the driver wasn't paying attention.
If you're an adult, you should know better. I see adults cross the street without looking while on the phone and not even notice me beeping at them. And this was back when I drove a beat up car that sounded like a Boeing 747.
For every adult pedestrian who's been hit for jaywalking while talking on their cell phone without looking, there's another who got hit in a signaled crosswalk by a driver on a cell phone who checked only the oncoming vehicle traffic before pulling out, a guy who had a car door opened in his face while riding a bicycle in a marked lane, or a pedestrian who got hit by a car on the god damn sidewalk. I've been hit all three of those ways.
First, I'm sorry about your luck. I hope those idiots (especially car-on-sidewalk) got in major legal trouble and you didn't get too physically damaged.
Agreed, there are MANY idiots driving. And I admit, more idiot drivers than idiot pedestrians. As drivers, we need to exhibit good situational awareness. And obviously most cyclists and pedestrians are fine.
But you have to admit, a cyclist and a pedestrian are both incredibly more agile than a car. I DON'T mean "therefore they should be able to jump out of the way." That's wrong.
But I've seen many instances where a cyclist decides to stop short, or quickly change lanes, or cut people off, or all of a sudden decide to drive AGAINST 50MpH traffic.
I've seen instances where people walking along-side traffic on the sidewalk decide to step out into a 40+ MPH zone without looking behind them to see if a car is coming right up their behind. Sure for every idiot cyclist I see, I see a dozen careful ones. And for every idiot jaywalker I see hundreds of people looking both ways.
But I digress...
The fact of the matter is: except for the visually impaired or when starting from rest in a parking lot, Engine noise doesn't come into play much. Between road noise and general noise pollution you don't hear it unless the guy is accelerating highly.
Meanwhile we have a great advance: quieter cars. Reduces (but does not eliminate) noise pollution, a growing concern. The government's reaction: put it back in.
Obviously, the below statements do not take into consideration those that are visually impaired. But that final point (Road Noise) probably already handles most of that.
I'm sorry, but I never trust my ears when deciding whether to cross the street. Even if I'm in a fairly quiet suburban road off away from the main streets and such, I always look. And you want to know what? I learned to do that at a really young age.
If you're an adult, you should know better. I see adults cross the street without looking while on the phone and not even notice me beeping at them. And this was back when I drove a beat up car that sounded like a Boeing 747.
As for kids, I'm sorry to say but a lot are either stupid or their parents are doing a really poor job raising them. I've seen the whole "chase the ball into traffic" scenario when they SEE the cars coming and assume that magic fairy dust will make the SUV go from 25-to-zero in less than 3 feet. Often times these kids are really old enough to know better: by the time your kid reaches 10+ years old you really should've educated them to not do that.
Besides, lastly but not least... unless the car is accelerating the biggest noise is the road noise (pavement vs vulcanized rubber). Last I checked, electric cars don't solve this problem. If you're relying on Engine noise to determine if a car is coming, you're already fairly screwed.
Eh, I'm not a fan of mandatory data plans either. As 90% of the time I'm in an area with WiFi.
However there still are a bunch of instances where I find myself using the Internet on my phone when not in a WiFi area (or even conventiently close to one).
The big ones are: - Address lookup / directions / etc - Movie schedules - Flight status
Sometimes I'll be in a grocery store or something without WiFi and I need to look it up.
So... it's 1985. Marty is ~18. That means he was born ~1967, conceived ~1966. That means that there's about 11 years between when they last saw "Calvin Klein" and when they had Marty. I think that it would be somewhat far-fetched to suspect an affair with the guy.
I realize that, which is why I emphasized the fact it's their third child.
But you have to figure, Calvin was an important person to them... especially the father since he helped him believe in himself.
You have to figure, at some point while remembering how they finally got together the father pictured Calvin in his mind. Then realized his young son looked just like him.
At which point, he would turn to his wife and ask "is there something you want to tell me?" or subtley ask "when was the last time you saw Calvin?"
If your teenager son is the spitting image of someone your wife used to date... you'd HAVE to wonder what the frell is going on.
People having affairs with past lovers isn't exactly unheard of.
