A speed limiter doesn't work. There is no study that shows that a school bus with a 50 mph limiter in a state with 70 mph limits is safer than those without limiters. And yes, I've been in one of those rolling roadblocks on a long-ish trip.
A speed limiter doesn't change based on the conditions. Being limited to 70 MPH in a 35 mph zone doesn't do much for safety.
“This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy.
"[polygamy] was instituted in the 1830s by founder Joseph Smith"
I think I'll believe the Wikipedia cites over the revisionist historians still upset that a religion founded on polygamy is still associated with polygamy.
So it's impossible to do safely? Like fly a plane or sword swallowing? Or it can be done safely, but regular use is "unsafe" (statistically speaking) like walking down stairs?
That you can't recognize a risky event done safely and a safe act done unsafely isn't a strong argument. I know the risks, and you are wrong.
Teacher's unions aren't paid with tax dollars, they are paid with teacher salaries. Yes, I can hear your complaint that teachers are paid in tax dollars, but that's not the same thing.
No seriously, please tell me. In what sort of realistic scenario is it critical to be able to drive for 700 miles nonstop without ever setting foot out of your car? How can you even do that? Do you not pee? Do you not eat? Even if you could it's not safe to drive that long nonstop, a person is supposed to take regular rest breaks.
I drove from Dallas to Anchorage in 5 days, in winter, in a normal FWD family car. I drove until the tank was empty, and didn't stop otherwise. Averaged over 800 miles a day, solo for 5 days straight, over the Rockies, and through Alaska. For that, it's easier if you can go a full day, without stopping. 12 hours sitting, driving, no breaks.
Yes, I realize that you'll assert this is unsafe, and perhaps unhealthy. But you are wrong. The only way I can prove it to you is to drive 5000+ miles with you sitting next to me, and that'll never happen.
You have a few drinks with you, I like juices, apple-based black currant is sweet and tangy. Water flows through you too fast. Also, have a few unhealthy snacks. You'll get 80% of your daily calories from your snacks. Eat a light breakfast, and a heavier dinner after you stop for the day.
I've also driven from DC to Anchorage, Dallas to Chicago. Dallas to Chicago through Denver. Dallas to Dallas through Ohio and Florida. And probably 50 or more 1000 or longer mile trips. Long distance driving isn't hard, but it isn't a skill that's taught. My first long trip, I was 17 and drove Dallas to Bid Bend, and back. On the way back, I fell asleep and almost killed 4 people (didn't crash, the people in the car with me never realized that I fell asleep). I'd heard 10,000,000 times that drunk kills, but never once that tired kills. And it was the middle of the day. After that, I thought it would be a good thing to figure out the secret world of driving without falling asleep. For the trip I woke up on the shoulder, two wheels in the grass, I drank a large 7/11 coffee (32 or 64 oz), and after the coffee high dissipated, the urge to pee kept me awake the rest of the way.
No, they were free to practice their religion where they came from, more so than Mormons are able to practice theirs in the US today. They were unable to practice the oppression of their neighbors they wished to. It was the freedom to oppress that they came here for. And we've been saddled with it ever since.
The fires weren't that common in the first place. Reminds me of the Chrysler minivan latch scandal. The latch was inferior, so Chrysler went after the parents of the dead kids for being bad parents of the corpses for not belting them in property. But that didn't go over well. The recall didn't make a huge difference as the number of crashes that it involved was actually small, but they were generally horrific, which is why it got so much attention. Similar to car fires.
And I read a traffic study that demonstrated that 2-3 seconds following distance was the worst distance to follow. Yet that's the recommended range. Closer was more likely to cause a crash, but a lower damage one. Farther was more likely to avoid the crash. The sweet spot for highest probability of the worst crashes was the "recommended" ranges that governments publish.
Like so many government studies that show the opposite of "common sense", I found it missing when I went back for it. That one and the one paid for by the US government that showed that smoking pot reduces crash risk.
