Then once the clone is verified to be fully operational, the original HDD will be wiped
OK, so if they grew a new you and downloaded yer noggin' to a thumb-drive, then booted the new you with old you's mind are you honestly going to be happy to stop the old you? The problem here is that old you is still you and new you is actually another you!
Basically, copying you isn't the same as transferring you - at least not for the old you!
That said, having a thumb-drive backup you would be a great way to re-boot yourself in case of accidents.
Hmmm. Charles Stross writes stories about things like this - Accelerando?
But why do we have to introduce another annoyance, one that is even worse as it needs constant maintenance (unlike the leap-day system which hasn't needed adjustment since 1752), by trying to shoehorn the SI second into the day? As far as I can tell, this accomplishes nothing but making life harder for people.
OK, now hands up why the wonderful leap-day system hasn't needed adjustment since 1752?
Anyone?
Yes, you at the back... "mumble mumble leap seconds mumble mumble?"
Speak up lad!
"Sorry Sir - is it because the sensible use of regular leap seconds means a leap day is only required once every for years and they are actually both part of the same time adjustment because a leap day is actually made up of many leap seconds?"
Yes indeed, well done. Yes the time adjustment required to keep our calendar in sync with the passage of the Earth around the Sun requires somewhere around a 1/4 day extra per year, give or take a second or two, and it was decided at some point that an extra day every 4 years would be a sensible way to make the majority of the correction leaving the odd seconds to be added as required to remove the need to add extra leap days far less often.
Every single one of the things you mentioned are already inaccurate by a far greater margin than the difference between atomic time and solar time anyway. We're talking about differences of a second every few years. My computer probably loses about a second per day without nist.gov to keep it honest.
The problem, as I understand it, is that if we ignore the problem that the current solution (Leap Seconds) fixes (ie time drift) then at some point in the future we will have to make a large adjustment to the calendar again.
It seems far more sensible to make a small adjustment reasonably regularly than a large adjustment every 100 years as, for the general population at least, the adjustment will pass without being noticed.
WTF? How is anyone "stealing" from rural areas? Are you one of those people who thinks any tax at all is "stealing"?
Taking money from someone who will never see benefit from it is essentially stealing.
And there, in a nutshell, is the problem.
So for taxation to be fair you would want an equal monetary benefit for the tax you pay, otherwise it's stealing! If you don't see the problem with that sentiment then there's no hope for civilisation and it's staggering that we survived this long!
Why so much hatred for the rural folks on Slashdot?
My guess is the City Dwellers noses were put out of joint by the Rural Folks suggesting that city life is subsidised by rural life. My guess is that it's closer to a more symbiotic relationship, although it ought to be pretty clear which lifestyle could exist on its own and which obviously couldn't!
Given that CD's need the RF to make the food it doesn't seem so bad for the higher population centre's obviously higher tax take (more people generate more tax revenue) to be spread to the lower population centres. I think calling that a subsidy is perhaps a bit wide of the mark though, as without those willing to live a rural life, and grow the food, the CD's would presumably starve.
But what if the farmers/farms/food wasn't subsidised (as suggested above by node3)?
Then the farmers would charge the actual cost for the products and the city dwellers would buy it at the real cost, but not be taxed so heavily for the privilege!
This would be not so great for the low wage earners, who presumably don't pay so much tax anyway!
Maybe the answer is that, even in the US, the whole country should look at itself as a community and understand that taxation isn't the root of all evil, but just how communities work. The problem is no longer "how much am I taxed" but "how is that money spent", and in some areas of the US a High Speed Rail link is a no-brainer - NY to Washington DC for example - expand that to the East Coast. Throw in a West Coast line too. NY to Chicago would probably work too. Joining large cities together where the journey times could compete with airlines (remember, check in times vs city centre to city centre, etc) and join the dots. There would then likely be some areas where it will be less economically viable, and yet joining the East and West coast, esp. using some of the viable sections that head inland anyway, would just make sense!
I'd say there seems to be a reticence in the US for rail, high speed or otherwise, and I'm not sure the arguments against are actually arguments against rail and not just "DON'T TAX ME".
On the other hand, long distance rail travel is always going to be more expensive for the traveller than flying because it takes longer, but it is a far more civilised mode of transport, if you have the time and the inclination!
