I think we were disagreeing on what "passing on the right" means - I mean it as in "passing to the right of the other car" - I think you mean "passing with them on your right" in which case we're basically agreeing.
Yes, but the de facto speed limit, which is really the important one (both to cops and drivers, in terms of safety) is the one that matters. So if everyone in the right-hand lane is going the actual speed limit, then any person going the speed limit should also be there (barring any trafficky weirdness.)
I think that anyone who's at the head of a long line of cars in the left-hand lane should generally get over, unless they're also going substantially faster than anyone to their right, for instance.
I wish I shared your confidence in other drivers... and it may be just since I drive in Massachusetts, with a particularly high concentration of idiots, but no, confirmation bias isn't really the issue. It's just that a lot of people are really bad/uneducated/inattentive drivers.
Not hypocritical - I'm admitting it's rude. Besides, hopefully after enough people insist that they get out of the left lane (it's passing on the right that's the problem, btw) they'll actually learn to drive some day. I understand, it's a remote hope... but a man can dream, after all...
Never said I wasn't. I just said I'm only half of the problem - even less than that, because, for instance, if the car in front of me has a car in front of them, I never tailgate (and I don't tailgate anywhere nearly as closely as a lot of people do.)
If people wanted to address bad driving, they'd address lane violations as well as tailgating. Hence the title of my first post.
The point is twofold. First, tailgaters (as I am some times) are bad. Second, that fewer people would tailgate if people traveled in the lane appropriate to their speed.
You're making the exact same argument against me that I just used: You're saying "if you weren't such a dick, I wouldn't be one either." True, but at least I admit that both drivers are being dicks in this case.
Just because I *can* pass someone on the right doesn't mean I should *have* to. I've never claimed to be a great guy for tailgating people. I'm just pointing out that people exacerbate the problem when they travel in the wrong lane for their speed (and then often act as if they're doing nothing wrong just because the other person is tailgating them, which is hypocritical.)
A split-second flash of the lights is hardly blinding. I never said anything about leaving the brights on, and that's not something I do, or recommend.
Besides, not only is the de facto speed limit the relevant one, but furthermore, people who are driving more slowly in the left lane than cars passing them in the right lane are the ones who are the issue - and I'll promise you that those drivers are doing the wrong thing, according to a very similar question from the driver's handbook.
I don't tailgate people just for kicks. I do tailgate them when they're going the wrong speed in the wrong lane, and refuse to get over... especially the ones that get pissy when you flash them.
In Germany, I believe, they ticket lane violations as well as tailgating. Why not track the entire problem, not just half of it?
Erm, not really. People who aren't American may use a different term for it themselves, but they're not so oblivious as not to know what that phrase means, in my experience. That's like saying Americans won't understand what a "loo" is because they're not British.
Say "cell phone" to someone, and they'll have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about. The current name is sufficient - no need to change it. Language is intended to convey information, not to be perfectly consistent.
Overthinking FTL.
Re:Phishers a parallel with P2P? Give me a break.
on
The Long Arm of Microsoft
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I apologize for not blindly accepting this story as complete 100% truth. Forgive my skepticism.
Maybe next time you want someone to take you seriously, you shouldn't compare downloading music to phishing, because that's the sort of thing that makes people think you're either too stupid to realize the difference, or simply resorting to grandstanding in order to try to make people think you're far more clever than you actually are.
That's like comparing a rapist with someone taking a second glance at someone they find attractive.
Not quite. It's more like comparing a rapist with a kid who steals a Snickers bar from a store. They're both illegal, but their morality is not comparable.
Nobody was ever talking about whether or not he could be understood. We were talking about how awful his English was, which was ironic because he was criticizing another person's English.
They are pretty obvious, as is the fallacy underlying your most recent statement. "Because I didn't notice X, it must not be important." Good point by you.
Yes, correlation can be causation. Good point-that-all-sorts-of-people-have-already-made. However, their claims are kinda stupid.
Basically, they pick out TV, falsely correlate its watching with bad weather (then admit that the correlation is false but forge ahead), note that TV watching went up in the 80s (so did, for instance, drug abuse and gang crime and pollution and hours worked by parents and use of birth control and other prescribed drugs and etc. etc. etc.), then point out that the Amish (who tend to intermarry and thus have a smaller range of genetic diversity than, say, people in California) don't have many autistic children, without mentioning all of the obvious caveats there, ignore the other recent studies showing a genetic difference, point out that autistic kids act differently in front of TV (O RLY? Obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about autism) and thoroughly ignore the correlation with intelligent/educated parents that is one of the most highly correlated predictors of autism - they make not even the slightest effort to control for that.
We do discover more cases of autism that were not previously recognized - this is true. It's not that it was overlooked, it's just that a lot of doctors didn't know enough to call it autism - even in the 80s, knowledge of autism was far from sufficiently widespread. People now know far more what to look for than they used to - many of them just used to be called retarded or addled and it was left at that.
People aren't hostile to the idea that TV contributes to it, they're hostile to a clumsily done study with gaping holes that even a layperson can see without effort. Is it not probable that "TV watching might cause autism" is a sexier hypothesis than "uh, I guess it's just that they don't have many mirror neurons"? BTW, the mirror neurons - most of them develop in utero, and autistic people are just missing them in large swaths of the brain. It's not quite as you're putting it - the damage is done long before they're plopped in front of a TV.
