It's a lazy-ass check. The best alternative? Have the armed forces listen to the people, not the government. how are you going to have the armed forces listen to the gov't? we can't all just go up and tell them what to do, so, what, maybe we elect some folks to do it? oh, wait... that's what gov't is, eh?
A good example is using Google maps on one's N95 or iPhone while driving. Sure, it increases situational awareness vis-a-vis one's current location, but at the cost of smashing into the car ahead or running over a pedestrian because you didn't notice that the light had turned red. except of course, that example does NOT actually increase situantional awareness.:P
You are really trying to argue these points? You do not get them? By the way, I guess your little smileys, in this context, are supposed to be tongues sticking out?
ok, if you're not positive what those smileys are, i KNOW you don't know much!:P
If so, I guess it is appropriate that they are appended to statements that could be construed as insulting.
uh, maybe the first one, but certainly not the latter ones. a bit thin skinned, eh?
But in which case, also, your professionalism comes under even more question.
alright, this is an excellent demonstration of your problem and why you don't get it- you don't understand context. this is SLASHDOT- what's posted here has nothing to do with my professionalism (especially since i'm sitting at home on my day off).
I will do so by pointing out that the Excel syntax was intended to be a low-end financial spreadsheet... its aim was NEVER to be a program for high-end mathematical solutions. So the base tool (Excel) is GENERALLY unsuited to many tasks required by physics students. I did not claim "inadequate" (though that is my opinion), I stated "unsuited". This was my point from the beginning: engineers must know what tools are SUITABLE and what tools are not... and you are on the big losing end here, pal.
well, basically every engineering company is on the losing end then. excel IS one of the most widely used engineering tools out there. cold hard fact.
you're too caught up on syntax. if you learn the basics, a reasonably intelligent engineer / scientist can transition to something else.
If you are using the proper tools in the first place, YOU DO NOT NEED to "transition it to something else"!
you ALWAYS have to transition to something else in engineering as you change fidelity (if you're doing things intelligently).
i expect an intelligent college student to be able to adapt to a variety of systems, including both open standards and proprietary standards. i expect them to be able to do so easily and effortlessly, and not mount crusades about particular systems. i also recognize that the VAST majority of tools a working engineer is likely to use IS proprietary, so if they can NOT handle a 'proprietary way of computing,' they're not going to be very gainfully employed.
And here is where you really show your naivete/ignorance of modern computing. First, the modern workplace is increasingly moving to Open Source / Open Standards, and if the proprietary tools they are using do not support those open standards, then the customer will simply start using FREE tools that do.
actually, YOU'RE showing your naivete. sure, it's 'moving' that way, but still DOMINATED by proprietary tools (by a huuuuge amoung), and most technical disciplines will remain that way. expecting students / new hires to move seamlessly between proprietary and open source is not an unreasonable expectation.
Why spend (as either a University or a corporation) $200 on a copy of Word when Open Office will do it better, and support open standards, when that expensive copy of Word will not? The answer: they won't... in increasing numbers. And, as I hinted earlier, if I were a manager watching a budget today, and you tried to sell me Microsoft, I would punt you out the door. It is a bad investment. That does not directly answer the Excel/VBA question, but it does answer your own reply and give some insight into why. actually, YOU'RE showing your naivete- as a manager in most companies, that wouldn't be your call to make. you either don't work, you work in a VERY small company, or you work in academia, right?
I suspect (if you are even an engineer) that you have been caught up in a stagnant academic/corporate paradigm that has been historically Microsofted. That does not make ME the biased one, dude, it is actually you.
...accounting firms absolutely do NOT (in general) stay away from excel!
...excel is probably one of the most widely used tools by engineers.
Okay, I now see where you're coming from.
In annual financial reports, accounting firms will, in general, say that any value between $9,550 and $10,450 is $10,000. In that same sense, I'm sure they do often use excel.
I know first hand (from my father and his colleagues) that engineers most commonly use 3 as the value of pi in first-pass rough analysis work. So I'm sure engineers also use excel quite a bit.
well, maybe back in the day, but even first pass stuff is a lot more accurate than that these days...
...of course [excel's usage is] (generally) validated and displaced with higher fidelity analysis and testing as appropriate when the design matures.