Increasing costs to live in rural areas will only slightly increase food prices to city dwellers. There are around 2 million farmers in the US, to 250M people, so the ratio of farmers to consumers is around 100:1.
If a farmer's expenses increase 100%, then the affect on food prices is just around 1%.
A 1% increase in raw food prices would probably increase the average city dweller's food prices 0.1% - 0.5%.
This sounds like a win-win scenario to me! Less direct taxation for _everyone_ Plus, if the cost of food rises (even a bit) it might encourage people to eat less of it thereby having a positive effect on the nation's health - obviously the extra cost will be greater for those who eat more and negligible for those who eat more sensibly.
In early elementary (1st or 2nd I think), my kid came home talking about "math sentences". I asked him WTF that meant.
Turns out, that was what they were calling equations. Because tiny kid brains can't hold two similar concepts like sentences in english class and equations in math class under such wildly disparate names. I told him to translate to the term equation in his head whenever his teacher used that idiocy, and never utter the phrase math sentence to me again.
I think they stopped around 4th grade. Gah!
Now here's a sentence we see reasonably often on Slashdot, but it's unusual to be typing it and actually meaning it...
Nothing. The three values X, Y, and Z can all represent the same value (eg 5 = 5 = 5).
The problem is that some of the students decided to expand the equations to something like "4+3+2=x+2=11" and here is where the problem starts, because even in New Math I'll wager 9 doesn't equal 11, thereby displaying an ignorance of the concepts behind the "equals" sign, albeit an ignorance exasperated by the miss-use of parenthesis to represent the term to be solved for.
... and saying that teaching young kids Math(s) without using the common/standard mathematical representations is a bit like saying it's OK to teach English without concentrating on spelling, punctuation, and grammer - oh wait, the muppets do that too!
Why? The world doesn't format problems neatly for you. That's the job of the person approaching it. Simply identifying the mapping to known math formalisms is 90% of the challenge, if not more! If you can't convert a "put more apples on the table and find how many are on it now" into an addition problem, the world won't hold your hand and do it for you.
OK, how about this one then...
4#3#2@[]#2
Now I just wrote it and know which arbibrary symbols I replaced the more common ones with, but I still have trouble looking at it and working out what it means! The standardisation of mathematical symbols, and their common use, is what makes it even vaguely teachable. Using "()" as an indicator of a missing term in an equation is madness because everyone I've ever known would use them to indicate a change to the default order of calculation (BODMAS). If kids are being taught this way what the hell do the do if they see an equation with braces in it? Ignore the contents and just replace everything in it perhaps?
And how about Economics, Politics, Aeronautics, and Quantum Mechanics?
Let me recall the short colloquial forms of those subjects from my college days: Econ 101, PolySci 201, Aero 314, QM 411. Well, I don't see a single shortened plural here, so "Math 207" seems consistent to me.
Well, yes, but then I've never heard anyone refer to "Economics" as "Econ", and we most certainly don't refer to it as "Econs" over here in jolly old Blighty, don't you know. We also don't add arbitrary numbers to the ends of abbreviations, as that seems somewhat perverse when trying to shorten a word for convenience.
Math(s), on the other hand, has become a common abbreviation for Mathematics and, being a brit, it seems far more logical to use a "plural" sounding abbreviation for a "plural" sounding word, but, you know, vive la différence and all that. You say maths and I say math, let's call the whole thing off, what!
Potato, Potato. Tomato, Tomato.
Road, Pavement. Pavement, Sidewalk
Tramp, Bum. Bum, Fanny. Fanny,... actually I'm not sure if it get's referred to at all in the US? Camel Toe perhaps?
Surely it is differences such as these that make travelling interesting?
Anyway, I do find it grates when I hear "math" but I am trying to rise above it because it really doesn't matter.
Well I didn't intend it as flamebait...
I thought it was a pretty good explanation of why many motorists don't rigidly adhere to the posted speed limits (ie because 90% of the time they are wrong so you get used to making your own mind up as to what is "safe"), but hey ho... I guess not kowtowing to the "think of the children" zeitgeist is always going to rub someone's fur the wrong way... and today it was apparently a moderator!
