a. Apple is secretive by nature Apple tends to be secretive about a lot of its stuff, but in the ramp-up to a new release of OS X they always get into bragging a LOT. Developer feature previews and what not are plastered all over Apple's website. I have NEVER seen an example of Apple waiting until launch date to unveil a "key technology" in their OS.
b. Leopard is still very early in development
Huh? Apple has already shipped more than one 10.5 developer preview so far. I believe they have a lot of folks in Cupertino already shifted over to it (as a beta test), and it's slated to come out sometime this spring. They first announced it to people over a year ago, so they've probably been working on it for at least two years. That is not early development.
What I find most striking about these is that they're all total nitpicks. Even they seem to recognize it.
That, and they seem to have forgotten some far worse problems with OS X. For example, opening a save or open panel in an app requires waiting for external hard drives to spin up. It seems to poll every mounted volume on the computer ahead of time, whether or not I'm actually going to tunnel into that volume when I'm working with the save panel. On days when the network at work is being slow, this is particularly annoying - it's not uncommon for me to end up waiting well over 30 seconds for a save panel to appear.
And if you want to see a *real* example of inconsistent user interface on OS X, click the white pill on a Finder window and use it for a while. Notice how the Finder suddenly doesn't behave anything like the way it used to when you have the menu bar hidden?
I should clarify. The book was, more or less, trying to argue that the whole globalization package - not gust the general idea of the world opening up, but all of the details of how it is happening right now - is optimal.
While pretty much everyone agrees that the general idea of globalization is good, there's still some room for debate over whether the particulars of how its happening are actually benefitting impoverished regions or if it's just forcing them into a "race to the bottom" (and possibly dragging developed and developing nations along for the ride, too). The situation with the garment industry in Cambodia is a current popular conversation topic along this line.
I guess a (stretched) analogy would be that while it's good to let some fresh air into your house, knocking out the windows with bricks isn't necessarily the best way to do it.
Even then, forking isn't necessary to provide support. All that's needed is for a company to come in and offer third-party MySQL support for other distros.
However, I don't see that happening; most likely dropping support for everything but RH and SuSE has something to do with the fact that those two distros dominate the enterprise marketshare so much that there just isn't any money to be made in providing support for MySQL on Debian.
It was a book on globalization that came out several years back. The book-a-minute version I'd give for it is, "You can't stop globalization, but that's OK, because might makes right." The author tries to argue that the modern incarnation of free-market capitalism is a Good Thing, basically a remix of the old "rising tide that lifts all boats" combined with the pollyannaish implication that it must be good simply because it's happening.
There were a few good points in there, but all in all I think that deep down inside The Lexus and the Olive Tree there was a clear and concise essay screaming to get out and being smothered by 200 pages of ad-hoc musings that were thrown in as filler.
Personally, I'm cautiously skeptical. The thing that made Fallout great is something that doesn't translate to an MMO - namely, the tactical combat. The story was entertaining, but I think the battle system is what really floated it. So Interplay is going to have to take the WoW tack and create a completely different game that is only tangentially related to the rest of the franchise. While that could certainly be a good game, it doesn't have any better chance of being a good game than a completely new MMO that doesn't bear the Fallout brand.
Everything you've said is true, up to the last sentence. However, the implication of your argument is that hunting is OK because it isn't nearly as horrible as modern animal agriculture. I'd posit that the existence of factory farming doesn't justify hunting any more than the existence of war justifies murder, or the existence of bank robbery justifies pickpocketing.
As for the for food argument, I would say that while it applies, it doesn't follow. I brought it up in that it was a case where the food argument is rendred especially vacuous and really lays clear what I suspect to be the base motive for most hunters. I would maintain that the food argument is void in any context, though. There is plenty of history to show that humans do just fine on vegetarian diets that minimize the killing of other sentient beings, meaning that there are only two really solid reasons why one might choose to eat meat. The first is if adequate plant-based nutrition (and alternatives for other materials such as leather) is not readily available - a justification that is simply not available to the vast majority of people living in the United States. The second is that a person might eat meat because they like the flavor - which is just a euphemistic way of saying that meat consumption is killing for nothing more than pleasure.