If your first job teaching is Chemistry, you must have a bachelor's degree in chemistry (aside for the exceptions for those with an education degree and a "minor" in chemistry). Doesn't that count? Then, once you are a certified full teacher, you can teach almost anything after a quick and easy test, that should be passable by any good HS student in that subject. So there's a difference between the first-subject, sole-subject teachers (who must be experts) and those that "got in" under something else, now teach unrelated subjects.
Then I'm an absolute fucking retard. I've studied crashes (like as in crash reconstruction in engineering classes), and someone walking across a median is invisible when two oncoming cars are at the right distance in the right lighting conditions. The pedestrian is illuminated insufficiently compared to the oncoming glare. Yes, even if wearing white (though not if wearing a full yellow retro-reflective suit).
So the invisible object, whether human, animal, or other, is invisible because of the lighting. But if both cars turned off their lights, the object is visible. You can't turn off your lights all the time and end up safer, but if you can turn off the other guy's lights where they hit your eyes, then you can see it.
There's real science in it, and linked to real crashes that killed real people.
That you are an ignorant buffoon doesn't change reality.
You were asked a clear question about your phone. 3 posts later, you still haven't answered. I can only presume because the answer is the opposite of what you are recommending.
The "troll" here was me calling you on a non-answer. Yes, I use my phone with 3 SIMs for 3 continents, 2 non-contract, but the "home" plan is contracted because it gives the best value for the money.
They don't have the power to impose a factor of three multiplier on public education. You'll have to look elsewhere for that.
Not in any one item, but requiring a new standardized test to verify quality, but not allocating the money in that law to fund it means that the school will cut education to pay for compliance costs. Do that 100 times, and you've got your factor of three. 1,000 cuts, and all that. Any one seems trivial. But in sum, they are deadly.
I'm saying that if you want to change them, that's the *only* option. I never said it was good. But yes, since it's the only option, it would, by default, be the "best" and the "worst" idea. Waiting 100 years for the shareholders to figure it out without any outside help is not doing anything, and that's the suggestion.
Key word: choice. Coercion means forcing someone into compliance - if there is a choice (all or none), there can be no coercion.
So threatening to shoot someone if they don't hand over their wallet isn't coercion because you are "free" to choose to comply or not. Like in the story above, failure to comply comes with negative side effects, but you ignore those when defining coercion.
So you bought stock in the company, then went to the shareholder meeting? Not buying isn't "voting". At best it's abstaining. And when 90% of the country abstains, the winner only needs 5% of the vote, so abstaining makes the problem worse, not better.
You , sir, are the cause of, not solution to, the problem.
It's not just forced inclusion. If someone signs up to ESPN for 5 minutes (actually signs up for that time, not just an annulled error), then Verizon is supposed to pay ESPN for a minimum time for that customer.
I expect Verizon is violating the contract. The only question is whether the contract holds up in court.
ESPN does this to prevent people signing up for just one season of sports. But it holds back the options the cable companies provide.
Your ludditeism is showing. There isn't a "bulb" in any of these. Would you rather have a CRT where a single failure renders the entire system 100% useless, or a LCD, where a pixel failure is usually not noticeable.
Better to be dead from bad lighting hiding a road hazard than to pay someone for a repair for something. That'll teach them.
At least, you won't have to worry about them in the US. They are illegal. The new adaptive headlights by Audi are not for sale in the US, but are (almost?) everywhere else.
But the 2/3 overhead isn't in "education" it's in "anti-education". Those who state they hate public education impose costs on public education that don't apply to private, then laugh as people complain about the rising cost of public education. It was all part of the master plan to de-educate the nation.
It's ear marked by the anti-education politicians for non-education purposes. The classroom cost between public and private schools is favorable to the public schools.
So, the comparison is never limited to schools, but the "school system" that includes paid elected officials, and the cost of buidlings, when the buildings and locations aren't selected by the school district at all.
Slashdot Mirror
A speed limiter doesn't work. There is no study that shows that a school bus with a 50 mph limiter in a state with 70 mph limits is safer than those without limiters. And yes, I've been in one of those rolling roadblocks on a long-ish trip.
A speed limiter doesn't change based on the conditions. Being limited to 70 MPH in a 35 mph zone doesn't do much for safety.