The expensive bit - getting the mass into orbit has been done
I always wondered why the last stage(s) of the old rockets, and the big tanks on the shuttle, were dumped rather than carried into orbit for use as habitats, storage, spares, etc. They contained fuel tanks and rocket engines (for the old stages) and presumably a 'little' more fuel could have carried them all into orbit where they could have been attached to each other to make a huge 'station'. Boost them to the Moon, or Mars, for use a raw materials for when we get there maybe, or clean them and add them to the habitable space on the ISS? Hell, just add them to the ISS as a fuel depot and have subsequent trips carry a 'little extra' fuel that can be transferred to the depot for later use.
... context is everything. Driving 120km/h in a residential zone (normal limit of 40km/h in Ontario) is ridiculous to the point of insanity. Driving 120km/h on a limited access 400-series highway is considered normal (the limit is 100km/h), and on some 400-series highways, is considered driving slower than normal. Road conditions also play a part in the decision over whether that speeding is unreasonable... using that same 400-series highway, some of them are arrow-straight with no on/off ramps for tens of kilometers in parts (think 401, 416, 417 and QEW). On a beautiful sunny, dry day with no traffic, driving faster is not really a dangerous thing... you can safely drive 160-180km/h as long as your car is in good repair and you're paying attention. Try doing that in a rainstorm or heavy traffic, and you're an accident waiting to happen.
And the speed limit on normal highways is 80km/h, not 100km/h. Some of them have limits of 90km/h, but that will be posted. The only highways with limits of 100km/h are limited access highways, which will always have separated lanes for each direction (freeways).
... and there, in a nutshell, is the problem with posted speed limits. They seldom have any bearing on the prevailing conditions and therefore people are often likely to decide, in their own infinite wisdom, what they think is a safe/reasonable speed. If speed limits were actually right more often than not then people might find it easier to adhere to them.
for example, I'm really not happy about disobeying the 'rules' as laid out in road markings (ie solid white line means no overtaking, etc) because more often than not they are correct (eg it is an indication of an imminent blind bend, or summit, or dips in the road that can hide a car, or junctions ahead, etc), but speed limits are so often plain wrong (and a lot of that is a limit that is too high for the conditions) that I tend to make my own mind up and what I feel is safe.
The problem is that these speed limits have to be set with the worst driver in the worst car in mind, not someone who is perhaps an above average driver (not saying that I am, of course!) in a well maintained car.
for example, I used to drive an MGF - light, two seat, mid engine, convertible. It could stop on a dime (or other small coin) or just as easily swerve around it, and my reactions are pretty swift and I tend to pay a LOT of attention when I'm driving, and yet I have to obey the same limits as the mothers in their behemoth MPVs who are trying to stop their kids fighting and not paying any attention at all!
Not sure what the answer is, but certainly the whole UK "Speed Kills" campaign really pisses me off! OK, at what speed will I die then eh? Obviously speed doesn't kill - that what the Victorians thought when trains were first invented! We're all slashdot folks here and we all know it's the sudden change of speed that's the killer.
For my part, I'd be mortified if I injured someone, and tend to drive accordingly, but all you "think of the children" people out there, how's about hanging on to (and training) your kids and stopping them running into the road in the first place?... and remember that school gates are made more dangerous by the proliferation of the parents doing the school run and parking their ma-hoo-sive chelsea tractors any-dam-where they please to drop off little Tarquin and Jocasta, who then miss out on the learning experience of walking to school with mum/dad and being shown how to cross the road, etc.
It's hardly "human-hating" to point out that it would make a lot more sense to stop screwing up our own planet than it would to use this one up and throw it away.
It certainly makes sense to be as ecologically neutral on Earth as we can be, and perhaps even ecologically positive if the opportunity arises, but that's not the problem! The problem is that we are ALL here and if something hits us we are ALL dead. The ONLY solution to that problem is to expand to other planets, or generation ships of some kind, because large objects whizzing around the galaxy don't really care how nice we are to our planet.
Now I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow, but it will happen eventually, and there are some that argue that we are rapidly approaching the point where we will not be able to afford to get off this rock because every last cent will be spent keeping us all alive down here (see the reaction you get when you talk about population control!). At that point no Government can decide to stop feeding (AKA stop keeping alive) some group of people to siphon the money off to get into space because they won't be re-elected and we all know how much Governments like to be re-elected don't we!