What's really funny to me is that people would go through such great lengths to allow someone to do something that seems strikingly dangerous simply because they feel it's their right to be able to kill for no reason other than the crass pleasure of it. It's not even like the "for food" argument really applies in this situation, since someone else needs to be around and it's probably much easier to acquire the food without all the extra effort that would go into two people coordinating a gun. There's really no concievable reason I can find for why this would be valuable unless we sit down and agree that "for fun" is really a valuable and socially edifying reason why someone would want to kill a creature with feelings. And that really is funny.
I work for a company that has a lot of employees out on the road, mostly doing a lot of driving on the back roads in rural parts of the country. Management switched us from Verizon to Sprint a couple years ago, and it's been terrible for us. I frequently use my personal phone (Cingular) to call back to the office because the Sprint phone just can't hack it. The Sprint phones are set up with the free roaming plan, but it seems like they are also set to use a Sprint tower if one can be found, no matter how weak the signal is. The absolute worst place seems to be maybe 20 or 30 miles away from the nearest reasonably-sized town or interstate highway. There I'd frequently see virtually no reception on the Sprint phone and full signal on my Cingular phone. But if I get way the heck out in the sticks, the Sprint phone is usually just fine.
You can't very well drag to the corner, then click and expect the object to stay "dragged".
You can't, but you can use splat-tab and all the Exposé hotkeys while dragging.
From a UI perspective, it'd be nice if Apple added Exposé silkstreens to the F9-F12 keys the way they have done for the volume and brightness controls. Though I suppose that wouldn't work so well if a user wants to reassign those keys. Of course, I'm not sure reassigning the Exposé hotkeys is any more useful than reassigning the volume control hotkeys would be.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I thought you meant menu changing within an application, not among them.
I've encountered the same thing. I'd posit that it can be annoying to people who aren't used to it, but it's not necessarily a huge UI failing for OS X, and many people find it useful. Personally, I like that Mac OS makes a distinction between a window and an application; it allows me to declutter my workspace a bit by closing some windows without losing the ability to use their apps, and it allows me to close an app's last window without having to, say, wait for Word to take five eons to relaunch when I decide to open another document. It's not really an instance of Mac OS misbehaving so much as Mac OS not behaving the same way that Windows does - and I don't like the idea that every UI on the planet has to behave like Windows.
I could see arguing that, if you close the last window of an app, OS X should automatically switch to the next application in the queue. I'd want to see it in practise, though, because I'm not sure whether it would really be more or less confusing to users.
The single main menu at the top is a thing that you love or hate, but it can feel very strange to change the focus of the application to just access a menu.
I haven't actually had this problem. On virtually every Mac app I've used, the menubar is global for the whole application, so the only thing you're changing when you switch windows is the document you'll be modifying from that window. Big whoop, I can't think of a single case where the document I want to be working with has not been the document I'm currently working with.
I'm sure there are some degenerate UI designers who might switch the menu around when you focus/unfocus a particular panel or toolbox, but I've never personally seen this and I'd suggest that blaming the operating system for crappy UI design is not particularly useful.
Indeed, Aqua has been tweaked at least a little bit in every release of OS X since 10.1. As you mentioned, Quartz has gone through some major overhauls. Apple tweaking Aqua yet again is not news. It doesn't indicate a response to Aero, it just indicates that Apple is doing what Apple always does.
Fitts Law in corners for example works well when you have a mouse you can fling into the corner. But the OLPC has a trackpad, and we all know they're not so good for flinging the cursor into the corner. Something localised would be far better, for example a double-tap + pop-up directional menu for actions. Also Mac OS X lets you assign the corners to actions, contrary to his post. Many people disable these because they're annoying!
(sneaking off topic. mod me down!)
And because they violate everything a reasonable UI person holds dear. I'll grant that OS X didn't originally make great use of the corners. One is for the Apple menu, which is rarely needed, and the other is for the clock's menu, which is almost never needed. However, keeping those in the corners and then adding an option to have the corner respond to other actions is a bit annoying - now there's no easy way to know exactly what the corner will do until you try it. That, or discover it automagically because none of the Exposé actions require a click.
Which gets to the next problem. These corner actions are generally things that radically rearrange the screen, start a screen saver, etc. Without a click. This is extremely undesirable when you consider that Fitts Law cuts both ways - the corners are such easy targets that most users will frequently hit them even when they don't intend to. For example, it's common for me to fling the cursor off toward a corner when I want to get it out of my way so I can read a document more easily or whatever. With hot corners enabled, I'll often end up hitting one of those corners, which ironically massively re-arranges the screen, usually in a way that makes it completely impossible for me to continue my reading. Just about the exact opposite of what I was intending to do. Similar problems for when I'm trying to use a UI element that's close to a corner (window resizing controls, Apple menu, etc.)