“This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy.
"[polygamy] was instituted in the 1830s by founder Joseph Smith"
I think I'll believe the Wikipedia cites over the revisionist historians still upset that a religion founded on polygamy is still associated with polygamy.
So it's impossible to do safely? Like fly a plane or sword swallowing? Or it can be done safely, but regular use is "unsafe" (statistically speaking) like walking down stairs?
That you can't recognize a risky event done safely and a safe act done unsafely isn't a strong argument. I know the risks, and you are wrong.
Teacher's unions aren't paid with tax dollars, they are paid with teacher salaries. Yes, I can hear your complaint that teachers are paid in tax dollars, but that's not the same thing.
Since members of the LDS faith freely practice it, build new temples, and live in all parts of the country you seem to have that wrong as well.
And polygamy? Is that still practiced as well?
No seriously, please tell me. In what sort of realistic scenario is it critical to be able to drive for 700 miles nonstop without ever setting foot out of your car? How can you even do that? Do you not pee? Do you not eat? Even if you could it's not safe to drive that long nonstop, a person is supposed to take regular rest breaks.
I drove from Dallas to Anchorage in 5 days, in winter, in a normal FWD family car. I drove until the tank was empty, and didn't stop otherwise. Averaged over 800 miles a day, solo for 5 days straight, over the Rockies, and through Alaska. For that, it's easier if you can go a full day, without stopping. 12 hours sitting, driving, no breaks.
Yes, I realize that you'll assert this is unsafe, and perhaps unhealthy. But you are wrong. The only way I can prove it to you is to drive 5000+ miles with you sitting next to me, and that'll never happen.
You have a few drinks with you, I like juices, apple-based black currant is sweet and tangy. Water flows through you too fast. Also, have a few unhealthy snacks. You'll get 80% of your daily calories from your snacks. Eat a light breakfast, and a heavier dinner after you stop for the day.
I've also driven from DC to Anchorage, Dallas to Chicago. Dallas to Chicago through Denver. Dallas to Dallas through Ohio and Florida. And probably 50 or more 1000 or longer mile trips. Long distance driving isn't hard, but it isn't a skill that's taught. My first long trip, I was 17 and drove Dallas to Bid Bend, and back. On the way back, I fell asleep and almost killed 4 people (didn't crash, the people in the car with me never realized that I fell asleep). I'd heard 10,000,000 times that drunk kills, but never once that tired kills. And it was the middle of the day. After that, I thought it would be a good thing to figure out the secret world of driving without falling asleep. For the trip I woke up on the shoulder, two wheels in the grass, I drank a large 7/11 coffee (32 or 64 oz), and after the coffee high dissipated, the urge to pee kept me awake the rest of the way.
No, they were free to practice their religion where they came from, more so than Mormons are able to practice theirs in the US today. They were unable to practice the oppression of their neighbors they wished to. It was the freedom to oppress that they came here for. And we've been saddled with it ever since.
The fires weren't that common in the first place. Reminds me of the Chrysler minivan latch scandal. The latch was inferior, so Chrysler went after the parents of the dead kids for being bad parents of the corpses for not belting them in property. But that didn't go over well. The recall didn't make a huge difference as the number of crashes that it involved was actually small, but they were generally horrific, which is why it got so much attention. Similar to car fires.
It's hard to cross a road without ever being in the middle.
And I read a traffic study that demonstrated that 2-3 seconds following distance was the worst distance to follow. Yet that's the recommended range. Closer was more likely to cause a crash, but a lower damage one. Farther was more likely to avoid the crash. The sweet spot for highest probability of the worst crashes was the "recommended" ranges that governments publish. Like so many government studies that show the opposite of "common sense", I found it missing when I went back for it. That one and the one paid for by the US government that showed that smoking pot reduces crash risk.
Nope. Good brakes don't make crashes. Poor braking behavior does.
If your first job teaching is Chemistry, you must have a bachelor's degree in chemistry (aside for the exceptions for those with an education degree and a "minor" in chemistry). Doesn't that count? Then, once you are a certified full teacher, you can teach almost anything after a quick and easy test, that should be passable by any good HS student in that subject. So there's a difference between the first-subject, sole-subject teachers (who must be experts) and those that "got in" under something else, now teach unrelated subjects.
