How about having two plain text inputs, one is the real message, the other is something you are OK with your opponent seeing. Two keys. If you provide the correct key, you get the real message, if you provide the forced key, you get the smiley happy nothing to see here plain text.
There is a good point there, but if doctors don't have to worry, some will act recklessly ( some already do, more will ), and patient's recourse will be removed.
Agreed with most of it. The French really were quite stupid. And if you look a bit farther back, Germany and France had been doing these harsh reparations with each other for a long time after their various conflicts. Wilson was trying for a good settlement to the issues, but the European (especially Clemenceau) leaders wanted to be harsh.
On the Japanese attack on the US, the US did the oil ( and steel and other "strategic" items ) embargo because Japan had invaded China. Japan knew another way to get the oil flowing, they chose not to take it ( unsurprising, given their "temperament" at that time ). I have a difficult time being too hard on the US for cutting off oil and such to Japan.
"overaggression of the bombs that caused the officers eagerness to not surrender"
In my youth, I read a great deal ( all my high school library had on the subject, plus some ) on WWII, This idea that the bombs lead to the offices not wanting to surrender distinctly does not match that reading. The Japanese were flying airplanes into ships, the pilots knowing/intending they would die in the effort.
You may note that the Germans also considered ( and used ) such tactics, but not nearly to the same degree. It was distinctly harder to find ( even in nazi Germany ) the same indoctrination and willingness to die.
To add to the not surrendering point, there were Japanese soldiers being found/recovered/captured from pacific islands well into the 1970's, ready to fight on in the service of the emperor.
Depends... If it generates enough power that the alternator is no longer needed, then you would lose that weight, and regain the HP used to drive it ( or be able to have a ever-so-slightly smaller engine ).
I'm not intimately knowledgable about fracking, but I am thinking more of the crude oil removed from the site. I doubt they replace fluid or gas at one to one levels, and I expect they don't leave the site at the same pressures they found it at...
I never wanted submission, only to be able to ride my bike, legally, and according to the rules of the road without fear of becoming hamburger because someone couldn't be bothered to see what is right in front of them.
And a car horn would not work to make them see when needed, only after I am already in trouble ( or do I blow it continually? )
It should be. It seems to have to do with the cognitive process some drivers go through,at a guess. I would ride where a bike is supposed to be, would light up like a Christmas tree at night, and cars would *still* not see me. I had one guy make a right hand turn directly in front of me. Visually, in terms of photons bouncing off me, I could not have been more visible. The guy just drove right past me, then directly across my path. There was nothing preventing him seeing me, yet, still he didn't. ( and there are other incidents like this that inform my opinion on this... )
Some ( many? ) treat the responsibility seriously and are looking for "things I can hurt/damage" and "things that can hurt/damage me". Others have a different take on things ( at least as experienced by me ), and are only looking at "things that can hurt/damage me"
I had a similar thing ( car turning across bike lane ) happen to me. Old dude in a huge convertible, top down. Took me right into the curb and laid me down, just barely passed me, then turned. I'm lying on the ground, he drove off. Didn't get hurt, I started braking and turned into the curb ( which stopped me cold and put a big gash in my RH crank arm ) while it was happening.
So, yeah, I would avoid night riding, were I actively cycling, and be similarly reserved.
( and for what it is worth, I don't get belligerent while riding, I do realize you are right about "i had the right of way" wont help when dead or maimed or... ).
I agree completely. There are many "cyclists" that I would like to make it so they are not allowed to ride any more. Course, there are a good number of car drivers I would extend the same privilege to...
So, yeah, there will be car/bike accidents where the car driver did everything right. But I have had too many almosts with boneheads to think that is anything like a small percentage. And there will be ones where the cyclist was a bonehead and did it to themselves. And I see too many idiot cyclists to believe that that is a small percentage.
Definitely, protect yourself cyclists, and idiots, stop being idiots! Car drivers, keep your eyes and minds on your responsibilities.
How does anyone operate a machine capable of creating so much death and destruction without having a fair idea of it's parameters?
But yeah, I do expect them to follow that guideline. I think in most places, the law would hold them to it also. My personal opinion is that most people should not be driving. My oldest daughter just started driving, and I hope and believe I have impressed an appreciation that driving is much more than just pointing the car in a given direction....