Whew! So about the time my Dad would stop doing the numbers in his head and reach for his sliderule, today's aerospace engineers drop excel in favor of something with more than one significant digit of accuracy. That's reassuring. Truly.
well, you get the basic idea, but excel is used for stuff way higher fidelity than that- what's considered low fidelity these days would have been relatively high fidelity back in the day.
Excel is usually good enough for most home uses and many small business uses, but accounting firms stay away from it. i worked for Ernst&Young in a prior life, and my dad was a comptroller, and accounting firms absolutely do NOT (in general) stay away from excel!
So should most scientists and engineers, excel is probably one of the most widely used tools by engineers.
I'm a little concerned about using Excel in aerospace engineering. I don't trust it to reliably compare effective ROIs in what-if investment scenarios, so I really wouldn't care to see it used calculate aerodynamic forces on any airplane I might fly in. If its use is limited to tracking spare engines as they are shipped from factories to warehouses to maintenance hangars, I'd be comfortable with that. Probably. I think. then be scared. be very scared.:P but seriously, excel IS used (by all the major airframers and engine companies) for a lo of engineering computations, but (primarily) in the earlier conceptual and preliminary design stages. of course it's (generally) validated and displaced with higher fidelity analysis and testing as appropriate when the design matures.
I did read the info in front of me. I do not think it was I who missed the point. you're probably not *missing* the point, you don't *recognize* it because you don't know what you're talking about.:P
Excel and vba are entirely unsuited for teaching such things as flow control and troubleshooting. ESPECIALLY from the standpoint of engineering, and from an engineer who really should know better. excel/vba handles flow control fine (and quite similar to most c-like languages), and how can you begin to say that you can't learn troubleshooting skills with excel/vba?
First off, you have to use TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES (syntaxes) in order to accomplish a job that should require only one; that in itself makes these tools unsuitable for the task. The languages might be compatible to some extent, but they are not the same. what two languages are you imagining you need to use? i also don't see using multiple languages as a problem- the right tool for the job and all...
Further, the more that VBA syntax is compatible with Excel, keep in mind that it must also remain compatible with the syntaxes of Word, Powerpoint, etc., which makes VBA a grossly inefficient tool for accomplishing ANY job, much less one that requires engineering exactitude. you are creating an imaginary problem- what does compatibility with word, ppt, etc have to do with anything? and if that IS an issue, surely knowing how to program in excel is a HUGE advantage over learning something like fortran or perl, where interacting w/ those programs is MUCH harder.
i'm sure you'll agree that excel is a good tool for some things- well, vba is CLEARLY a VERY efficient way for automating excel. if you don't agree with that and stick with your assertion that vba is grossly inefficient for ANY job shows where you're coming from (HUGELY biased), and makes it likely the vast majority of your comments about it should be disregarded.
As for flow control, file handling, basic methods / techniques, and troubleshooting... Excel and VBA teach only Microsoft ways to do things. That is fine if you are an engineer who lives exclusively in a Microsoft world (i.e., wearing blinders), but for EVERYBODY ELSE, it is obvious that all you will learn is "the Microsoft way". And that way, as the Open Source community (and increasingly the public) are coming to understand, is anything but "standard". you're too caught up on syntax. if you learn the basics, a reasonably intelligent engineer / scientist can transition to something else.
So... you are saying you would teach college students the ISO standard measurement system, but a totally proprietary way of computing? i expect an intelligent college student to be able to adapt to a variety of systems, including both open standards and proprietary standards. i expect them to be able to do so easily and effortlessly, and not mount crusades about particular systems.
i also recognize that the VAST majority of tools a working engineer is likely to use IS proprietary, so if they can NOT handle a 'proprietary way of computing,' they're not going to be very gainfully employed.
Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical? not one bit.
If Microsoft supported a system of "poids, hectares, and ballmerseconds" would you support that as well? if ms did, nope, but if my customers did, yup. after all, i can easily adapt to discussing fuel in lbs, kgs, gallons, litres, and cubic feet, whats a few more units, eh?:P
I am not even remotely swayed by your comments. If I were interviewing you for a job, I would cut it short and show you the door. assuming i hadn't already walked out, i would be fine with that, because an employer has to fit the employee, as well as the employee fitting the employee.:P
The question was about PHYSICS. Excel is good for some things, but as a software Engineer, I would question your qualifications as an Aerospace Engineer (or ANY kind of Engineer) if I found out you were trying to do much of anything in the way of serious physics using Excel. One of the traits of a good engineer is the ability to know when to use what tool for what job, which of course, is why i said "i'm an aerospace engineer, and for work, i program in c, fortran, java, vb, and yes, excel / vba,depending on the need"
a good engineer also reads the info in front of her.:P
and Excel just does not cut it in this context. this context is teaching flow control, file handling, basic methods / techniques, and troubleshooting, all of which excel / vba are more than adequate for.