I don't know that I agree. I think this is a very subjective issue. The reality is, the amount of revenue derived partially from these programmers has absolutely nothing to do with what their compensation is or should be. By their rationale, every teller at a bank should have salaries commensurate with that bank's revenue, since they're an element in processing deposits/checks/payments/etc. Hell, the data center I run makes millions every hour, but I don't expect that I should make 7 or 8 figures because of it.
If the Bank Tellers got some percentage of the money they made the bank by working on the counter that would be similar to the rationale proposed/suggested by the programmers. I suspect the the Bank Tellers often get paid more than they personally make for the bank. Also, if a teller decides to leave, the bank won't find it hard to find someone to replace them.
The programmers, on the other hand, are directly increasing the bank's profits by their actions, and if they all left it would be more difficult to replace them (though obviously not impossible!).
These programmers have done exactly the right thing by going it alone. Now they can make the big bucks off the back of their endeavours, but similarly risk making no bucks if it doesn't work.
This is just as it should be, and well done to them for making the first leap...
I'm not saying his heart isn't in the right place (no pun intended), but if he considers himself a dead man anyway, is it really altruistic? It's kind of like the old millionaire who leaves his estate to a charity. Was it really charitable of him if he didn't give it away while he was still living?
I'd say, by definition, this guy is offering to give away his heart and lungs while he's still living. That's the whole point of the story!
If we was just saying "Hey, you know, when I die and shit, why not harvest my organs and stuff, and, you know, like give it to other people" then it wouldn't really be much of a story!
As a motorcyclist, I'm sick of car drivers who think they've somehow been wronged by me filtering past them. I honestly believe car drivers should have to understand what motorcyclists are allowed to do legally, before they pass their tests.
I try very hard to keep an eye on where the motorcyclists are and try to move over to let them pass whenever I can.
My thoughts on the subject are that every motorcyclist is one less bozo in a car blocking up the roads, so I'm all for it!
If I get a wave for making (more) room, all the better though I suspect the act of moving over is not acknowledged so much because of the extra room but because it's a reasonable indicator that I know you're there!
That said, I'm not sure I'd feel safe about filtering if I was on a bike 'cos the No. of drivers who would appear to have no idea I'm behind 'em in a car is scary - if yer on a bike and pressing on you've got to assume the drivers don't know you're there and ride accordingly!
The secret, for all you car drivers out there, is to use your mirrors, and use them a lot. Also, being in a convertible helps because you often hear the bikes coming!
Sorry but I'm not buying your mellow dramatic bullshit.
OK, but what if I were to up the stakes and offer you some melodramatic bullshit eh? What then eh? Now that's gotcha thinkin' hasn't it. You know you want it... Ooooh baby... yer... Mmmmmmm. Tasty!
I like to know when I'm being recorded, thank you very much. The problem here is the ridiculous idea that a police officer in a public place has the same right to privacy as two people involved in a private telephone conversation.
On a side note I can't figure out who is the biggest asshole involved in this: the motorcyclist himself for doing 127mph on a public road while weaving between cars and doing wheelies, the cop for briefly pulling a gun and immediately putting it back into the holster, or the Maryland State Police for going after the guy. I vote for the Maryland State Police, with the motorcyclist himself in close second and the cop in third place.
The motorcyclist did touch 127 earlier (before the first, marked, cop car) but he hit 86 (or so) after passing the plain-clothes car, which is presumably why they decided to pull him. Watching the video I don't really see anything he did as particularly dangerous, though there was obviously some excessive speed and popping the (well controlled) wheelie was perhaps a bit foolish. The "weaving" thru the traffic is called filtering in the UK and is legal, so I really have no problem with that - indeed he seemed to be doing a pretty stand-up job of it!
Slashdot Mirror
Then once the clone is verified to be fully operational, the original HDD will be wiped
OK, so if they grew a new you and downloaded yer noggin' to a thumb-drive, then booted the new you with old you's mind are you honestly going to be happy to stop the old you? The problem here is that old you is still you and new you is actually another you!
Basically, copying you isn't the same as transferring you - at least not for the old you!
