My dad and I can both attest to the fact that having a passenger (wife/mother) who "helps" by screeching "Look out!" or "Slow down!" or some other non-specific expletive doesn't really do much to aid the driving process. She demands your full attention when she talks, which she does indeed (the better question to ask of her is, "When don't you talk?"). Then, when the tables are turned and she's in the driver's seat, she races like the road is a salt flat, takes corners like a madwoman desperate for an adrenaline fix, and won't listen to any degree of calmer objective warnings.
My mother really doesn't support your theory. If she's anywhere even vaguely close to the statistical mean of passenger behavior, then I'd say your next trip will be back to the drawing board.
No one who wants to leave the socioethical confines of a small town should ever be allowed to leave it.
Isn't that how we got Bush II in the first place, because we allowed him to leave that "smothering" small town in Texas? He did nothing but raise hell after that... college, military, politics. We shoulda made him stay put and get a job in the feed store. Hopefully the constant gaze of the other townfolk woulda kept him in line. Obama's a different animal....
Lazy isn't yet covered under the ADA. Perhaps you'd like to try ADD/ADHD instead? Different cause, same unhappy outcome for your employer, and it's "legit".
"... will improve outreach efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving, talking on cell phones while driving, and other distracting behavior that can lead to deadly accidents."
You mean like having passengers in the vehicle who still possess tongues?
I'd love to see how they argue their way out of discouraging passengers when they're discouraging/prohibiting everything else.
Isn't the process of "learning to drive" supposed to specifically involve learning to be clear-headed and observant at all times? I pretty clearly recall that being part of the text of my instruction, though perhaps what is needed for some people is more simulated real-world catastrophes rather than mere words and admonitions? TELLING someone to think and behave a certain way tends to not work very well, unless they're exposed to vaccination-like scenarios where they can make mistakes and adapt (without the dying and maiming part).
I'm a "new" adopter who hasn't had a bad experience... yet. I've installed Linux and Ubuntu previously, but never for very long nor for persistent usage. My familiarity goes all the way back to about '92 or '93, though, when I had a couple diskette boxes stuffed with 70 diskettes containing some early distro ("1.2", it's labelled).
I installed it this time for a very specific reason: GPT support. I had finally gotten around to upgrading the drives in my RAID 5 array to 1 terabyte drives, and discovered that I had slammed into the MBR wall; my nVidia MediShield BIOS was reporting the capacity as about 750GB, which is just about 2TB shy of what it should have been. I then learned that no 32-bit version of Windows recognizes GPT structures, and I had NO intention of upgrading to yet another overpriced version of a product because the last version artificially handcuffed me from using my own damned hardware! I had already been enduring the 4GB RAM license limit in Windows XP; this was too much.
I also learned that Linux in general and Ubuntu did in fact recognize GPT disk structures, so I created new partitions and installed Ubuntu 9.10. I had already used the live CD and GPartEd to convert the array from MBR to GPT. Sure enough, not only did Ubuntu recognize my RAID 5 array, it recognized the FULL capacity of it, not the capacity reported by the MediaShield BIOS (which apparently is just a "display issue"). I now have a 3TB ext4 volume just waiting to be used. (Windows XP now recognizes it only in Disk Management, as a "GPT Protective Partition", as expected, though it still gets the capacity wrong.)
I'm now exploring the virtualization options, looking for one that will still let me run Windows XP as a guest and use Samba or some other technique to allow some Windows apps to have access to the 3 terabytes in the new array. (Hopefully one that also supports AMD-V and lets me boot the guest Windows OS directly from my already-installed instance.)
The migration will take some time and might never be entirely complete (I may have to dual-boot for Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, for instance), but it seems like this has been the proverbial Writing On The Wall and I must heed it. I hope I don't crash into these showstopping bugs that other people are reporting, because if it proved too frustrating that might drive me back into the waiting arms of the Wicked Witch.
Although I admit the difference at-a-glance is often very hard to discern, and often requires intelligence on the part of the viewer to recognize it... takes one to know one? Think about how many so-called IT experts you probably know who seem like true experts until you force them to step outside the box of everything they've memorized, whereupon they resort to either making shit up, buck-passing, or hand-wringing. Any monkey can memorize shit... it requires intelligence to be able to interpolate and extrapolate beyond that. Far more people have the memory without the requisite intelligence. (There's also people who have the requisite intelligence without the memory, but that's a disorder for another discussion.)
Make borderline irrelevant sarcastic jokes all you want, but it's also true that SOME law is not written to benefit the majority or the Common Good, but rather an influential minority. It's up to the majority to shrug off their apathetic silence and get such laws overturned. We read and hear about that process taking place all the time, both here and through other sources. Struggles over copyright, patents, DRM, DMCA, and "pirating" are just ONE expression of that; there are plenty of unethical laws that are waiting to be overturned. How about laws banning non-heterosexual marriage? Has anyone ever produced rational arguments how gay marriage harms the majority and thus demands a law prohibiting it? Of course not, yet in spite of that lack of evidence we have those laws anyway. It's up to a rational(?) majority to observe that such laws are unethical/unfair/unConstitutional and then get them repealed.