That was one of my thoughts from the first one... especially after I saw II.
My big thing in Back to the Future was... how the frick are his parents still together? Wouldn't the father be accusing the mother of cheating on him with Calvin Klein once it became obvious that Marty (their 3rd child) looked EXACTLY like the guy? Hell, I wouldn't buy that. The only other possibility is she was assaulted by a deranged Calvin Klein decades later and blocked it out.
Another thing from II - Biff steals the time machine, alters the timeline, and returns to the regular 2015 to put the time machine back - Marty and Doc go back in time to the altered timeline, but when Marty suggests they just go back to 2015 to stop Biff Doc says they can't - Because they would simply travel along the altered timeline where Biff is now Rich
Then how the frick did Biff travel forward along the altered timeline to return the time machine?
In the first movie, Marty goes back in time and changes a bunch of things, so the world is different (albeit slightly) when he gets back. But what about inventing Rock & Roll and the song Johnny B Goode, and giving them to Chuck Berry via his cousin Marvin? That's something that stayed the same because he went back. So was he always supposed to go back or not?
Well, there are a LOT of plot holes and time travel goofs.
But as for Johnny B Goode, by the time Marvin calls Martin and turns the phone towards the stage, McFly is already doing his 1980's guitar riff which the audience hated.
Granted, the Marvin (the cousin) probably remembers enough of it to relay to Chuck.
The problem is: we're getting too warm. Mostly from the heat generated from the light is trapped in our atmosphere by green house gasses. NOTE: my description is like the 6th grade book report version, not 100% accurate.
So the problem is excess heat lingering.
A large sun shade would limit the amount of light coming to earth.
A lot of things need light (independent of heat): plants, algae, lord knows what else. Limit the light and it might have unexpected side effects on a lot.
Besides, as others said... it would be a band-aide. If the problem seems to disappear for a few years/decades then there will be little incentive to find a real solution. And then some lazy people will just keep saying "reduce the shade even more" which might cause more (and serious) problems.
Slashdot Mirror
2 years ago we had a vendor stop by to demo some software. He was prepared to either use our Internet connection, or fallback to his 3G flip-phone via tethering.
He said that he used the 3G tethering for a while without issue. But a couple of months prior AT&T disabled his data plan because they found out he was tethering without paying the for the plan. Of course they did this a few hours before one of his demonstrations and he had to get them to enable it ASAP.
Even he said "I don't know how they detected it since I'm just downloading data."
It's funny because what is happening in Japan is exactly why Nuclear Power is SAFE!
An earthquake 7 times more powerful than the biggest it was built for hit, and all that happened to the reactors that didn't shut down cleanly was a small amount of radioactive noble gases, which decay within minutes. Even if the cores DO melt, they're safely contained in ... wait for it... containment chambers!
People don't realize the amount of engineering that goes into nuclear to make it safe.
Hey, I know it. But Joe Sixpack is gonna say "But look at their problems now, I don't want that here." Bla bla bla
I'd be fine with it. I think it's a way to go.
But nuclear power still has the stigma of Chernobyl. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going to scream NO at the top of their lungs and most will probably point at Japan's current situation and say "You see why it's a bad idea".
Again, I'm all for more nuke plants. It's cleaner than coal, and going heavily into solar + wind is a pipe dream. Instead of pumping tons of crud into the air I'm fine with some barrels of toxic waste so long as they don't cut costs on the storage.
I thought everyone knew that they wanted to put reality TV and fantasy into their programming schedule. This was the reason they changed their name.
Nope, they changed it so they could trademark their name.
They couldn't trademark SciFi since that was an ordinary term. But SyFy is different and not in the dictionary so they could.
Since people just refer to it as SciFi (and now SyFy) they have a trademark. As opposed to channels and outlets with the SciFi weekends.
We used to watch this every day after school back in the 60's. So did we run around gouging eyes, ripping out hair or the old favorite, whacking with a plank on the head? No. I remember my mom teaching us, "This just a comedy film, don't really do this to each other, or someone is going to get hurt."
I think violent crime is a sign of more deeper social problems, that are more difficult to address. It's just easier to blame it on video games as a scapegoat.