That said, having a thumb-drive backup you would be a great way to re-boot yourself in case of accidents.
Hmmm. Charles Stross writes stories about things like this - Accelerando?
But why do we have to introduce another annoyance, one that is even worse as it needs constant maintenance (unlike the leap-day system which hasn't needed adjustment since 1752), by trying to shoehorn the SI second into the day? As far as I can tell, this accomplishes nothing but making life harder for people.
OK, now hands up why the wonderful leap-day system hasn't needed adjustment since 1752? ... "mumble mumble leap seconds mumble mumble?"
Anyone?
Yes, you at the back
Speak up lad!
"Sorry Sir - is it because the sensible use of regular leap seconds means a leap day is only required once every for years and they are actually both part of the same time adjustment because a leap day is actually made up of many leap seconds?"
Yes indeed, well done. Yes the time adjustment required to keep our calendar in sync with the passage of the Earth around the Sun requires somewhere around a 1/4 day extra per year, give or take a second or two, and it was decided at some point that an extra day every 4 years would be a sensible way to make the majority of the correction leaving the odd seconds to be added as required to remove the need to add extra leap days far less often.
Every single one of the things you mentioned are already inaccurate by a far greater margin than the difference between atomic time and solar time anyway. We're talking about differences of a second every few years. My computer probably loses about a second per day without nist.gov to keep it honest.
The problem, as I understand it, is that if we ignore the problem that the current solution (Leap Seconds) fixes (ie time drift) then at some point in the future we will have to make a large adjustment to the calendar again.
It seems far more sensible to make a small adjustment reasonably regularly than a large adjustment every 100 years as, for the general population at least, the adjustment will pass without being noticed.
Looks like they could use a bit more fandominium!
Keep telling yourself that. You'll be sorry one day when you don't run, and a zombie eats your face.
I think they just eat your brains.
WTF? How is anyone "stealing" from rural areas? Are you one of those people who thinks any tax at all is "stealing"?
Taking money from someone who will never see benefit from it is essentially stealing.
And there, in a nutshell, is the problem.
So for taxation to be fair you would want an equal monetary benefit for the tax you pay, otherwise it's stealing! If you don't see the problem with that sentiment then there's no hope for civilisation and it's staggering that we survived this long!
Why so much hatred for the rural folks on Slashdot?
My guess is the City Dwellers noses were put out of joint by the Rural Folks suggesting that city life is subsidised by rural life. My guess is that it's closer to a more symbiotic relationship, although it ought to be pretty clear which lifestyle could exist on its own and which obviously couldn't!
Given that CD's need the RF to make the food it doesn't seem so bad for the higher population centre's obviously higher tax take (more people generate more tax revenue) to be spread to the lower population centres. I think calling that a subsidy is perhaps a bit wide of the mark though, as without those willing to live a rural life, and grow the food, the CD's would presumably starve.
But what if the farmers/farms/food wasn't subsidised (as suggested above by node3)?
Then the farmers would charge the actual cost for the products and the city dwellers would buy it at the real cost, but not be taxed so heavily for the privilege!
This would be not so great for the low wage earners, who presumably don't pay so much tax anyway!
Maybe the answer is that, even in the US, the whole country should look at itself as a community and understand that taxation isn't the root of all evil, but just how communities work. The problem is no longer "how much am I taxed" but "how is that money spent", and in some areas of the US a High Speed Rail link is a no-brainer - NY to Washington DC for example - expand that to the East Coast. Throw in a West Coast line too. NY to Chicago would probably work too. Joining large cities together where the journey times could compete with airlines (remember, check in times vs city centre to city centre, etc) and join the dots. There would then likely be some areas where it will be less economically viable, and yet joining the East and West coast, esp. using some of the viable sections that head inland anyway, would just make sense!
I'd say there seems to be a reticence in the US for rail, high speed or otherwise, and I'm not sure the arguments against are actually arguments against rail and not just "DON'T TAX ME".
On the other hand, long distance rail travel is always going to be more expensive for the traveller than flying because it takes longer, but it is a far more civilised mode of transport, if you have the time and the inclination!
FWIW, I like the idea of HSR ... Bring It On!
