And so are elderly grandmothers, she should buck up and go fist to fist with the two 20 year old guys who broke into her house to find crack money.
Go home troll.
It's not hard to understand, it's just overly simplistic and wrong. Just compare the various states, compare states with strict gun laws to those with liberal laws. Guess which states a safer from violence, including where firearms are used.
And yet it used to be "you don't need a handgun to hunt, lets ban them", isn't it rather interesting how when it comes violating peoples rights the reason always changes to attack the current defense even when it invalidates the last excuse.
Pardon my descent into trivia, but it's my understanding at one time suicide was officialy labeled as self homicide on death certificates under cause of death.
Sounds like you're referring to long since debunked study. Among other issues it discarded any data from: households without a gun, where no one had been killed or seriously hurt gun, and where a gun had been used in self defense. In short to show-up in the study against it's bias someone had to be shot who lived in a home with a gun no-one was using, and even some of those where excluded.
It's hardly straight forward, there are cultural differences, reporting differences, and the simple fact that guns aren't the only method of killing.
Factor in that an unarmed victim is a criminals favorite kind....
A better check would be to compare the various states, less variation in culture and reporting differences.
States with less restrictive laws have lower crime rates and fewer cases of dying by gunshot wound.
When someone's home is broken into it gets reported to the police usually, at which time a statement is taken from the resident. Many of these statements include "When he saw me holding a firearm he fled" and the like.
Statistics from these statements indicate guns are used more often in self defense than in killing + suicide + accidental death.
Hopefully, I've nearly been rear-ended for stopping at a stop sign! one guy even yelled "what the f** did you stop for, there was no one coming and no cops". And I've seen lots of people run a light that's off.
Do not think I'm knocking driving defensively, it's hands down the best bet. Just know that it's no guarantee, just the best odds.
All of which simply shows that irrational beliefs can effect people. Not that they are in any way valid, nor that those who hold them should be treated any more than irrational.
Actually the adds themselves are the broken window here. If the user doesn't want them then he's being forced to pay for the bandwidth and so is the ad server and company paying to advertise with someone who now has a negative view of them.
Actually that's not exactly what a yellow means, it means the light will turn red soon and evaluate whether stopping or continuing is safer, I've seen people panic stop at yellow and nearly cause pile ups from their unexpected behavior. In Missouri it's considered a warning of impending red (unless flashing, in which case it indicates the intersection requires extra caution and awareness). And as long as any part of your vehicle is past the line when it turns red you've not run the light and other traffic must yield right away to a vehicle already in the intersection.
Sadly not all jurisdictions have any law about the duration of yellows, so it's not always against the law to shorten what should be a 5 second light to 1 second. Unsafe yes, illegal no.
Not selective memory, often observed and tested. What you propose would leave no extra space, and drop average speed to where the cars behind you would get ticked and some would start doing stupid things and making it worse. I leave as much room as I can, and quite often have idiots pull in between me and the car in front.
If you slow down for a green, some of the locals may recognize what your doing, but everyone else is going to be ticked, and probably tailgating even closer meaning you now have to break even slower to avoid an accident, a vicious downward spiral that ends with YOU getting a ticket for obstructing traffic . If the yellow is to short for safe stopping before red by almost all vehicles that are traveling at the speed limit in good weather conditions then it is the unsafe factor.
This is all basic math + understanding how people drive. Your proposal may decrease safety.
Not here, yellow is a caution indicator, usually meaning a red will follow soon(flashing is just a general caution). Only red means stop. If you try and stop for a yellow when you clearly have time to safely clear the intersection you are obstructing traffic. Don't slam on your breaks at the first sign of yellow, if you can't clearly make the intersection then slow to a safe stop.
Yes because getting a ticket for going under the minimum, cause accidents as people try to pass the you doing 30 in a 60 (45 min), ect, is such a better option,
Try thinking things through a bit better. If the light is to short for a stopping in time when traveling at an otherwise safe speed for the conditions and within the post speed minimums and maxims, then it should be changed, and in the meantime tickets should not be issued for doing the safest thing.
While there are recomendations, each state sets it's own rules, sometimes leaving it up to counties, sometimes having no specific regulation on the timing of red lights.
In theory that's exactly right, and in many states if your front end hits their back end it's your fault by default, providing incentive to follow at a safer distance in the driver in front does have good reason to panic stop. Yet on most roads it will never happen, because the moment there is enough room to physically fit a car (or almost enough in many cases) someone will fill the gap. I don't like it but the practical reality is you must be prepared to be tailgated and gauge your stopping distances appropriately or risk an accident, possibly fatal.
If the yellow is too short for the speed limit you have to go much slower than that limit and can be ticketed for obstructing traffic.