The only hot corner I like and use is the one which keeps the screen saver from activating. It's also the only one that doesn't have a nasty habit of mucking with the screen when I don't want it to.
I'm not going to straight up say RTFA, but that sentence was just a paraphrase of Nintendo's spin-laden comments, not Zonk's own spinning. Give credit where credit is due.
Perhaps you didn't study those things in 9th grade because you were supposed to have spent your 6th, 7th, and 8th grade science classes learning the scientific method.
You'd think, and I'd say that reasoning skills should be actively engendered starting at age 1, followed by critical reasoning skills soon after. But that's not the case. Every time the scientific method has ever been presented to me, it was presented very quickly, again as another thing to just accept on faith and regurgitate. No time spent learning what it means, no time spent learning why it works, no time spent learning the reason why it's used.
If people were really taught the scientific method, do you think that the "evolution is just a theory" argument would be as well-accepted under the general US population as it is? Anyone who really understands the scientific method would recognize quickly just how empty that argument is, but I would guess that only a small minority of Americans can recognize and explain the problem with it.
If the person feels they really have learned it, it's considered a false memory because, well, because it's a memory and because it's false.
This isn't really big cause for concern or big brother fears or anything, though. False memories are completely mundane; everybody has them. They're one of the big reasons why eyewitness testimony is becoming less and less trusted in courts - it turns out that one of the easiest ways to induce false memories is to grill somebody about a situation over and over (like, say, during a deposition). If there's anything that the person isn't 100% sure of, their brain will start making stuff up to fill in the gaps, and as they repeat it they will become more sure of it, until they get to the point that they're on the witness stand saying they're absolutely certain of stuff that they really just made up - without realizing it.
It doesn't take a damned expert to figure out what's wrong, ask any geek that's in high school or recently graduated. Our problem is cultural, there's such an anti-intellectual problem in schools and the rest of society, actively encourage exploration (you know, the heart of science) throughout the development of today's youth, and within one generation we'll be sorted.
The point at which I really realized that school's only purpose in everybody's life, not just mine, is to get in the way of education was my freshman year of high school. We spent a month in my biology class rote memorizing the characteristics all the phyla and classes in the kingdom animalia, all the steps of the Krebs cycle, crap like that. Meanwhile, we barely spent a damn minute learning anything useful, and spent zero time whatsoever learning how scientists figured things out or following the reasoning behind any of these discoveries. It went on like that for another four years - a total of five science classes, and never once did anybody teach me any actual science. Just random facts pulled out of a deck of Trivial Pursuit cards.
It's no wonder science is having such a hard time competing with claptrap like creationism. With the way that it's presented to people in our educational system ("Here, take it on faith that these random facts are true."), it's epistemologically no different to most people from any creation myth.
Good god, where does your money go? I'm only in the top 7.16%, and I manage to get my bills paid. Yeah, I live in an apartment and haven't looked into buying a house, but I own three computers, a relatively new car that's paid off, a decent component stereo system, etc. I'm not exactly struggling to keep my head above water. And the town I live in isn't in the San Francisco bay area or anything, but it has a reputation for having a high cost of living.
I have to wonder how much EA's reputation for overworking their employees has to do with this. I'm not Brooks or anything, but I get the sense that the productivity of a developer increases more quickly than the pay that said developer will expect. With a bad reputation like that, they probably have a harder time securing as many really skilled employees, since good workers can more easily get a better job somewhere else. In short, they end up paying more money for less work by using more freshouts and fewer gurus.
What really astounds me is when I'm on a more-or-less empty divided highway, and someone will zoom up on my tail, hit the brakes to slow down to my speed, then whip the car into the left lane and accelerate back to their previous speed.
What's with that? Is it just that these people completely fail to understand that one of the main points of passing is to avoid slowing down?
Slashdot Mirror
a. Apple is secretive by nature
Apple tends to be secretive about a lot of its stuff, but in the ramp-up to a new release of OS X they always get into bragging a LOT. Developer feature previews and what not are plastered all over Apple's website. I have NEVER seen an example of Apple waiting until launch date to unveil a "key technology" in their OS.
b. Leopard is still very early in development
Huh? Apple has already shipped more than one 10.5 developer preview so far. I believe they have a lot of folks in Cupertino already shifted over to it (as a beta test), and it's slated to come out sometime this spring. They first announced it to people over a year ago, so they've probably been working on it for at least two years. That is not early development.