I think the whole Video Games = Violence is complete nonsnse.
But to play devil's advocate, the analogy of watching violent TV shows as a kid isn't entirely valid in my opinion.
In a game, YOU'RE doing things. Some games gets your aggression levels up either by plot or by an aggravating level. I recall a NASCAR race where they stuck cameras in the face of a popular driver IMMEDIATELY after a tense race; he'd barely gotten out of the car. In his aggression he dropped a curse word and people went ape.
It's affecting you more than just watching someone poke someone else in the eye. Maybe some films are so captivating they do similar things to you as a game, but for the most part it's not a fair comparison.
Now, it's up to US to not do something illegal or stupid for those few minutes while because or blood pressure is up a little or have a little more adrenaline in our veins.
The three seem fairly distinct to me. You probably just need a better monitor... or some color calibration performed on the one you have. But anyway... for reference, the top "sky blue" line is Comcast, middle is Cable One and bottom is CenturyTel.
I can tell some of them apart, it just takes me longer. Is that Cablevision or Charter? Is that CableOne or CenturyTel? I just have to judge them for a second to figure out. At least they're not close to each other or criss-cross.
I'm a big fan of colors + patterns; such as solid vs dashed.
There's Verizon FiOS and Verizon DSL. Is the measurement for FiOS, DSL, or both? .
I'm wondering that too. I have a hard time believing that Fios is lower than *some* of those up there considering the speed offerings they have.
I'm on a 50 megabit Fios connection right now, and from my regular download speeds it looks like I'm getting that speed for the sites that can support it.
A few years ago I was on 3 megabit DSL, though I hear their DSL can hit 15 or 20 megabit with their residential versions.
Granted, it's possible streaming is throttled or can otherwise not take advantage of the full (or near-full) stream.
I was in Walmart a month ago looking for two CD's that I wanted to purchase. Neither was particularly obscure, and both were recent (released within the last year). They had neither, and actually I couldn't believe how small their selection was compared to what it used to be. I understand the convenience of downloading via Walmart or Amazon, but what I can't understand is why people wouldn't actually want to have a bit-perfect digital copy on physical medium as a back up.
In my case I only buy about 10-20 songs a year; usually only 1-2 songs per CD. So that's about $13-$25 USD a year, the cost of 1-2 CDs
If I wanted the CD versions of my annual purchase, that would be $100-$200 per year. Sure, I'd get a better bitrate and rip it via a lossless codec. But that's a fair amount more money each year.
I could use a CD wallet so they don't take up as much room. But why bother?
I've only purchased about 2 CDs in the last 7 years or so, because they were albums I really liked. IE, I *really* enjoyed the music and I wanted to listen to most/all of the songs on a regular basis.
US history is particularly subject to ret-conning, at least in the US. That's because a lot of folks can't stomach the idea that their country was founded on the very intentional and institutionalized genocide of one group of people and the enslavement of another.
I don't know about you, but my education covered all of that stuff and made me sick. Sure, they didn't teach us the gruesome details in Kindergarten but the shameful acts of our country were drilled into our heads.
Perhaps your school was big on white-washing or revisionism, but we were learning that stuff in grade school.
If you're not going to read your forum... don't have one. It's really that simple.
Tough call. Forums are a community experience, just because you're not going to be monitoring them heavily doesn't mean that people won't benefit. For some of the game forums I post to, I'll often get another player to answer my question fairly quickly... which a developer/supporter might respond to days later. And sometimes the community responses completely remove the need for an official response (often because the question was already asked-and-answered by a developer some weeks ago).
With the internet, there is simply too much noise. Haters and trolls will fill even the common "Bug Report" or "Tech Support" forums, let alone a "Suggestion Box" forum. So suggestion forums and such are often pretty lame.
Then, to be honest, you have people that are either stupid or want the product to be something else entirely. I recall seeing long threads in a forum about how a new TV show was stupid... it should have been done this way (completely different plot / theme with a genre shift).
So, flat out state that you'll monitor bugs and tech support issues but the rest you'll only occasionally review.
And you thought YOU had it hard growing up...
