The speed differential on collision with a following distance of 10 feet will be SLOWER than at 3 feet unless the driver behind you hits the gas AFTER he hits you.
If you weren't kidding, stop driving until you get some proper training.
Um, no. Unless you can provide a link, I haven't seen any evidence that talking to someone on a cell phone is different than in person because "your brain is devoted to paying attention to the 'other world.'"
The idea is that if you're talking to someone in the car, they will react to situations in the car (shut up when you need to concentrate for example) whereas a person on the other side of a cell connection probably won't. But neither will a child, so unless you're going to ban children in cars, the distinction is really moot.
Having a phone or other device in your hand while driving is a $600 fine here (Quebec). Blowing through a crosswalk while someone is trying to cross is a $150 fine.
That's a nice dichotomy, but it's not what the words actually mean. Your #2 is a reason. They're both reasons. The reason you hit the car in front was because in (1) it suddenly pulled into your lane and hit the brakes and in (2) because you were distracted by your phone.
An excuse is a reason that excuses you, i.e. absolves you of blame, for some behaviour or situation. (1) would be considered a good excuse - the collision wasn't your fault. (2) would be a poor excuse, or no excuse (not an excuse) - the collision was your fault, and talking on the phone doesn't excuse the behaviour.
Since the experiment is described as a "search", "home in on" is the proper phrase. If you were to use hone, the headline would be confusing and non-specific. "LHC Hones It's Higgs Results" or something.
"Hone in" is definitely incorrect. You can hone something, but you can't "hone in" to something. "Hone" suggests a sharpening or trimming process, removing undesirable material to leave what is desired. "Home in" suggests a process of searching or seeking, getting closer to the goal.
"LHC hones It's Data" would be a reasonable headline, but "LHC Homes in on..." is a more specific one.
"I just do not buy into combining the results of weak sigma events to claim something more significant."
Which means you have a poor or at least incomplete understanding of statistics.
The rest of your comment expresses an opinion about whether science should announce intermediate results, or wait until something is more definite. If you go with the former, the public might be confused because they don't understand that the results are preliminary. If you do the latter, the public might become frustrated with the lack of results.
I tend to favour announcing intermediate results (science, and the scientific process is more open) and educating the public. But there are advantages to keeping people in dark ignorance too.
You can prove a negative subject to certain assumptions. The assumption here is that the Standard Model is correct. The Standard Model requires the Higgs to have certain properties. Those properties mean that it MUST appear in certain energy ranges and it MUST create a signal in a certain range of amplitudes. So if you look in those ranges with sufficient statistical power to detect amplitudes in the allowed ranges and you find nothing, you have proven that the Standard Model Higgs doesn't exist.
"Does not help that the Conservative Gouvernement is paid by the oil sand lobby of Alberta to try to derail anything related to environment investigation and/or treaties..."
What most Canadians don't realize is that the entire country is paid for by Alberta oil. Except maybe BC (who has their own oil) and occasionally Ontario. Saskatchewan might be pulling themselves into the positive too... with their own oil.
Except that a good portion of Canada's output is actually fossil fuel production which, by any sane measure, should be counted against the country that burns the oil, not the one that produces it.
Go out and try to buy a middle of the market hard drive today. It will cost you pretty much the same as a middle of the market hard drive ten years ago. Worlds different in performance (capacity) but still about the same price. Ditto for video cards. Software. Processors. Etc.
No, it's accurate to say that Apple doesn't accommodate the GPL. MS has apparently written terms that say you CAN distribute GPLed apps in their store if you want to. Whether or not they actually design their store to make it possible remains to be seen.
It's not unreasonable to read that as Microsoft specifying that their app store and it's DRM (which is Microsoft software) must not be restricted by the terms of the licenses used for software in that app store. Which it most definitely would by by the GPL. It doesn't necessarily say that MS's code BECOMES GPLed, just that what it can do is restricted by the GPL.
Instead of writing "free software" which can have a variety of meanings outside of Stallman land, be specific. Apple's App store is (possibly) not compatible with the GPL version 3.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not skirts because if you call it a skirt to a Scot's face you might just end up kilt.
Yup. It should be part of your driving test - hold a conversation on a cell phone with one examiner while doing the test with another.
And if you do get into too many at fault accidents, bye bye drivers license until you take more training and pass another test.
Yeah, that's what people in favour of a complete ban say. Is it true? Got any evidence?
If it is true, what about children in the car?
??
The speed differential on collision with a following distance of 10 feet will be SLOWER than at 3 feet unless the driver behind you hits the gas AFTER he hits you.