those who don't think so aren't leveraging its capabilities
"Leveraging"? You may claim to be an engineer, but you seem to have been contaminated by the influence of middle management. Real engineers use things, they don't leverage them.
no, actually, i mean leverage, not use. you use the tool (excel / vba) and some initial time to create another tool (your code) which increases your efficiency exponentially. plenty of people *use* excel but don't *leverage* it.
learning to program in excel / vba DOES do what you CLAIM to want (flow control, file handling, basic methods / techniques, troubleshooting), so why is your blood boiling? preconceived notions? and yes, excel IS surprisingly powerful (those who don't think so aren't leveraging its capabilities). someone who can PROGRAM in excel / vba (versus just manipulate a spreadsheet) will be perfectly capable of programming in perl / python / fortran with very little additional work if the need arises.
(i'm an aerospace engineer, and for work, i program in c, fortran, java, vb, and yes, excel / vba,depending on the need)
Ahhh - the ignorance of bliss. The budget cannot be passed by a simple majority. And unless something can be passed by simple majority, then you can't blame the party "in control" of congress for anything. let's see, a simple majority gets you control of committees and who sits on them, and it's the committees that do the budget resolution. a simple majority also lets you amend the resolution on the floor. oh, and you get to make the rules on how to do that. and the resolution can't be filibustered. the majority most definitely DOES control the budget process, and if you think otherwise, you're right- ignorance IS bliss!:D
Of course, the Republican party's low appraisal of science probably has a lot to do with it- after all, what good is science that might change peoples' minds about something (FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP) when there's Muslims to kill? except, according to the article, it was the legislators (read congress (democratically controlled), that lopped $22M off their budget from last year.
that's retarded. the f-117 flew 1% of sorties in gulf war 1, but took out 40% of the targets, so they obviously put some bombs on target, eh? and don't you remember the videos from gulf war 1, of smart bombs being delivered by the f-117 going in windows and such?
super late response, so you'll probably never see this, but... Lockheed didn't inherit the F-22 from GD- they were part of a Lockheed / GD / Boeing team, with it being agreed that the leader of the team would be the one whose design won the dem/val contest. from that team, Lockheed won. Northrop won the other award, and led the Northrop / MD team.
Dude, I hate to break it to you but you have no fucking idea how allergies work or why peanut allergies are particularly bad. Peanut oil doesn't magically travel hundreds of kilometers. However bring it into the same room and the kid's going to have a problem breathing. no dude, i get it- the point is, if the allergy is as bad as the poster stated, you're simply not going to be aware/not going to be able to control of when someone brings it into the same room as the child.
More ignorance. A child with such allergies will carry an epi-pen anyway in case the encounters peanut butter in an unforeseen circumstance, because otherwise they die. However it's a last resort not some magic pill they can pop. An adrenaline shot will take a lot out of you and an anaphylactic attack treated that way will require hospitilization for at least a day or two. no, they don't always carry them, and no, it doesn't always require hospitalization. sorry.
Why don't you homeschool your child if they can't function without bringing dangerous substances into the schoolyard. Not that you'd make a good teacher based on your rant. if i had a child, whom i was worried about DYING from breathing in peanut fumes, you'd bet your ass i'd homeschool them.
Why does his child have to go without proper schooling, or risk death just so YOUR child can go about their business normally. The impact on your child is that they eat peanut butter at home. The impact on his child is death or lack of education. it has nothing to do with peanut butter- it has to do with the idea that the rest of society has to conform to the minority.
Basically grow the fuck up. said the person who's acting super mature.:D
No one is even asking you or your child to give up the peanut butter at all. Not that it would be such a bi g ask with lives at stake. Just don't fucking bring it to school. again, if the allergy is as bad as stated in the post i responded to, simply avoiding it at school isn't going to really help in the long term- she's simply screwed if her allergy is so bad. you can't control the whole world, so stop expecting the whole world to cater to you Have a think about what your teaching your kid: Your right to eat peanut butter whereever you goddamn like outweights that kids right to breath or get an education. Then wonder why your kid turns into a self absorbed asshole with criminal tendancies. uh, yeah, sure.