2 mouse buttons on the notebooks, people! Physical buttons! Three would be even better!
I get the impression that the folks in Cupertino have never tried to use an X11 app with a one-button mouse. God damn that's a painful experience.
What I find most striking about these is that they're all total nitpicks. Even they seem to recognize it.
That, and they seem to have forgotten some far worse problems with OS X. For example, opening a save or open panel in an app requires waiting for external hard drives to spin up. It seems to poll every mounted volume on the computer ahead of time, whether or not I'm actually going to tunnel into that volume when I'm working with the save panel. On days when the network at work is being slow, this is particularly annoying - it's not uncommon for me to end up waiting well over 30 seconds for a save panel to appear.
And if you want to see a *real* example of inconsistent user interface on OS X, click the white pill on a Finder window and use it for a while. Notice how the Finder suddenly doesn't behave anything like the way it used to when you have the menu bar hidden?
I should clarify. The book was, more or less, trying to argue that the whole globalization package - not gust the general idea of the world opening up, but all of the details of how it is happening right now - is optimal.
While pretty much everyone agrees that the general idea of globalization is good, there's still some room for debate over whether the particulars of how its happening are actually benefitting impoverished regions or if it's just forcing them into a "race to the bottom" (and possibly dragging developed and developing nations along for the ride, too). The situation with the garment industry in Cambodia is a current popular conversation topic along this line.
I guess a (stretched) analogy would be that while it's good to let some fresh air into your house, knocking out the windows with bricks isn't necessarily the best way to do it.
Of course 'The Lexus vs. The Sword' doesn't sound quite right
Probably because a pathological obsession with violence isn't the exclusive provice of "olive tree" people.
Even then, forking isn't necessary to provide support. All that's needed is for a company to come in and offer third-party MySQL support for other distros.
However, I don't see that happening; most likely dropping support for everything but RH and SuSE has something to do with the fact that those two distros dominate the enterprise marketshare so much that there just isn't any money to be made in providing support for MySQL on Debian.
It was a book on globalization that came out several years back. The book-a-minute version I'd give for it is, "You can't stop globalization, but that's OK, because might makes right." The author tries to argue that the modern incarnation of free-market capitalism is a Good Thing, basically a remix of the old "rising tide that lifts all boats" combined with the pollyannaish implication that it must be good simply because it's happening.
There were a few good points in there, but all in all I think that deep down inside The Lexus and the Olive Tree there was a clear and concise essay screaming to get out and being smothered by 200 pages of ad-hoc musings that were thrown in as filler.
Personally, I'm cautiously skeptical. The thing that made Fallout great is something that doesn't translate to an MMO - namely, the tactical combat. The story was entertaining, but I think the battle system is what really floated it. So Interplay is going to have to take the WoW tack and create a completely different game that is only tangentially related to the rest of the franchise. While that could certainly be a good game, it doesn't have any better chance of being a good game than a completely new MMO that doesn't bear the Fallout brand.
Hopefully you understand I wasn't trying to flame.
:)
Of course. I just like to argue.
Everything you've said is true, up to the last sentence. However, the implication of your argument is that hunting is OK because it isn't nearly as horrible as modern animal agriculture. I'd posit that the existence of factory farming doesn't justify hunting any more than the existence of war justifies murder, or the existence of bank robbery justifies pickpocketing.
As for the for food argument, I would say that while it applies, it doesn't follow. I brought it up in that it was a case where the food argument is rendred especially vacuous and really lays clear what I suspect to be the base motive for most hunters. I would maintain that the food argument is void in any context, though. There is plenty of history to show that humans do just fine on vegetarian diets that minimize the killing of other sentient beings, meaning that there are only two really solid reasons why one might choose to eat meat. The first is if adequate plant-based nutrition (and alternatives for other materials such as leather) is not readily available - a justification that is simply not available to the vast majority of people living in the United States. The second is that a person might eat meat because they like the flavor - which is just a euphemistic way of saying that meat consumption is killing for nothing more than pleasure.