Increasing costs to live in rural areas will only slightly increase food prices to city dwellers. There are around 2 million farmers in the US, to 250M people, so the ratio of farmers to consumers is around 100:1.
If a farmer's expenses increase 100%, then the affect on food prices is just around 1%.
A 1% increase in raw food prices would probably increase the average city dweller's food prices 0.1% - 0.5%.
This sounds like a win-win scenario to me! Less direct taxation for _everyone_ Plus, if the cost of food rises (even a bit) it might encourage people to eat less of it thereby having a positive effect on the nation's health - obviously the extra cost will be greater for those who eat more and negligible for those who eat more sensibly.
In early elementary (1st or 2nd I think), my kid came home talking about "math sentences". I asked him WTF that meant.
Turns out, that was what they were calling equations. Because tiny kid brains can't hold two similar concepts like sentences in english class and equations in math class under such wildly disparate names. I told him to translate to the term equation in his head whenever his teacher used that idiocy, and never utter the phrase math sentence to me again.
I think they stopped around 4th grade. Gah!
Now here's a sentence we see reasonably often on Slashdot, but it's unusual to be typing it and actually meaning it ...
Won't somebody think of the children!
.. and if I didn't do the class again I would have been struggling threw out college.
Chuckles
What the hell is wrong with X = Y = Z?
Nothing. The three values X, Y, and Z can all represent the same value (eg 5 = 5 = 5).
The problem is that some of the students decided to expand the equations to something like "4+3+2=x+2=11" and here is where the problem starts, because even in New Math I'll wager 9 doesn't equal 11, thereby displaying an ignorance of the concepts behind the "equals" sign, albeit an ignorance exasperated by the miss-use of parenthesis to represent the term to be solved for.
Why? The world doesn't format problems neatly for you. That's the job of the person approaching it. Simply identifying the mapping to known math formalisms is 90% of the challenge, if not more! If you can't convert a "put more apples on the table and find how many are on it now" into an addition problem, the world won't hold your hand and do it for you.
OK, how about this one then ...
4#3#2@[]#2
Now I just wrote it and know which arbibrary symbols I replaced the more common ones with, but I still have trouble looking at it and working out what it means! The standardisation of mathematical symbols, and their common use, is what makes it even vaguely teachable. Using "()" as an indicator of a missing term in an equation is madness because everyone I've ever known would use them to indicate a change to the default order of calculation (BODMAS). If kids are being taught this way what the hell do the do if they see an equation with braces in it? Ignore the contents and just replace everything in it perhaps?
And how about Economics, Politics, Aeronautics, and Quantum Mechanics?
Let me recall the short colloquial forms of those subjects from my college days: Econ 101, PolySci 201, Aero 314, QM 411. Well, I don't see a single shortened plural here, so "Math 207" seems consistent to me.
Well, yes, but then I've never heard anyone refer to "Economics" as "Econ", and we most certainly don't refer to it as "Econs" over here in jolly old Blighty, don't you know. We also don't add arbitrary numbers to the ends of abbreviations, as that seems somewhat perverse when trying to shorten a word for convenience.
Math(s), on the other hand, has become a common abbreviation for Mathematics and, being a brit, it seems far more logical to use a "plural" sounding abbreviation for a "plural" sounding word, but, you know, vive la différence and all that. You say maths and I say math, let's call the whole thing off, what!
Potato, Potato. Tomato, Tomato. ... actually I'm not sure if it get's referred to at all in the US? Camel Toe perhaps?
Road, Pavement. Pavement, Sidewalk
Tramp, Bum. Bum, Fanny. Fanny,
Surely it is differences such as these that make travelling interesting?
Anyway, I do find it grates when I hear "math" but I am trying to rise above it because it really doesn't matter.
Well I didn't intend it as flamebait ... ... I guess not kowtowing to the "think of the children" zeitgeist is always going to rub someone's fur the wrong way ... and today it was apparently a moderator!