Two things. One - peanut allergies kill. If you have peanut allergies, you can die from it, from just a touch or breathing the tiny particles in the air from a cough or sneeze. Does it make sense to ban peanut butter sandwiches if you have someone allergic to peanuts? Since I have a daughter with severe peanut allergies, I do think so, since I prefer not to have her die a painful death. dude, if your kid's really that sensitive that she's going to pop off from breathing in tiny particles in the air from a cough or sneeze, i hate to break it to yeah, your daughter is a goner anyways (if you're ever going to allow her to live anything like a normal, meaningful life). you may be able to get a school to ban peanut butter, or a plane to not serve peanuts, but you can't prevent her from bumping into people out and about. get her an epi pen, or homeschool her, but quit with the idea that you can tell everyone else NOT to go about normally so YOU can.
Second thing - go read the first post. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING SPECIAL TO MAKE THE WEBSITE EASIER TO USE FOR THE BLIND Just stop using those damned javacrap shit unnecessarily. Why should links be javascripted?! so what you're REALLY saying is, "you don't have to do anything special...other than these things i just said to do / not do".
Having the schematics is a nice start, but even if you manage to collect the components, handle the components safely and actually construct something similar to the Fat Man, you end up with an ENORMOUS device that is relatively weak compared to the nuclear devices of today. Your going to have trouble sneaking this monstrosity, say, through the Holland tunnel into NYC. eh? fat man isn't really that big- it'll easily fit into a truck you can rent at any u-haul.
...i use vb code to dynamically generate formulas in spreadsheets w/ a z projection, so the regular excel charts look 3d, so i can update the '3d' view of dynamically!
not only am i using the 'new paradigm' he suggests (and have been doing so for and i thought i was just being a lazy hack!
It might also help if we didn't have so many transport trucks on our roads! I'm not sure if this is a problem in japan, but in north america, it is VERY difficult to keep a constant speed with transport trucks (grumble grumble). but trucks generally do a much better job of maintaining speed- they keep space to even out their speeds, and don't brake nearly as much as the average driver. it's folks who cut 'em off to move up a spot or two that cause the problems...
Look at the political and economic benefits that Microsoft may have gained from the transaction, what favors or access did it buy? I can't speak about Malaria malaria research was basically nonexistent (because it's not profitable) until ms stepped up.
but it is a well known fact that school donations for technology always require microsoft products. That isn't charity, that's marketing. it may be 'well known,' but it's not true- for example, the gates foundation donated $1M for teacher training in the main laptop (apple ibooks) program.:P
you're quite the conspiracy theorist, aren't you?:D
I have been in the industry, professionally, since the early 80s and as a hobbyist since the mid 70s. Microsoft is the worst of the worst cheapskate companies. Gates once scolded people for copying BASIC. That *is* the core of his being. He doesn't share. He's a cheap bastard, and the only way he'll give a dollar away is if he thinks he can make two more back. Bill Gates does not understand "good will" or notions like societal benefit. if you're talking about how he runs his business, sure, it's a for profit public company- it's his job and his responsibility to shareholders to maximize profit. he SHOULDN'T give away a dollar unless he thinks he's going to get something back. if you're talking about the man, you're just so far off- take a look at http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm (and no, you don't give away half your net worth as a tax shelter, so let's nip that dumb argument in the bud right there).
Actually, without exact locations/distances, the best you could assume is two square miles. Think of it this way, you are in the middle, there is one Starbucks 1 mile to the east, one Starbucks 1 mile to the west, one 1 mile to the north, and one 1 mile to the south. If you take these as being on the perimeter of your area, the distance from the "east" Starbucks to the "west" Starbucks is 2 miles (one mile to get to you and one mile from you to get to the other starbucks). That would give you a square with 2 mile sides.
I know you probably just meant to point out how ridiculous the concentration of Starbucks is, but after all this is slashdot where everyone wants to be "technically correct, which is the best kind of correct." (futurama quote) hehehe, and then you go and don't be technically correct. a sqare with 2 mile sides would not be 2 square miles- it'd be 2 miles squared, or 4 square miles...