It's the eternal capitalist struggle: who can disadvantage whom more, or first. In this specific instance, it's a struggle between legalized methods of disadvantaging people versus illegal methods. Guess who wrote the laws that determine what's illegal, though?
Already asked and answered above. Turbines and farmland do NOT go well together, unless you're a fan of hand pollination of every damned plant (well, tomatoes excepted).
Actually plants WOULD care: it would completely RUIN the pollination process. Having simply said that, I expect you can reason the rest out? This is yet another example of someone not thinking a process completely through, rather only as far as required to preserve their desired perception/worldview. Don't do that, it doesn't really help the problem-solving much.
So these days we have a choice for every 36,000 acres: either build 150,000 structures to house 300,000+ mouths to feed, or build 240 turbines to power 150,000 structures housing 300,000+ hungry mouths somewhere else? Can we have an option (c) none of the above? I'd kinda like to just leave those 36,000 acres the hell alone.
It certainly seemed to pass the second cat's Turing test, but he was too confused by its sounds and behavior... he couldn't decide if it was threat or food (because for cats really everything animate falls into one or the other CATegory).
A large part of profiteering in (modern?) capitalism involves "capitalizing" upon the weaknesses of others, in this case addictive behaviors and poor impulse control (ADD?). This news is just further proof that it's true: what they're talking about is withholding gratification and making it artificially more expensive in order to increase profit (profit = degree to which others are disadvantaged). It's certainly legal to do this, but is it ethical?
We certainly don't seem to think it's ethical when it's drug pushers who are doing it, but when movie producers do this or companies offer "free" limited-time incentives to get people hooked and dependent before they lower the boom, they get a free ethical pass. Why the hypocrisy? If the behavior - the means - is unethical, does it matter what the goal - the end - is?
It seems like Machiavelli needs to pull a Lazarus and write another book. Oh, wait... maybe he should do a remake as a movie?
Slashdot Mirror
My dad and I can both attest to the fact that having a passenger (wife/mother) who "helps" by screeching "Look out!" or "Slow down!" or some other non-specific expletive doesn't really do much to aid the driving process. She demands your full attention when she talks, which she does indeed (the better question to ask of her is, "When don't you talk?"). Then, when the tables are turned and she's in the driver's seat, she races like the road is a salt flat, takes corners like a madwoman desperate for an adrenaline fix, and won't listen to any degree of calmer objective warnings.
My mother really doesn't support your theory. If she's anywhere even vaguely close to the statistical mean of passenger behavior, then I'd say your next trip will be back to the drawing board.
No one who wants to leave the socioethical confines of a small town should ever be allowed to leave it.
Isn't that how we got Bush II in the first place, because we allowed him to leave that "smothering" small town in Texas? He did nothing but raise hell after that... college, military, politics. We shoulda made him stay put and get a job in the feed store. Hopefully the constant gaze of the other townfolk woulda kept him in line. Obama's a different animal....
Lazy isn't yet covered under the ADA. Perhaps you'd like to try ADD/ADHD instead? Different cause, same unhappy outcome for your employer, and it's "legit".
Penny-wise and pound-foolish?
You mean like having passengers in the vehicle who still possess tongues?
I'd love to see how they argue their way out of discouraging passengers when they're discouraging/prohibiting everything else.
This belongs in Idle. Seriously. Not at all not-seriously.
Isn't the process of "learning to drive" supposed to specifically involve learning to be clear-headed and observant at all times? I pretty clearly recall that being part of the text of my instruction, though perhaps what is needed for some people is more simulated real-world catastrophes rather than mere words and admonitions? TELLING someone to think and behave a certain way tends to not work very well, unless they're exposed to vaccination-like scenarios where they can make mistakes and adapt (without the dying and maiming part).
I'm left-handed, you insensitive clod!
I'm calling my lawyer, this is cyberbullying!
I'm a "new" adopter who hasn't had a bad experience... yet. I've installed Linux and Ubuntu previously, but never for very long nor for persistent usage. My familiarity goes all the way back to about '92 or '93, though, when I had a couple diskette boxes stuffed with 70 diskettes containing some early distro ("1.2", it's labelled).
I installed it this time for a very specific reason: GPT support. I had finally gotten around to upgrading the drives in my RAID 5 array to 1 terabyte drives, and discovered that I had slammed into the MBR wall; my nVidia MediShield BIOS was reporting the capacity as about 750GB, which is just about 2TB shy of what it should have been. I then learned that no 32-bit version of Windows recognizes GPT structures, and I had NO intention of upgrading to yet another overpriced version of a product because the last version artificially handcuffed me from using my own damned hardware! I had already been enduring the 4GB RAM license limit in Windows XP; this was too much.