I thought it was a pretty good explanation of why many motorists don't rigidly adhere to the posted speed limits (ie because 90% of the time they are wrong so you get used to making your own mind up as to what is "safe"), but hey ho
The expensive bit - getting the mass into orbit has been done
I always wondered why the last stage(s) of the old rockets, and the big tanks on the shuttle, were dumped rather than carried into orbit for use as habitats, storage, spares, etc. They contained fuel tanks and rocket engines (for the old stages) and presumably a 'little' more fuel could have carried them all into orbit where they could have been attached to each other to make a huge 'station'. Boost them to the Moon, or Mars, for use a raw materials for when we get there maybe, or clean them and add them to the habitable space on the ISS? Hell, just add them to the ISS as a fuel depot and have subsequent trips carry a 'little extra' fuel that can be transferred to the depot for later use.
Presumably the extra cost just wasn't worth it!
... context is everything. Driving 120km/h in a residential zone (normal limit of 40km/h in Ontario) is ridiculous to the point of insanity. Driving 120km/h on a limited access 400-series highway is considered normal (the limit is 100km/h), and on some 400-series highways, is considered driving slower than normal. Road conditions also play a part in the decision over whether that speeding is unreasonable... using that same 400-series highway, some of them are arrow-straight with no on/off ramps for tens of kilometers in parts (think 401, 416, 417 and QEW). On a beautiful sunny, dry day with no traffic, driving faster is not really a dangerous thing... you can safely drive 160-180km/h as long as your car is in good repair and you're paying attention. Try doing that in a rainstorm or heavy traffic, and you're an accident waiting to happen.
And the speed limit on normal highways is 80km/h, not 100km/h. Some of them have limits of 90km/h, but that will be posted. The only highways with limits of 100km/h are limited access highways, which will always have separated lanes for each direction (freeways).
for example, I'm really not happy about disobeying the 'rules' as laid out in road markings (ie solid white line means no overtaking, etc) because more often than not they are correct (eg it is an indication of an imminent blind bend, or summit, or dips in the road that can hide a car, or junctions ahead, etc), but speed limits are so often plain wrong (and a lot of that is a limit that is too high for the conditions) that I tend to make my own mind up and what I feel is safe.
The problem is that these speed limits have to be set with the worst driver in the worst car in mind, not someone who is perhaps an above average driver (not saying that I am, of course!) in a well maintained car.
for example, I used to drive an MGF - light, two seat, mid engine, convertible. It could stop on a dime (or other small coin) or just as easily swerve around it, and my reactions are pretty swift and I tend to pay a LOT of attention when I'm driving, and yet I have to obey the same limits as the mothers in their behemoth MPVs who are trying to stop their kids fighting and not paying any attention at all!
Not sure what the answer is, but certainly the whole UK "Speed Kills" campaign really pisses me off! OK, at what speed will I die then eh? Obviously speed doesn't kill - that what the Victorians thought when trains were first invented! We're all slashdot folks here and we all know it's the sudden change of speed that's the killer.
For my part, I'd be mortified if I injured someone, and tend to drive accordingly, but all you "think of the children" people out there, how's about hanging on to (and training) your kids and stopping them running into the road in the first place? ... and remember that school gates are made more dangerous by the proliferation of the parents doing the school run and parking their ma-hoo-sive chelsea tractors any-dam-where they please to drop off little Tarquin and Jocasta, who then miss out on the learning experience of walking to school with mum/dad and being shown how to cross the road, etc.
It's hardly "human-hating" to point out that it would make a lot more sense to stop screwing up our own planet than it would to use this one up and throw it away.
It certainly makes sense to be as ecologically neutral on Earth as we can be, and perhaps even ecologically positive if the opportunity arises, but that's not the problem! The problem is that we are ALL here and if something hits us we are ALL dead. The ONLY solution to that problem is to expand to other planets, or generation ships of some kind, because large objects whizzing around the galaxy don't really care how nice we are to our planet.
Now I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow, but it will happen eventually, and there are some that argue that we are rapidly approaching the point where we will not be able to afford to get off this rock because every last cent will be spent keeping us all alive down here (see the reaction you get when you talk about population control!). At that point no Government can decide to stop feeding (AKA stop keeping alive) some group of people to siphon the money off to get into space because they won't be re-elected and we all know how much Governments like to be re-elected don't we!