You made it sound like there was a big gap between their car's ability to stop and the distance out they can see.
If that is the case, then, yeah, I expect them to drive at speeds consonant with safety, and to ignore ( within the bounds of safety ) what other cars are doing ( and those other cars should be driving in a manner consonant with safety ). If they cant see out far enough so they can brake if something comes in view, that seems like a problem to me.
You cant really be arguing that it would be OK to drive at such a speed and in such conditions that a surprise like bad road, a box in the middle of the road, or an unexpected cyclist would result in a high probability of trouble/collision.
Invisible is not the right word. Harder to see? Sure. Also, the light doesn't stop at 30 meters.
And if someone is driving fast enough that they cant stop when something comes within range of the headlights and it truly is that dark out, then I would argue that they were driving unsafely, period.
Your presentation didn't match my exception of "Devils Advocate"....
But, something to consider, even without lights and a reflector, a cyclist is not invisible. Hard to see, yeah, not invisible. Anyone driving should be looking for stuff, kids or animals running between cars, etc, etc. It's not supposed to be "git the heck out of my way, I'm in a car!".
And on the slowing and swerving, that is what was in the article. It might be wrong, which would require a reevaluation.
On the driving away, even with a lower responsibility, it is hard to comprehend that they could think that driving away without checking would be a good idea.
I get what you are saying, you have a point. I think I have one also.
If the order of events is correct in TFA, the driver slowed, then swerved. Still could be swerving away, but if the driver slowed in reaction to seeing the cyclist, why was he/she/it close enough to need to swerve?
Slashdot Mirror
Just an idea....
How about having two plain text inputs, one is the real message, the other is something you are OK with your opponent seeing.
Two keys.
If you provide the correct key, you get the real message, if you provide the forced key, you get the smiley happy nothing to see here plain text.
There is a good point there, but if doctors don't have to worry, some will act recklessly ( some already do, more will ), and patient's recourse will be removed.
Agreed with most of it.
The French really were quite stupid. And if you look a bit farther back, Germany and France had been doing these harsh reparations with each other for a long time after their various conflicts. Wilson was trying for a good settlement to the issues, but the European (especially Clemenceau) leaders wanted to be harsh.
On the Japanese attack on the US, the US did the oil ( and steel and other "strategic" items ) embargo because Japan had invaded China.
Japan knew another way to get the oil flowing, they chose not to take it ( unsurprising, given their "temperament" at that time ).
I have a difficult time being too hard on the US for cutting off oil and such to Japan.
As a republic with democratic traditions, we should all be watchers.....
"overaggression of the bombs that caused the officers eagerness to not surrender"
In my youth, I read a great deal ( all my high school library had on the subject, plus some ) on WWII, This idea that the bombs lead to the offices not wanting to surrender distinctly does not match that reading. The Japanese were flying airplanes into ships, the pilots knowing/intending they would die in the effort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze
They created airplanes ( and ships, apparently ) specifically for suicide attacks. The fanaticism was widespread and went top to bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinyo-class_suicide_motorboat
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/Japanese_Kamikaze/Japanese_Kamikaze05.html
You may note that the Germans also considered ( and used ) such tactics, but not nearly to the same degree.
It was distinctly harder to find ( even in nazi Germany ) the same indoctrination and willingness to die.
To add to the not surrendering point, there were Japanese soldiers being found/recovered/captured from pacific islands well into the 1970's, ready to fight on in the service of the emperor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout
Did you go to UCSD?
You are missing a closing parentheses in the first line of setnetmask.
Depends... If it generates enough power that the alternator is no longer needed, then you would lose that weight, and regain the HP used to drive it ( or be able to have a ever-so-slightly smaller engine ).
I'm not intimately knowledgable about fracking, but I am thinking more of the crude oil removed from the site. I doubt they replace fluid or gas at one to one levels, and I expect they don't leave the site at the same pressures they found it at...
The plate stresses are likely caused by the removal of the fluid and gasses that were there before they were pumped out.
I wrote a program for scheduling classes in COBOL once.
It was that, or take basic yet again ( I had had it in high school ).