That's what she said.
I purposely use the word Fantastic. At one point, there was no distinction between Science Fiction and Fantasy. They were labeled under the same category, and thus a story where a hero used a rocket ship to visit Mars was treated the same as some hero entering an enchanted forest to slay a dragon.
It took a while for them to make a distinction, with sci fi fans arguing that there is a difference. And the major distinction was attempting to use science to explain the mechanism of a "fantastic" plot device. It didn't have to be perfect or valid, but the fact that someone is saying "this cloak is bending light around you using a proprietary substance called quicksilver" is science fiction while someone leaving it as "this cloak hides you from men's souls" is fantasy.
Star Trek TNG is considered science fiction, correct? I'm not arguing whether the techno-babble made it good or bad sci fi, merely that it's science fiction. Everything out there labels it as such, yet by your rant you claim it shouldn't be. Many even find TNG to be a good example of sci fi because the long-term CORE scientific elements use a lot of real advanced theory: warp fields, gravity wells, subspace, etc.
Star Wars isn't science fiction? Really? Ask any non-purist scifi fan whether it's science fiction. Look at just about every label out there in book stores and video stores. It takes place in space, using space ships and fighters, firing lasers, discussing other planets and life. Sci Fi. Yet it had sound and fireballs in the near-vacuum of space, something known in the 1970s during it's writing to be impossible.
Yes, 2010 is primarily a Disaster Movie. However since the main antagonist (end of the world) is explained in some psuedo-science, it qualifies a little bit as science fiction.
Two things -
1. I don't even know how 2012 is considered a sci-fi at all.
2. If NASA indeed decides to use lasers, they should just go ahead and melt all of John Cusack's roles till date.
Scientific accuracy is not a requirement of a science fiction story, only that the mechanics of the fantastic elements are attempted to be explained away via science instead of accepting that it is some mystical event (like the result of breaking a religious artifact or something). A lot science is very unsound when a SF writer puts in a throw-away sentence or paragraph to explain floating cities, faster-than-light travel, time travel, teleportation, etc. Those things might be possible and sometimes the writer uses scientific journals to justify their tech, but sometimes they just throw in techno-babble.
Heck, in Star Trek TNG sometimes they just made up techno babble to explain away the plot device of the week and/or its solution. And Star Wars is full of scientific issues, yet they're considered science fiction.
2012's main plot device was caused by a fantastic event, which the writers tried to explain away. It wasn't like the goal of the film was trying to "fix" the earth via "heavy neutrinos" or some other such nonsense, so it's not even a big deal. It was just an explanation of the story's catalyst and antagonist.
The story of 2012 was in "the world is ending in catastrophe, how far would you go to save your estranged family."
I'm not saying I loved the film, but I'm willing to look the other way for scientific flaws. I mean, a decent percentage of the slashdot community loves Star Wars (IV-VI) even though it's full of flaws.
Our ancient hunter gatherer ancestors would assume that something that weighs 2tons and his hurtling at you at 60mph should be making some sort of noise. So you see such a thing out of the corner of your eye, and your defense mechanisms decide it's probably an optical illusion due to the silence
Even a fully electric car, at 60MpH is making a lot of noise. Road noise. That makes up a large percentage of the noise generated by a car and tends to even drown out most of the engine noise unless the car is revving/accelerating. I was watching a special a couple of years back about noise pollution and didn't realize that fact.
So yes, noise IS an important part. Which is why someone with a hearing disability has to take a little extra care over an average person when in public.
So the only place it's really a danger is when the car is doing like 5-10 MpH in a parking lost: slow enough so the road noise is drowned out by ambient noise.
If a company wants to put it in. Fine. Even if every company decides to put it in.
But the government saying "You MUST do it" just seems silly.
"A biker can turn on a dime, stop on a dime, and swerve in the blink of an eye."
What? Have you ever ridden a bike?
I haven't ridden much in the last 3 years, even then it was just quiet roads.
The "fall" is part of my "stop on a dime" thing. Though last I recall, stopping @ 25 MpH (without crashing) is shorter on a bike than, say, an SUV.
I witnessed this last year.