Only if asked "in degrees, what temperature is hot coffee", because people have no fucking clue what constitutes "drinkable" temperatures, they only know that it's made with boiling water so they ignorantly would say (like you) "closer to boiling, more than 175 degrees*". And, no, you wouldn't Really, the moral here is that just because you think you know something doesn't mean you do.
* 176 degrees is exactly half way between 140 and 212, and water that temperature could easily strip the skin off the roof of your mouth i didn't say people would drink it right away! when you make a 'hot' liquid, yes, you make it with boiling water. then you put it in a cup. and wait a little. then take a *little* sip to see if it's too hot. it's really not that complicated, and only total dumbasses would do otherwise.
However, neither "hot" nor "bright" have precise values; both are relative terms. No reasonable person expects a "hot" cup of coffee to be 190 degrees Fahrenheit; they expect around 140 degrees at most...In both cases, there are people who will claim that, in their ideal society, it is entirely up to the buyer to beware... no way dude, i would think most people would expect a 'hot' liquid to be closer to boiling (212 deg) than the hot water that comes out of the tap (usually 120-140 deg). heck, i'd probably be annoyed if it weren't hotter than hot tap water...
Re:Twas not a Hummer but Bugs that Killed the Tech
on
2007 Darwin Award Winners
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Blue screen of death fatality? No, the poor bastard was died because he ran into a Hummer. Those things are so wide he did not have to cross the line to have the accident and no passenger car will survive the impact. If you need to haul things, please buy a pickup truck or a van or a hatchback, not something designed for combat. When you don't need to haul things, please buy a passenger vehicle with properly designed crush zones.
cute, but: - the dude crossed the line - a hummer h1 is ~8" wider than most fullsized pickups, so not that huge a difference - it was probably a hummer h2, which is only a couple inches wider than pickups - a hummer (even the h1) isn't designed for combat
Slashdot Mirror
You are really trying to argue these points? You do not get them? By the way, I guess your little smileys, in this context, are supposed to be tongues sticking out?
ok, if you're not positive what those smileys are, i KNOW you don't know much! :P
If so, I guess it is appropriate that they are appended to statements that could be construed as insulting.
uh, maybe the first one, but certainly not the latter ones. a bit thin skinned, eh?
But in which case, also, your professionalism comes under even more question.
alright, this is an excellent demonstration of your problem and why you don't get it- you don't understand context. this is SLASHDOT- what's posted here has nothing to do with my professionalism (especially since i'm sitting at home on my day off).
I will do so by pointing out that the Excel syntax was intended to be a low-end financial spreadsheet... its aim was NEVER to be a program for high-end mathematical solutions. So the base tool (Excel) is GENERALLY unsuited to many tasks required by physics students. I did not claim "inadequate" (though that is my opinion), I stated "unsuited". This was my point from the beginning: engineers must know what tools are SUITABLE and what tools are not... and you are on the big losing end here, pal.
well, basically every engineering company is on the losing end then. excel IS one of the most widely used engineering tools out there. cold hard fact.
you're too caught up on syntax. if you learn the basics, a reasonably intelligent engineer / scientist can transition to something else.
If you are using the proper tools in the first place, YOU DO NOT NEED to "transition it to something else"!
you ALWAYS have to transition to something else in engineering as you change fidelity (if you're doing things intelligently).
i expect an intelligent college student to be able to adapt to a variety of systems, including both open standards and proprietary standards. i expect them to be able to do so easily and effortlessly, and not mount crusades about particular systems. i also recognize that the VAST majority of tools a working engineer is likely to use IS proprietary, so if they can NOT handle a 'proprietary way of computing,' they're not going to be very gainfully employed.
And here is where you really show your naivete/ignorance of modern computing. First, the modern workplace is increasingly moving to Open Source / Open Standards, and if the proprietary tools they are using do not support those open standards, then the customer will simply start using FREE tools that do.
actually, YOU'RE showing your naivete. sure, it's 'moving' that way, but still DOMINATED by proprietary tools (by a huuuuge amoung), and most technical disciplines will remain that way. expecting students / new hires to move seamlessly between proprietary and open source is not an unreasonable expectation. Why spend (as either a University or a corporation) $200 on a copy of Word when Open Office will do it better, and support open standards, when that expensive copy of Word will not? The answer: they won't... in increasing numbers. And, as I hinted earlier, if I were a manager watching a budget today, and you tried to sell me Microsoft, I would punt you out the door. It is a bad investment. That does not directly answer the Excel/VBA question, but it does answer your own reply and give some insight into why. actually, YOU'RE showing your naivete- as a manager in most companies, that wouldn't be your call to make. you either don't work, you work in a VERY small company, or you work in academia, right?