I never wanted submission, only to be able to ride my bike, legally, and according to the rules of the road without fear of becoming hamburger because someone couldn't be bothered to see what is right in front of them.
And a car horn would not work to make them see when needed, only after I am already in trouble ( or do I blow it continually? )
It should be. It seems to have to do with the cognitive process some drivers go through,at a guess.
I would ride where a bike is supposed to be, would light up like a Christmas tree at night, and cars would *still* not see me.
I had one guy make a right hand turn directly in front of me. Visually, in terms of photons bouncing off me, I could not have been more visible.
The guy just drove right past me, then directly across my path. There was nothing preventing him seeing me, yet, still he didn't.
( and there are other incidents like this that inform my opinion on this... )
Some ( many? ) treat the responsibility seriously and are looking for "things I can hurt/damage" and "things that can hurt/damage me".
Others have a different take on things ( at least as experienced by me ), and are only looking at "things that can hurt/damage me"
Yes, F=MA, to be sure.
So, no one should ride a bike, ever?
I had a similar thing ( car turning across bike lane ) happen to me. Old dude in a huge convertible, top down.
Took me right into the curb and laid me down, just barely passed me, then turned.
I'm lying on the ground, he drove off.
Didn't get hurt, I started braking and turned into the curb ( which stopped me cold and put a big gash in my RH crank arm ) while it was happening.
So, yeah, I would avoid night riding, were I actively cycling, and be similarly reserved.
( and for what it is worth, I don't get belligerent while riding, I do realize you are right about "i had the right of way" wont help when dead or maimed or ... ).
I agree completely. There are many "cyclists" that I would like to make it so they are not allowed to ride any more.
Course, there are a good number of car drivers I would extend the same privilege to...
So, yeah, there will be car/bike accidents where the car driver did everything right. But I have had too many almosts with boneheads to think that is anything like a small percentage. And there will be ones where the cyclist was a bonehead and did it to themselves. And I see too many idiot cyclists to believe that that is a small percentage.
Definitely, protect yourself cyclists, and idiots, stop being idiots!
Car drivers, keep your eyes and minds on your responsibilities.
That is pretty sad. And quite true.
How does anyone operate a machine capable of creating so much death and destruction without having a fair idea of it's parameters?
But yeah, I do expect them to follow that guideline. I think in most places, the law would hold them to it also.
My personal opinion is that most people should not be driving. My oldest daughter just started driving, and I hope and believe I have impressed an appreciation that driving is much more than just pointing the car in a given direction....
You made it sound like there was a big gap between their car's ability to stop and the distance out they can see.
If that is the case, then, yeah, I expect them to drive at speeds consonant with safety, and to ignore ( within the bounds of safety ) what other cars are doing ( and those other cars should be driving in a manner consonant with safety ). If they cant see out far enough so they can brake if something comes in view, that seems like a problem to me.
You cant really be arguing that it would be OK to drive at such a speed and in such conditions that a surprise like bad road, a box in the middle of the road, or an unexpected cyclist would result in a high probability of trouble/collision.
Yikes. There is a lot of hostility out there, it seems.
Invisible is not the right word. Harder to see? Sure.
Also, the light doesn't stop at 30 meters.
And if someone is driving fast enough that they cant stop when something comes within range of the headlights and it truly is that dark out, then I would argue that they were driving unsafely, period.
Yeah, that would suck.
exception = expectation
Your presentation didn't match my exception of "Devils Advocate"....
But, something to consider, even without lights and a reflector, a cyclist is not invisible. Hard to see, yeah, not invisible.
Anyone driving should be looking for stuff, kids or animals running between cars, etc, etc.
It's not supposed to be "git the heck out of my way, I'm in a car!".
And on the slowing and swerving, that is what was in the article. It might be wrong, which would require a reevaluation.
On the driving away, even with a lower responsibility, it is hard to comprehend that they could think that driving away without checking would be a good idea.
I get what you are saying, you have a point.
I think I have one also.
If the order of events is correct in TFA, the driver slowed, then swerved.
Still could be swerving away, but if the driver slowed in reaction to seeing the cyclist, why was he/she/it close enough to need to swerve?