There is a minimum stopping distance for any given set of speeds and conditions (including the vehicles capability), if the yellow is to short for the speed limit there becomes and increasing zone where you can be traveling safely and within the speed limit and not have time to safely stop from the time green goes to yellow then red.
I live near a state highway where the minimum speed is 40 MPH and the max is 60. It's simple math to show durations of yellow that create zones where those obeying the speed min/max must run a red, or try and panic stop and perhaps still wind up running the red or even stopping in the middle of the intersection.
I'm unaware of the laws of other states, but in Missouri the first section of the law pretty specifically says nothing in any other section can be seen as reason to be unsafe. Also the rules for intersections are such that even if the light has just turned green you have to wait till it's safe to enter. Therefore the correct response to an unsafely short yellow to continue through rather than skid to a stop causing an accident.
Sadly it will take a lot of people not buying or pirating several games that would otherwise be popular for them to get it, they'll blame piracy or that the game wasn't very good before they believe that the drm they waste money on is the problem (kickbacks from the companies that sell this snake oil wouldn't be unbelievable to me).
I don't expect perfection, but I do expect basic functionality. My fault for not looking into the game better I suppose, but Sim City has been a single player game for entire life of the franchise till now and to buy it and find out even THAT doesn't work?!?
Sorry, I could understand it taking a few tries right at release, when the main spike hits, but to take three days to log in just to play single player which should need little to no connection (should be validation the FIRST time you run the game and maybe for the achievement section, and maybe optional online backup of saves, that is IT) is simply stupid.
The free game and apology are a good step in the right direction, they need to also public recognize that requiring on-going internet connect for single player is unnecessary and promise not to make that mistake again. Please convey to your supervisors and as far up the line as you can what you're hearing hear from vast majority of posters.
Nonsense, all the parents have to do pay attention to what the kids do on their (the parents computer) and not allow the young ones on without a parent directly supervising. Once the child is in their teens the parents have failed if they haven't taught their kids how to handle the internet and the more adult sections.
Yes there will be a few outliers, but for the most part saying a parent can't parent so the government has to do it for them is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
And so are elderly grandmothers, she should buck up and go fist to fist with the two 20 year old guys who broke into her house to find crack money.
Go home troll.
Mycroft
It's not hard to understand, it's just overly simplistic and wrong. Just compare the various states, compare states with strict gun laws to those with liberal laws. Guess which states a safer from violence, including where firearms are used.
Mycroft
And yet it used to be "you don't need a handgun to hunt, lets ban them", isn't it rather interesting how when it comes violating peoples rights the reason always changes to attack the current defense even when it invalidates the last excuse.
Mycroft
Pardon my descent into trivia, but it's my understanding at one time suicide was officialy labeled as self homicide on death certificates under cause of death.
Mycroft
Sounds like you're referring to long since debunked study. Among other issues it discarded any data from: households without a gun, where no one had been killed or seriously hurt gun, and where a gun had been used in self defense. In short to show-up in the study against it's bias someone had to be shot who lived in a home with a gun no-one was using, and even some of those where excluded.
Mycroft
It's hardly straight forward, there are cultural differences, reporting differences, and the simple fact that guns aren't the only method of killing.
Factor in that an unarmed victim is a criminals favorite kind....
A better check would be to compare the various states, less variation in culture and reporting differences.
States with less restrictive laws have lower crime rates and fewer cases of dying by gunshot wound.
Mycroft.
When someone's home is broken into it gets reported to the police usually, at which time a statement is taken from the resident. Many of these statements include "When he saw me holding a firearm he fled" and the like.
Statistics from these statements indicate guns are used more often in self defense than in killing + suicide + accidental death.
Mycroft
Ignored? Flat our replicated the bad sectors and copied the half tracks and all sorts of fun stuff.
Mycroft
Hopefully, I've nearly been rear-ended for stopping at a stop sign! one guy even yelled "what the f** did you stop for, there was no one coming and no cops". And I've seen lots of people run a light that's off.
Do not think I'm knocking driving defensively, it's hands down the best bet. Just know that it's no guarantee, just the best odds.
Mycroft
All of which simply shows that irrational beliefs can effect people. Not that they are in any way valid, nor that those who hold them should be treated any more than irrational.
Mycroft
Actually the adds themselves are the broken window here. If the user doesn't want them then he's being forced to pay for the bandwidth and so is the ad server and company paying to advertise with someone who now has a negative view of them.
Mycroft
Actually that's not exactly what a yellow means, it means the light will turn red soon and evaluate whether stopping or continuing is safer, I've seen people panic stop at yellow and nearly cause pile ups from their unexpected behavior. In Missouri it's considered a warning of impending red (unless flashing, in which case it indicates the intersection requires extra caution and awareness). And as long as any part of your vehicle is past the line when it turns red you've not run the light and other traffic must yield right away to a vehicle already in the intersection.