What's really funny to me is that people would go through such great lengths to allow someone to do something that seems strikingly dangerous simply because they feel it's their right to be able to kill for no reason other than the crass pleasure of it. It's not even like the "for food" argument really applies in this situation, since someone else needs to be around and it's probably much easier to acquire the food without all the extra effort that would go into two people coordinating a gun. There's really no concievable reason I can find for why this would be valuable unless we sit down and agree that "for fun" is really a valuable and socially edifying reason why someone would want to kill a creature with feelings. And that really is funny.
And not funny in a "ha ha" sort of way.
I work for a company that has a lot of employees out on the road, mostly doing a lot of driving on the back roads in rural parts of the country. Management switched us from Verizon to Sprint a couple years ago, and it's been terrible for us. I frequently use my personal phone (Cingular) to call back to the office because the Sprint phone just can't hack it. The Sprint phones are set up with the free roaming plan, but it seems like they are also set to use a Sprint tower if one can be found, no matter how weak the signal is. The absolute worst place seems to be maybe 20 or 30 miles away from the nearest reasonably-sized town or interstate highway. There I'd frequently see virtually no reception on the Sprint phone and full signal on my Cingular phone. But if I get way the heck out in the sticks, the Sprint phone is usually just fine.
You can't very well drag to the corner, then click and expect the object to stay "dragged".
You can't, but you can use splat-tab and all the Exposé hotkeys while dragging.
From a UI perspective, it'd be nice if Apple added Exposé silkstreens to the F9-F12 keys the way they have done for the volume and brightness controls. Though I suppose that wouldn't work so well if a user wants to reassign those keys. Of course, I'm not sure reassigning the Exposé hotkeys is any more useful than reassigning the volume control hotkeys would be.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I thought you meant menu changing within an application, not among them.
I've encountered the same thing. I'd posit that it can be annoying to people who aren't used to it, but it's not necessarily a huge UI failing for OS X, and many people find it useful. Personally, I like that Mac OS makes a distinction between a window and an application; it allows me to declutter my workspace a bit by closing some windows without losing the ability to use their apps, and it allows me to close an app's last window without having to, say, wait for Word to take five eons to relaunch when I decide to open another document. It's not really an instance of Mac OS misbehaving so much as Mac OS not behaving the same way that Windows does - and I don't like the idea that every UI on the planet has to behave like Windows.
I could see arguing that, if you close the last window of an app, OS X should automatically switch to the next application in the queue. I'd want to see it in practise, though, because I'm not sure whether it would really be more or less confusing to users.
The single main menu at the top is a thing that you love or hate, but it can feel very strange to change the focus of the application to just access a menu.
I haven't actually had this problem. On virtually every Mac app I've used, the menubar is global for the whole application, so the only thing you're changing when you switch windows is the document you'll be modifying from that window. Big whoop, I can't think of a single case where the document I want to be working with has not been the document I'm currently working with.
I'm sure there are some degenerate UI designers who might switch the menu around when you focus/unfocus a particular panel or toolbox, but I've never personally seen this and I'd suggest that blaming the operating system for crappy UI design is not particularly useful.
Indeed, Aqua has been tweaked at least a little bit in every release of OS X since 10.1. As you mentioned, Quartz has gone through some major overhauls. Apple tweaking Aqua yet again is not news. It doesn't indicate a response to Aero, it just indicates that Apple is doing what Apple always does.
Fitts Law in corners for example works well when you have a mouse you can fling into the corner. But the OLPC has a trackpad, and we all know they're not so good for flinging the cursor into the corner. Something localised would be far better, for example a double-tap + pop-up directional menu for actions. Also Mac OS X lets you assign the corners to actions, contrary to his post. Many people disable these because they're annoying!
(sneaking off topic. mod me down!)
And because they violate everything a reasonable UI person holds dear. I'll grant that OS X didn't originally make great use of the corners. One is for the Apple menu, which is rarely needed, and the other is for the clock's menu, which is almost never needed. However, keeping those in the corners and then adding an option to have the corner respond to other actions is a bit annoying - now there's no easy way to know exactly what the corner will do until you try it. That, or discover it automagically because none of the Exposé actions require a click.