I suspect (if you are even an engineer) that you have been caught up in a stagnant academic/corporate paradigm that has been historically Microsofted. That does not make ME the biased one, dude, it is actually you.
no, as i said (repeatedly, which y
...accounting firms absolutely do NOT (in general) stay away from excel!
...excel is probably one of the most widely used tools by engineers.Okay, I now see where you're coming from.
In annual financial reports, accounting firms will, in general, say that any value between $9,550 and $10,450 is $10,000. In that same sense, I'm sure they do often use excel.
I know first hand (from my father and his colleagues) that engineers most commonly use 3 as the value of pi in first-pass rough analysis work. So I'm sure engineers also use excel quite a bit.
well, maybe back in the day, but even first pass stuff is a lot more accurate than that these days...
...of course [excel's usage is] (generally) validated and displaced with higher fidelity analysis and testing as appropriate when the design matures.Whew! So about the time my Dad would stop doing the numbers in his head and reach for his sliderule, today's aerospace engineers drop excel in favor of something with more than one significant digit of accuracy. That's reassuring. Truly.
well, you get the basic idea, but excel is used for stuff way higher fidelity than that- what's considered low fidelity these days would have been relatively high fidelity back in the day.those who don't think so aren't leveraging its capabilities
"Leveraging"? You may claim to be an engineer, but you seem to have been contaminated by the influence of middle management. Real engineers use things, they don't leverage them.
no, actually, i mean leverage, not use. you use the tool (excel / vba) and some initial time to create another tool (your code) which increases your efficiency exponentially. plenty of people *use* excel but don't *leverage* it.learning to program in excel / vba DOES do what you CLAIM to want (flow control, file handling, basic methods / techniques, troubleshooting), so why is your blood boiling? preconceived notions? and yes, excel IS surprisingly powerful (those who don't think so aren't leveraging its capabilities). someone who can PROGRAM in excel / vba (versus just manipulate a spreadsheet) will be perfectly capable of programming in perl / python / fortran with very little additional work if the need arises.
(i'm an aerospace engineer, and for work, i program in c, fortran, java, vb, and yes, excel / vba,depending on the need)
that's retarded. the f-117 flew 1% of sorties in gulf war 1, but took out 40% of the targets, so they obviously put some bombs on target, eh? and don't you remember the videos from gulf war 1, of smart bombs being delivered by the f-117 going in windows and such?
super late response, so you'll probably never see this, but...
Lockheed didn't inherit the F-22 from GD- they were part of a Lockheed / GD / Boeing team, with it being agreed that the leader of the team would be the one whose design won the dem/val contest. from that team, Lockheed won. Northrop won the other award, and led the Northrop / MD team.
...i use vb code to dynamically generate formulas in spreadsheets w/ a z projection, so the regular excel charts look 3d, so i can update the '3d' view of dynamically!
not only am i using the 'new paradigm' he suggests (and have been doing so for and i thought i was just being a lazy hack!
what benefit do you imagine they get from bribing, saaaay, malaria patients in africa? :P
I know you probably just meant to point out how ridiculous the concentration of Starbucks is, but after all this is slashdot where everyone wants to be "technically correct, which is the best kind of correct." (futurama quote) hehehe, and then you go and don't be technically correct. a sqare with 2 mile sides would not be 2 square miles- it'd be 2 miles squared, or 4 square miles...
Really, the moral here is that just because you think you know something doesn't mean you do.
* 176 degrees is exactly half way between 140 and 212, and water that temperature could easily strip the skin off the roof of your mouth i didn't say people would drink it right away! when you make a 'hot' liquid, yes, you make it with boiling water. then you put it in a cup. and wait a little. then take a *little* sip to see if it's too hot. it's really not that complicated, and only total dumbasses would do otherwise.
cute, but:
- the dude crossed the line
- a hummer h1 is ~8" wider than most fullsized pickups, so not that huge a difference
- it was probably a hummer h2, which is only a couple inches wider than pickups
- a hummer (even the h1) isn't designed for combat