If you weren't kidding, stop driving until you get some proper training.
Unless they're a child, or, as you mentioned, don't care or aren't paying attention.
So if you're going to ban hands free cell phones in cars you really should ban children too.
You can't see the person beside or behind you in a car either. At least you shouldn't be able to - if you can you're not paying attention to the road.
Um, no. Unless you can provide a link, I haven't seen any evidence that talking to someone on a cell phone is different than in person because "your brain is devoted to paying attention to the 'other world.'"
The idea is that if you're talking to someone in the car, they will react to situations in the car (shut up when you need to concentrate for example) whereas a person on the other side of a cell connection probably won't. But neither will a child, so unless you're going to ban children in cars, the distinction is really moot.
Hm. Clearly we need to ban infants in cars.
$20-$50?
Having a phone or other device in your hand while driving is a $600 fine here (Quebec). Blowing through a crosswalk while someone is trying to cross is a $150 fine.
That's a nice dichotomy, but it's not what the words actually mean. Your #2 is a reason. They're both reasons. The reason you hit the car in front was because in (1) it suddenly pulled into your lane and hit the brakes and in (2) because you were distracted by your phone.
An excuse is a reason that excuses you, i.e. absolves you of blame, for some behaviour or situation. (1) would be considered a good excuse - the collision wasn't your fault. (2) would be a poor excuse, or no excuse (not an excuse) - the collision was your fault, and talking on the phone doesn't excuse the behaviour.
You must be female. A solid gold toilet seat would be a major pain to put up.
Since the experiment is described as a "search", "home in on" is the proper phrase. If you were to use hone, the headline would be confusing and non-specific. "LHC Hones It's Higgs Results" or something.
"Hone in" is definitely incorrect. You can hone something, but you can't "hone in" to something. "Hone" suggests a sharpening or trimming process, removing undesirable material to leave what is desired. "Home in" suggests a process of searching or seeking, getting closer to the goal.
"LHC hones It's Data" would be a reasonable headline, but "LHC Homes in on..." is a more specific one.
"I just do not buy into combining the results of weak sigma events to claim something more significant."
Which means you have a poor or at least incomplete understanding of statistics.
The rest of your comment expresses an opinion about whether science should announce intermediate results, or wait until something is more definite. If you go with the former, the public might be confused because they don't understand that the results are preliminary. If you do the latter, the public might become frustrated with the lack of results.
I tend to favour announcing intermediate results (science, and the scientific process is more open) and educating the public. But there are advantages to keeping people in dark ignorance too.
You can prove a negative subject to certain assumptions. The assumption here is that the Standard Model is correct. The Standard Model requires the Higgs to have certain properties. Those properties mean that it MUST appear in certain energy ranges and it MUST create a signal in a certain range of amplitudes. So if you look in those ranges with sufficient statistical power to detect amplitudes in the allowed ranges and you find nothing, you have proven that the Standard Model Higgs doesn't exist.
"Does not help that the Conservative Gouvernement is paid by the oil sand lobby of Alberta to try to derail anything related to environment investigation and/or treaties..."
What most Canadians don't realize is that the entire country is paid for by Alberta oil. Except maybe BC (who has their own oil) and occasionally Ontario. Saskatchewan might be pulling themselves into the positive too... with their own oil.
Those aren't really plains. They're boreal forest.
Except that a good portion of Canada's output is actually fossil fuel production which, by any sane measure, should be counted against the country that burns the oil, not the one that produces it.
Go out and try to buy a middle of the market hard drive today. It will cost you pretty much the same as a middle of the market hard drive ten years ago. Worlds different in performance (capacity) but still about the same price. Ditto for video cards. Software. Processors. Etc.
That's just awesome. Unless the people actually BUYING your product are comparing it to the much more expensive competition, as many seem to be doing.
No, it's accurate to say that Apple doesn't accommodate the GPL. MS has apparently written terms that say you CAN distribute GPLed apps in their store if you want to. Whether or not they actually design their store to make it possible remains to be seen.
It's not unreasonable to read that as Microsoft specifying that their app store and it's DRM (which is Microsoft software) must not be restricted by the terms of the licenses used for software in that app store. Which it most definitely would by by the GPL. It doesn't necessarily say that MS's code BECOMES GPLed, just that what it can do is restricted by the GPL.
That depends on how much of Stallman's Cool-Aid you've been drinking.
Instead of writing "free software" which can have a variety of meanings outside of Stallman land, be specific. Apple's App store is (possibly) not compatible with the GPL version 3.
You need to pay the $99 to get the certificate and provisioning profile to install to a device. Installing to the simulator is free.