I also learned that Linux in general and Ubuntu did in fact recognize GPT disk structures, so I created new partitions and installed Ubuntu 9.10. I had already used the live CD and GPartEd to convert the array from MBR to GPT. Sure enough, not only did Ubuntu recognize my RAID 5 array, it recognized the FULL capacity of it, not the capacity reported by the MediaShield BIOS (which apparently is just a "display issue"). I now have a 3TB ext4 volume just waiting to be used. (Windows XP now recognizes it only in Disk Management, as a "GPT Protective Partition", as expected, though it still gets the capacity wrong.)
I'm now exploring the virtualization options, looking for one that will still let me run Windows XP as a guest and use Samba or some other technique to allow some Windows apps to have access to the 3 terabytes in the new array. (Hopefully one that also supports AMD-V and lets me boot the guest Windows OS directly from my already-installed instance.)
The migration will take some time and might never be entirely complete (I may have to dual-boot for Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, for instance), but it seems like this has been the proverbial Writing On The Wall and I must heed it. I hope I don't crash into these showstopping bugs that other people are reporting, because if it proved too frustrating that might drive me back into the waiting arms of the Wicked Witch.
Although I admit the difference at-a-glance is often very hard to discern, and often requires intelligence on the part of the viewer to recognize it... takes one to know one? Think about how many so-called IT experts you probably know who seem like true experts until you force them to step outside the box of everything they've memorized, whereupon they resort to either making shit up, buck-passing, or hand-wringing. Any monkey can memorize shit... it requires intelligence to be able to interpolate and extrapolate beyond that. Far more people have the memory without the requisite intelligence. (There's also people who have the requisite intelligence without the memory, but that's a disorder for another discussion.)
Make borderline irrelevant sarcastic jokes all you want, but it's also true that SOME law is not written to benefit the majority or the Common Good, but rather an influential minority. It's up to the majority to shrug off their apathetic silence and get such laws overturned. We read and hear about that process taking place all the time, both here and through other sources. Struggles over copyright, patents, DRM, DMCA, and "pirating" are just ONE expression of that; there are plenty of unethical laws that are waiting to be overturned. How about laws banning non-heterosexual marriage? Has anyone ever produced rational arguments how gay marriage harms the majority and thus demands a law prohibiting it? Of course not, yet in spite of that lack of evidence we have those laws anyway. It's up to a rational(?) majority to observe that such laws are unethical/unfair/unConstitutional and then get them repealed.
It's the eternal capitalist struggle: who can disadvantage whom more, or first. In this specific instance, it's a struggle between legalized methods of disadvantaging people versus illegal methods. Guess who wrote the laws that determine what's illegal, though?
Are the Wookee [sic] and dryer lint connected in some way? That might not be a cause-effect relationship I want to hear....
It seems that somebody's children feel their private personalized yachts aren't big enough.
Isn't this a large-scale demonstration of the same principle used in home reverse-osmosis systems? It sure sounds familiar.
No, there's really not!
Hey, it showed no other posts as I typed, so what wuz I supposed to think? Stupid Slashdot UI!
I don't wanna discuss it, since I haven't read it.
First freakin' post, BTW... my first ever on /.
FLYING things are the primary pollinators of most plants, and virtually all crop plants. Bats in particular are especially fond of wind turbines.
Already asked and answered above. Turbines and farmland do NOT go well together, unless you're a fan of hand pollination of every damned plant (well, tomatoes excepted).
Actually plants WOULD care: it would completely RUIN the pollination process. Having simply said that, I expect you can reason the rest out? This is yet another example of someone not thinking a process completely through, rather only as far as required to preserve their desired perception/worldview. Don't do that, it doesn't really help the problem-solving much.
So these days we have a choice for every 36,000 acres: either build 150,000 structures to house 300,000+ mouths to feed, or build 240 turbines to power 150,000 structures housing 300,000+ hungry mouths somewhere else? Can we have an option (c) none of the above? I'd kinda like to just leave those 36,000 acres the hell alone.
It certainly seemed to pass the second cat's Turing test, but he was too confused by its sounds and behavior... he couldn't decide if it was threat or food (because for cats really everything animate falls into one or the other CATegory).
I wonder, how does Pleo do around cats? Does he become food or a playmate?
A large part of profiteering in (modern?) capitalism involves "capitalizing" upon the weaknesses of others, in this case addictive behaviors and poor impulse control (ADD?). This news is just further proof that it's true: what they're talking about is withholding gratification and making it artificially more expensive in order to increase profit (profit = degree to which others are disadvantaged). It's certainly legal to do this, but is it ethical?
We certainly don't seem to think it's ethical when it's drug pushers who are doing it, but when movie producers do this or companies offer "free" limited-time incentives to get people hooked and dependent before they lower the boom, they get a free ethical pass. Why the hypocrisy? If the behavior - the means - is unethical, does it matter what the goal - the end - is?
It seems like Machiavelli needs to pull a Lazarus and write another book. Oh, wait... maybe he should do a remake as a movie?