Which gets to the next problem. These corner actions are generally things that radically rearrange the screen, start a screen saver, etc. Without a click. This is extremely undesirable when you consider that Fitts Law cuts both ways - the corners are such easy targets that most users will frequently hit them even when they don't intend to. For example, it's common for me to fling the cursor off toward a corner when I want to get it out of my way so I can read a document more easily or whatever. With hot corners enabled, I'll often end up hitting one of those corners, which ironically massively re-arranges the screen, usually in a way that makes it completely impossible for me to continue my reading. Just about the exact opposite of what I was intending to do. Similar problems for when I'm trying to use a UI element that's close to a corner (window resizing controls, Apple menu, etc.)
The only hot corner I like and use is the one which keeps the screen saver from activating. It's also the only one that doesn't have a nasty habit of mucking with the screen when I don't want it to.
I'm not going to straight up say RTFA, but that sentence was just a paraphrase of Nintendo's spin-laden comments, not Zonk's own spinning. Give credit where credit is due.
Perhaps you didn't study those things in 9th grade because you were supposed to have spent your 6th, 7th, and 8th grade science classes learning the scientific method.
You'd think, and I'd say that reasoning skills should be actively engendered starting at age 1, followed by critical reasoning skills soon after. But that's not the case. Every time the scientific method has ever been presented to me, it was presented very quickly, again as another thing to just accept on faith and regurgitate. No time spent learning what it means, no time spent learning why it works, no time spent learning the reason why it's used.
If people were really taught the scientific method, do you think that the "evolution is just a theory" argument would be as well-accepted under the general US population as it is? Anyone who really understands the scientific method would recognize quickly just how empty that argument is, but I would guess that only a small minority of Americans can recognize and explain the problem with it.
If the person feels they really have learned it, it's considered a false memory because, well, because it's a memory and because it's false.
This isn't really big cause for concern or big brother fears or anything, though. False memories are completely mundane; everybody has them. They're one of the big reasons why eyewitness testimony is becoming less and less trusted in courts - it turns out that one of the easiest ways to induce false memories is to grill somebody about a situation over and over (like, say, during a deposition). If there's anything that the person isn't 100% sure of, their brain will start making stuff up to fill in the gaps, and as they repeat it they will become more sure of it, until they get to the point that they're on the witness stand saying they're absolutely certain of stuff that they really just made up - without realizing it.
It doesn't take a damned expert to figure out what's wrong, ask any geek that's in high school or recently graduated. Our problem is cultural, there's such an anti-intellectual problem in schools and the rest of society, actively encourage exploration (you know, the heart of science) throughout the development of today's youth, and within one generation we'll be sorted.
The point at which I really realized that school's only purpose in everybody's life, not just mine, is to get in the way of education was my freshman year of high school. We spent a month in my biology class rote memorizing the characteristics all the phyla and classes in the kingdom animalia, all the steps of the Krebs cycle, crap like that. Meanwhile, we barely spent a damn minute learning anything useful, and spent zero time whatsoever learning how scientists figured things out or following the reasoning behind any of these discoveries. It went on like that for another four years - a total of five science classes, and never once did anybody teach me any actual science. Just random facts pulled out of a deck of Trivial Pursuit cards.
It's no wonder science is having such a hard time competing with claptrap like creationism. With the way that it's presented to people in our educational system ("Here, take it on faith that these random facts are true."), it's epistemologically no different to most people from any creation myth.
Good god, where does your money go? I'm only in the top 7.16%, and I manage to get my bills paid. Yeah, I live in an apartment and haven't looked into buying a house, but I own three computers, a relatively new car that's paid off, a decent component stereo system, etc. I'm not exactly struggling to keep my head above water. And the town I live in isn't in the San Francisco bay area or anything, but it has a reputation for having a high cost of living.
I have to wonder how much EA's reputation for overworking their employees has to do with this. I'm not Brooks or anything, but I get the sense that the productivity of a developer increases more quickly than the pay that said developer will expect. With a bad reputation like that, they probably have a harder time securing as many really skilled employees, since good workers can more easily get a better job somewhere else. In short, they end up paying more money for less work by using more freshouts and fewer gurus.
I used to have good luck with weaving a bit in the lane when I saw someone was coming up quick on me. Nobody likes to be behind a drunk driver.
What really astounds me is when I'm on a more-or-less empty divided highway, and someone will zoom up on my tail, hit the brakes to slow down to my speed, then whip the car into the left lane and accelerate back to their previous speed.
What's with that? Is it just that these people completely fail to understand that one of the main points of passing is to avoid slowing down?