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell are we supposed to get modded funny when the friggin jokes write themselves??
More than 2-3 miles an hour, I suppose.
I think we were disagreeing on what "passing on the right" means - I mean it as in "passing to the right of the other car" - I think you mean "passing with them on your right" in which case we're basically agreeing.
I think that anyone who's at the head of a long line of cars in the left-hand lane should generally get over, unless they're also going substantially faster than anyone to their right, for instance.
I wish I shared your confidence in other drivers... and it may be just since I drive in Massachusetts, with a particularly high concentration of idiots, but no, confirmation bias isn't really the issue. It's just that a lot of people are really bad/uneducated/inattentive drivers.
Not hypocritical - I'm admitting it's rude. Besides, hopefully after enough people insist that they get out of the left lane (it's passing on the right that's the problem, btw) they'll actually learn to drive some day. I understand, it's a remote hope... but a man can dream, after all...
Never said I wasn't. I just said I'm only half of the problem - even less than that, because, for instance, if the car in front of me has a car in front of them, I never tailgate (and I don't tailgate anywhere nearly as closely as a lot of people do.)
If people wanted to address bad driving, they'd address lane violations as well as tailgating. Hence the title of my first post.
You're making the exact same argument against me that I just used: You're saying "if you weren't such a dick, I wouldn't be one either." True, but at least I admit that both drivers are being dicks in this case.
Just because I *can* pass someone on the right doesn't mean I should *have* to. I've never claimed to be a great guy for tailgating people. I'm just pointing out that people exacerbate the problem when they travel in the wrong lane for their speed (and then often act as if they're doing nothing wrong just because the other person is tailgating them, which is hypocritical.)
Besides, not only is the de facto speed limit the relevant one, but furthermore, people who are driving more slowly in the left lane than cars passing them in the right lane are the ones who are the issue - and I'll promise you that those drivers are doing the wrong thing, according to a very similar question from the driver's handbook.
Driving the speed limit and traveling in the correct lane are rarely correlated.
In Germany, I believe, they ticket lane violations as well as tailgating. Why not track the entire problem, not just half of it?
Deducing literal meanings from colloquial phrases is not something that I see as all that commonly used.
Erm, not really. People who aren't American may use a different term for it themselves, but they're not so oblivious as not to know what that phrase means, in my experience. That's like saying Americans won't understand what a "loo" is because they're not British.
Overthinking FTL.
Maybe next time you want someone to take you seriously, you shouldn't compare downloading music to phishing, because that's the sort of thing that makes people think you're either too stupid to realize the difference, or simply resorting to grandstanding in order to try to make people think you're far more clever than you actually are.
Just a thought.
Not quite. It's more like comparing a rapist with a kid who steals a Snickers bar from a store. They're both illegal, but their morality is not comparable.
Hooray for the ACLU, who prefer more crime over less privacy!
Nobody was ever talking about whether or not he could be understood. We were talking about how awful his English was, which was ironic because he was criticizing another person's English.
They are pretty obvious, as is the fallacy underlying your most recent statement. "Because I didn't notice X, it must not be important." Good point by you.
Actually, I think you'd need change a "then" to a "than" and add another "of" near the end of the sentence. It's pretty bad.
the rentacoder team took to do class in English grading according their total class spent time!!!!11!
"How can you expect to win an arbitration if the arbitrator is not capable to understand more then 2-3 sentences plain English?"
Heh heh heh.
/ducktoavoidthethrowntomatoes
I feel better already.
Or if it's really short, they just call it "the paddle" and twist it a lot so that they can hit the ball as often as possible.
Basically, they pick out TV, falsely correlate its watching with bad weather (then admit that the correlation is false but forge ahead), note that TV watching went up in the 80s (so did, for instance, drug abuse and gang crime and pollution and hours worked by parents and use of birth control and other prescribed drugs and etc. etc. etc.), then point out that the Amish (who tend to intermarry and thus have a smaller range of genetic diversity than, say, people in California) don't have many autistic children, without mentioning all of the obvious caveats there, ignore the other recent studies showing a genetic difference, point out that autistic kids act differently in front of TV (O RLY? Obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about autism) and thoroughly ignore the correlation with intelligent/educated parents that is one of the most highly correlated predictors of autism - they make not even the slightest effort to control for that.
We do discover more cases of autism that were not previously recognized - this is true. It's not that it was overlooked, it's just that a lot of doctors didn't know enough to call it autism - even in the 80s, knowledge of autism was far from sufficiently widespread. People now know far more what to look for than they used to - many of them just used to be called retarded or addled and it was left at that.
People aren't hostile to the idea that TV contributes to it, they're hostile to a clumsily done study with gaping holes that even a layperson can see without effort. Is it not probable that "TV watching might cause autism" is a sexier hypothesis than "uh, I guess it's just that they don't have many mirror neurons"? BTW, the mirror neurons - most of them develop in utero, and autistic people are just missing them in large swaths of the brain. It's not quite as you're putting it - the damage is done long before they're plopped in front of a TV.