Mycroft
Sadly not all jurisdictions have any law about the duration of yellows, so it's not always against the law to shorten what should be a 5 second light to 1 second. Unsafe yes, illegal no.
Mycroft
Not selective memory, often observed and tested. What you propose would leave no extra space, and drop average speed to where the cars behind you would get ticked and some would start doing stupid things and making it worse. I leave as much room as I can, and quite often have idiots pull in between me and the car in front.
Mycroft
Sorry left out a comma. should have said neither buying nor pirating or some such, made it clear lack of both was what i meant.
Mycroft
If you slow down for a green, some of the locals may recognize what your doing, but everyone else is going to be ticked, and probably tailgating even closer meaning you now have to break even slower to avoid an accident, a vicious downward spiral that ends with YOU getting a ticket for obstructing traffic . If the yellow is to short for safe stopping before red by almost all vehicles that are traveling at the speed limit in good weather conditions then it is the unsafe factor.
This is all basic math + understanding how people drive. Your proposal may decrease safety.
Mycroft
Not here, yellow is a caution indicator, usually meaning a red will follow soon(flashing is just a general caution). Only red means stop. If you try and stop for a yellow when you clearly have time to safely clear the intersection you are obstructing traffic. Don't slam on your breaks at the first sign of yellow, if you can't clearly make the intersection then slow to a safe stop.
Mycroft
IIRC here it is six cars if you're traveling below a safe speed for conditions.
Mycroft
Yes because getting a ticket for going under the minimum, cause accidents as people try to pass the you doing 30 in a 60 (45 min), ect, is such a better option,
Try thinking things through a bit better. If the light is to short for a stopping in time when traveling at an otherwise safe speed for the conditions and within the post speed minimums and maxims, then it should be changed, and in the meantime tickets should not be issued for doing the safest thing.
Mycroft
While there are recomendations, each state sets it's own rules, sometimes leaving it up to counties, sometimes having no specific regulation on the timing of red lights.
Mycroft
In theory that's exactly right, and in many states if your front end hits their back end it's your fault by default, providing incentive to follow at a safer distance in the driver in front does have good reason to panic stop. Yet on most roads it will never happen, because the moment there is enough room to physically fit a car (or almost enough in many cases) someone will fill the gap. I don't like it but the practical reality is you must be prepared to be tailgated and gauge your stopping distances appropriately or risk an accident, possibly fatal.
Mycroft
If the yellow is too short for the speed limit you have to go much slower than that limit and can be ticketed for obstructing traffic.
There is a minimum stopping distance for any given set of speeds and conditions (including the vehicles capability), if the yellow is to short for the speed limit there becomes and increasing zone where you can be traveling safely and within the speed limit and not have time to safely stop from the time green goes to yellow then red.
I live near a state highway where the minimum speed is 40 MPH and the max is 60. It's simple math to show durations of yellow that create zones where those obeying the speed min/max must run a red, or try and panic stop and perhaps still wind up running the red or even stopping in the middle of the intersection.
I'm unaware of the laws of other states, but in Missouri the first section of the law pretty specifically says nothing in any other section can be seen as reason to be unsafe. Also the rules for intersections are such that even if the light has just turned green you have to wait till it's safe to enter. Therefore the correct response to an unsafely short yellow to continue through rather than skid to a stop causing an accident.
Mycroft
Sadly it will take a lot of people not buying or pirating several games that would otherwise be popular for them to get it, they'll blame piracy or that the game wasn't very good before they believe that the drm they waste money on is the problem (kickbacks from the companies that sell this snake oil wouldn't be unbelievable to me).
Mycroft
I don't expect perfection, but I do expect basic functionality. My fault for not looking into the game better I suppose, but Sim City has been a single player game for entire life of the franchise till now and to buy it and find out even THAT doesn't work?!?
Sorry, I could understand it taking a few tries right at release, when the main spike hits, but to take three days to log in just to play single player which should need little to no connection (should be validation the FIRST time you run the game and maybe for the achievement section, and maybe optional online backup of saves, that is IT) is simply stupid.
The free game and apology are a good step in the right direction, they need to also public recognize that requiring on-going internet connect for single player is unnecessary and promise not to make that mistake again. Please convey to your supervisors and as far up the line as you can what you're hearing hear from vast majority of posters.
Mycroft
Nonsense, all the parents have to do pay attention to what the kids do on their (the parents computer) and not allow the young ones on without a parent directly supervising. Once the child is in their teens the parents have failed if they haven't taught their kids how to handle the internet and the more adult sections.
Yes there will be a few outliers, but for the most part saying a parent can't parent so the government has to do it for them is stupid.
Mycroft