I don't know that I agree. I think this is a very subjective issue. The reality is, the amount of revenue derived partially from these programmers has absolutely nothing to do with what their compensation is or should be. By their rationale, every teller at a bank should have salaries commensurate with that bank's revenue, since they're an element in processing deposits/checks/payments/etc. Hell, the data center I run makes millions every hour, but I don't expect that I should make 7 or 8 figures because of it.
If the Bank Tellers got some percentage of the money they made the bank by working on the counter that would be similar to the rationale proposed/suggested by the programmers. I suspect the the Bank Tellers often get paid more than they personally make for the bank. Also, if a teller decides to leave, the bank won't find it hard to find someone to replace them.
The programmers, on the other hand, are directly increasing the bank's profits by their actions, and if they all left it would be more difficult to replace them (though obviously not impossible!).
These programmers have done exactly the right thing by going it alone. Now they can make the big bucks off the back of their endeavours, but similarly risk making no bucks if it doesn't work. ...
This is just as it should be, and well done to them for making the first leap
... So now you want the people of Manchester to be cold as well as wet.
I can only apologise. I'd forgotten what a warm place Manchester usually is - indeed we used to call it Costa Del Mersey when I was a kid.
I'm not saying his heart isn't in the right place (no pun intended), but if he considers himself a dead man anyway, is it really altruistic? It's kind of like the old millionaire who leaves his estate to a charity. Was it really charitable of him if he didn't give it away while he was still living?
I'd say, by definition, this guy is offering to give away his heart and lungs while he's still living. That's the whole point of the story!
If we was just saying "Hey, you know, when I die and shit, why not harvest my organs and stuff, and, you know, like give it to other people" then it wouldn't really be much of a story!
Man carries donor card! Film at Eleven!
Where is it cheaper? Cheaper than nuclear in the north of England, or just in the southern United States?
Hydro dams or wave power, possibly cheaper than nuclear near Manchester. Solar... not so much.
Oh yes Manchester ... now if we could only harness the kinetic energy of the falling rain over Manchester we'd be able to power the world!
As a motorcyclist, I'm sick of car drivers who think they've somehow been wronged by me filtering past them. I honestly believe car drivers should have to understand what motorcyclists are allowed to do legally, before they pass their tests.
I try very hard to keep an eye on where the motorcyclists are and try to move over to let them pass whenever I can.
My thoughts on the subject are that every motorcyclist is one less bozo in a car blocking up the roads, so I'm all for it!
If I get a wave for making (more) room, all the better though I suspect the act of moving over is not acknowledged so much because of the extra room but because it's a reasonable indicator that I know you're there!
That said, I'm not sure I'd feel safe about filtering if I was on a bike 'cos the No. of drivers who would appear to have no idea I'm behind 'em in a car is scary - if yer on a bike and pressing on you've got to assume the drivers don't know you're there and ride accordingly!
The secret, for all you car drivers out there, is to use your mirrors, and use them a lot. Also, being in a convertible helps because you often hear the bikes coming!
Sorry but I'm not buying your mellow dramatic bullshit.
OK, but what if I were to up the stakes and offer you some melodramatic bullshit eh? What then eh? Now that's gotcha thinkin' hasn't it. You know you want it ... Ooooh baby ... yer ... Mmmmmmm. Tasty!
I like to know when I'm being recorded, thank you very much. The problem here is the ridiculous idea that a police officer in a public place has the same right to privacy as two people involved in a private telephone conversation. On a side note I can't figure out who is the biggest asshole involved in this: the motorcyclist himself for doing 127mph on a public road while weaving between cars and doing wheelies, the cop for briefly pulling a gun and immediately putting it back into the holster, or the Maryland State Police for going after the guy. I vote for the Maryland State Police, with the motorcyclist himself in close second and the cop in third place.
The motorcyclist did touch 127 earlier (before the first, marked, cop car) but he hit 86 (or so) after passing the plain-clothes car, which is presumably why they decided to pull him. Watching the video I don't really see anything he did as particularly dangerous, though there was obviously some excessive speed and popping the (well controlled) wheelie was perhaps a bit foolish. The "weaving" thru the traffic is called filtering in the UK and is legal, so I really have no problem with that - indeed he seemed to be doing a pretty stand-up job of it!
...Teachers should not pressure a kid at any time by saying the other one is wrong ...
This must be some new definition of "teacher" that I've otherwise been unaware of.