I was in my sedan was a couple of cars back, the road wasn't super fast.
Anyway, a biker fell (I don't know if it was braking, mechanical, etc). I just know he went over the handle bars.
Even falling + sliding, it was a shorter distance than the SUV behind him could handle. The guy had to brake+swerve the heck around to avoid squishing the cyclist.
Fortunately the cyclist seemed OK and got appeared to continue riding a short while later.
I'm just saying... it's a rare occurrence but it happens.
Also people (such as a lower post) mention turning (like a 90-degree turn).
I tend to mean changing lanes. From what I've experienced, you're much more nimble changing lanes on a bicycle than a large car.
In the end, all of this talk detracts from the overall theme of my original post.
If you're only relying on Engine noise (outside of a parking lot or if you're blind), then you're in danger. Between road noise and general noise pollution you don't tend to hear it. Visual cues are always needed, and unfortunately I often see people ignoring visual cues.
If the companies want to put the feature in (due to user testing and such) then I'm for it. But I just find it silly that the government require it.
I should elaborate on the "agility" thing since it reads a little snotty...
What I meant to say was:
A pedestrian not paying attention and walking along with traffic can take 2 steps to their left without looking behind them. In the time it takes to steps the driver now has a person appear without warning, and perhaps without enough time to stop.
A biker can turn on a dime, stop on a dime, and swerve in the blink of an eye.
Therefore, the "more agile" object should also take great care before performing such a maneuver. Don't just rely on ears of what you "think" is behind you, but look.
But still, in the end a car driver needs to exhibit great situational awareness to keep an eye out for these things.
And your example isn't lop-sided enough. I would venture to say that for every pedestrian hit because they weren't paying attention, there's probably like 10-20 who were hit because the driver wasn't paying attention.
If you're an adult, you should know better. I see adults cross the street without looking while on the phone and not even notice me beeping at them. And this was back when I drove a beat up car that sounded like a Boeing 747.
For every adult pedestrian who's been hit for jaywalking while talking on their cell phone without looking, there's another who got hit in a signaled crosswalk by a driver on a cell phone who checked only the oncoming vehicle traffic before pulling out, a guy who had a car door opened in his face while riding a bicycle in a marked lane, or a pedestrian who got hit by a car on the god damn sidewalk. I've been hit all three of those ways.
First, I'm sorry about your luck. I hope those idiots (especially car-on-sidewalk) got in major legal trouble and you didn't get too physically damaged.
Agreed, there are MANY idiots driving. And I admit, more idiot drivers than idiot pedestrians. As drivers, we need to exhibit good situational awareness. And obviously most cyclists and pedestrians are fine.
But you have to admit, a cyclist and a pedestrian are both incredibly more agile than a car. I DON'T mean "therefore they should be able to jump out of the way." That's wrong.
But I've seen many instances where a cyclist decides to stop short, or quickly change lanes, or cut people off, or all of a sudden decide to drive AGAINST 50MpH traffic.
I've seen instances where people walking along-side traffic on the sidewalk decide to step out into a 40+ MPH zone without looking behind them to see if a car is coming right up their behind. Sure for every idiot cyclist I see, I see a dozen careful ones. And for every idiot jaywalker I see hundreds of people looking both ways.
But I digress...
The fact of the matter is: except for the visually impaired or when starting from rest in a parking lot, Engine noise doesn't come into play much. Between road noise and general noise pollution you don't hear it unless the guy is accelerating highly.
Meanwhile we have a great advance: quieter cars. Reduces (but does not eliminate) noise pollution, a growing concern. The government's reaction: put it back in.
Obviously, the below statements do not take into consideration those that are visually impaired. But that final point (Road Noise) probably already handles most of that.
I'm sorry, but I never trust my ears when deciding whether to cross the street. Even if I'm in a fairly quiet suburban road off away from the main streets and such, I always look. And you want to know what? I learned to do that at a really young age.
If you're an adult, you should know better. I see adults cross the street without looking while on the phone and not even notice me beeping at them. And this was back when I drove a beat up car that sounded like a Boeing 747.