Then I'm an absolute fucking retard. I've studied crashes (like as in crash reconstruction in engineering classes), and someone walking across a median is invisible when two oncoming cars are at the right distance in the right lighting conditions. The pedestrian is illuminated insufficiently compared to the oncoming glare. Yes, even if wearing white (though not if wearing a full yellow retro-reflective suit).
So the invisible object, whether human, animal, or other, is invisible because of the lighting. But if both cars turned off their lights, the object is visible. You can't turn off your lights all the time and end up safer, but if you can turn off the other guy's lights where they hit your eyes, then you can see it.
There's real science in it, and linked to real crashes that killed real people.
That you are an ignorant buffoon doesn't change reality.
You were asked a clear question about your phone. 3 posts later, you still haven't answered. I can only presume because the answer is the opposite of what you are recommending.
The "troll" here was me calling you on a non-answer. Yes, I use my phone with 3 SIMs for 3 continents, 2 non-contract, but the "home" plan is contracted because it gives the best value for the money.
They don't have the power to impose a factor of three multiplier on public education. You'll have to look elsewhere for that.
Not in any one item, but requiring a new standardized test to verify quality, but not allocating the money in that law to fund it means that the school will cut education to pay for compliance costs. Do that 100 times, and you've got your factor of three. 1,000 cuts, and all that. Any one seems trivial. But in sum, they are deadly.
I'm saying that if you want to change them, that's the *only* option. I never said it was good. But yes, since it's the only option, it would, by default, be the "best" and the "worst" idea. Waiting 100 years for the shareholders to figure it out without any outside help is not doing anything, and that's the suggestion.
My phone is unlocked,
Irrelevant to the question of whether it's under contract.
I don't need a TV,
So everyone should live exactly as you do? No freedom to define things as more or less necessary than you decree? Why do you hate freedom?
So no cell phone contract is a "horrible contract"? Force is irrelevant to whether the contract is bad.
Key word: choice. Coercion means forcing someone into compliance - if there is a choice (all or none), there can be no coercion.
So threatening to shoot someone if they don't hand over their wallet isn't coercion because you are "free" to choose to comply or not. Like in the story above, failure to comply comes with negative side effects, but you ignore those when defining coercion.
, but I voted with my money,
So you bought stock in the company, then went to the shareholder meeting? Not buying isn't "voting". At best it's abstaining. And when 90% of the country abstains, the winner only needs 5% of the vote, so abstaining makes the problem worse, not better.
You , sir, are the cause of, not solution to, the problem.
It's not just forced inclusion. If someone signs up to ESPN for 5 minutes (actually signs up for that time, not just an annulled error), then Verizon is supposed to pay ESPN for a minimum time for that customer.
I expect Verizon is violating the contract. The only question is whether the contract holds up in court.
ESPN does this to prevent people signing up for just one season of sports. But it holds back the options the cable companies provide.
Your ludditeism is showing. There isn't a "bulb" in any of these. Would you rather have a CRT where a single failure renders the entire system 100% useless, or a LCD, where a pixel failure is usually not noticeable.
Better to be dead from bad lighting hiding a road hazard than to pay someone for a repair for something. That'll teach them.
At least, you won't have to worry about them in the US. They are illegal. The new adaptive headlights by Audi are not for sale in the US, but are (almost?) everywhere else.
Yes. That you don't know what an unfunded mandate is, or how it works isn't a very good counter-argument.
But the 2/3 overhead isn't in "education" it's in "anti-education". Those who state they hate public education impose costs on public education that don't apply to private, then laugh as people complain about the rising cost of public education. It was all part of the master plan to de-educate the nation.
It's ear marked by the anti-education politicians for non-education purposes. The classroom cost between public and private schools is favorable to the public schools.
So, the comparison is never limited to schools, but the "school system" that includes paid elected officials, and the cost of buidlings, when the buildings and locations aren't selected by the school district at all.