As for kids, I'm sorry to say but a lot are either stupid or their parents are doing a really poor job raising them. I've seen the whole "chase the ball into traffic" scenario when they SEE the cars coming and assume that magic fairy dust will make the SUV go from 25-to-zero in less than 3 feet. Often times these kids are really old enough to know better: by the time your kid reaches 10+ years old you really should've educated them to not do that.
Besides, lastly but not least... unless the car is accelerating the biggest noise is the road noise (pavement vs vulcanized rubber). Last I checked, electric cars don't solve this problem. If you're relying on Engine noise to determine if a car is coming, you're already fairly screwed.
It depends how you read her statement.
I believe she's implying that "someone might perform a sex crime against her." Not "oh no, now I'm gonna be charged with a sex crime."
The year that .Net went productive, I saw postings asking for 5 and 10 years of .Net experience
It sometimes boggles the mind.
Eh, I'm not a fan of mandatory data plans either. As 90% of the time I'm in an area with WiFi.
However there still are a bunch of instances where I find myself using the Internet on my phone when not in a WiFi area (or even conventiently close to one).
The big ones are:
- Address lookup / directions / etc
- Movie schedules
- Flight status
Sometimes I'll be in a grocery store or something without WiFi and I need to look it up.
So ... it's 1985. Marty is ~18. That means he was born ~1967, conceived ~1966. That means that there's about 11 years between when they last saw "Calvin Klein" and when they had Marty. I think that it would be somewhat far-fetched to suspect an affair with the guy.
I realize that, which is why I emphasized the fact it's their third child.
But you have to figure, Calvin was an important person to them... especially the father since he helped him believe in himself.
You have to figure, at some point while remembering how they finally got together the father pictured Calvin in his mind. Then realized his young son looked just like him.
At which point, he would turn to his wife and ask "is there something you want to tell me?" or subtley ask "when was the last time you saw Calvin?"
If your teenager son is the spitting image of someone your wife used to date... you'd HAVE to wonder what the frell is going on.
People having affairs with past lovers isn't exactly unheard of.
What happened to the Marty who grew up with a go-getting SF-author father?
Of course, I've thought about time travel more than is healthy.
That was one of my thoughts from the first one... especially after I saw II.
My big thing in Back to the Future was... how the frick are his parents still together? Wouldn't the father be accusing the mother of cheating on him with Calvin Klein once it became obvious that Marty (their 3rd child) looked EXACTLY like the guy? Hell, I wouldn't buy that. The only other possibility is she was assaulted by a deranged Calvin Klein decades later and blocked it out.
Another thing from II
- Biff steals the time machine, alters the timeline, and returns to the regular 2015 to put the time machine back
- Marty and Doc go back in time to the altered timeline, but when Marty suggests they just go back to 2015 to stop Biff Doc says they can't
- Because they would simply travel along the altered timeline where Biff is now Rich
Then how the frick did Biff travel forward along the altered timeline to return the time machine?
In the first movie, Marty goes back in time and changes a bunch of things, so the world is different (albeit slightly) when he gets back. But what about inventing Rock & Roll and the song Johnny B Goode, and giving them to Chuck Berry via his cousin Marvin? That's something that stayed the same because he went back. So was he always supposed to go back or not?
Well, there are a LOT of plot holes and time travel goofs.
But as for Johnny B Goode, by the time Marvin calls Martin and turns the phone towards the stage, McFly is already doing his 1980's guitar riff which the audience hated.
Granted, the Marvin (the cousin) probably remembers enough of it to relay to Chuck.
Yeh.
The problem is: we're getting too warm. Mostly from the heat generated from the light is trapped in our atmosphere by green house gasses. NOTE: my description is like the 6th grade book report version, not 100% accurate.
So the problem is excess heat lingering.
A large sun shade would limit the amount of light coming to earth.
A lot of things need light (independent of heat): plants, algae, lord knows what else. Limit the light and it might have unexpected side effects on a lot.
Besides, as others said... it would be a band-aide. If the problem seems to disappear for a few years/decades then there will be little incentive to find a real solution. And then some lazy people will just keep saying "reduce the shade even more" which might cause more (and serious) problems.