Every language on Earth, including ones that evolved completely separately, have the concept of noun and verb. You would obviously use those as points of commonality for deciphering it. Even if looking at the Earth languages where nouns are optional, they are still implied.
I've seen sci fi that implied the foreign language was all adjectives, but that doesn't seem very practical.
My experience is the opposite... a lot of automobile drivers are total jackasses to cyclist where I live (which usually means they speed up as soon if you signal to lane change just because they've decided they don't want you to be in front of them).
That works too. They rarely will slam on the brakes next to you. They like to be just ahead of you. Then you pull in right behind them. They would have accelerated, leaving a larger than normal gap behind them. And the car behind couldn't hit you without hitting them, so you are safe.
Every baby (with perhaps a tiny number of exceptions) on the planet learns language. Nearly every "higher" species has some language or communication. I'm making the assumption that they are able to teach their babies communication. You are assuming they have no linguistic capabilities at all. That seems absurdly improbable for a civilization capable of communicating with us.
only that the speed difference between cars and bikes is large enough that the increased adequate spacing to safely merge is not likely to ever actually happen in practice.
In my experience, it's easy to safely change lanes on a bike. I did it for, a few thousand miles one summer.
In practice, once you start signaling, cars let you in. Often because of the novelty of a bike in heavy city traffic.
Re-read your comments. You implied that the space would need to be infinite, if the vehicle changing lanes was going slower than the car they pulled out "in front of".
Anyways. to merge into any lane of traffic, whether you are driving a car or riding a bicycle, you must be moving at approximately the same speed as the traffic in that lane, or else there must be extra distance beyond what is necessary to accommodate a regular vehicle merge.
Sure. But you obviously don't ride a bike, do you even know how? There are large accordian spots in traffic. Someone slowed to make a lane change, or took off slowly from a light. These results in lots of opportunities for bikes to "slip in" without disrupting traffic. Sure, the guy they "cut off" can't go as fast as they like, but in most cases needn't even touch the brake to adopt the new speed.
Unless they drive like you sound, and floor it to get on the tail of the bike and honk because they have some insane belief that bike can never legally change lanes.
They only need to slow down to ensure adequate spacing... *NOT* to accommodate any particularly slower speed you may be moving at. If you *ARE* moving slower than the traffic in the lane you are intending to merge into, whether you are a car or a bicycle, then *YOU* are responsible for any ACDA rule violation
So a bike that pulls out with "adequate spacing" and gets run over by someone behind is at fault because the car had adequate spacing when the bike pulled out, but isn't required to slow, even when they had adequate spacing?
Nope, that's not how it works. If the bike pulls out with adequate spacing, then the car behind is responsible for slowing to maintain ACDA. That is the rule.
That you evilly applied the rule while you worked for an evil insurance company doesn't change reality.
You are wrong. If the traffic is that heavy, then it is slow. I commuted 15 miles (each way) in Dallas for a three month period. There were no bicycle lanes in Dallas at the time. http://blogs.dallasobserver.co...
Looks like they got one 2 years ago. But nowhere near where I was riding. I would go in the morning in rush-hour traffic, and home at lunch. Your advice is bad. The safest thing for a bike is to always ride in traffic, regardless of whether there's a bike lane or not. Certainly in places like Dallas, where there are so few bike lanes the cars don't know what to do with them, and are likely to fail to yield to people in the bike lane. And changing lanes on a bike is not at all how you describe. Can you even ride a bike?
did you still have the time between the driver’s entry in your lane and the accident to slow down enough to maintain that clear distance?
From your own cite. Seems to prove you wrong. If someone sees you changing lanes, and doesn't slow after you begin your change (are in their path) then they violated the ACDA rule you linked to.
No, they are designed to be lifted by lift. Lifts use designed jackpoints. A forklift could be set to mimic this action. That's well within the design parameters of the cars.
He said "video". The rules for that are more variable. More than one motel owner has put cameras in the bathrooms, and wasn't able to be prosecuted for it because he didn't capture audio.
I can tell you exactly how that woud go.. You'd get as far as "I changed lanes..." and the insurance company would rule against you. Immediately.... automatically. 100%. Every time....
You are wrong. Then word it differently. "After traveling in the middle lane for quite some time, the guy behind me hit me."
I've been told on slashdot, many times, that the guy in the back is always wrong.
And it's hilarious that you are holding bikes to a higher standard than cars. More than half of lane changes I see (car on car) require immediate evasive action to prevent a collision.
Didn't you hear? Reagan deliberately sabotaged the negotiations for the release of the American hostages so that they'd not be released before the election. Not his last Treason. It was a good election ploy, though.
So a bike can't use a lane because "yield" means "don't go where anyone would ever want to be?" If you pull out "in front of" someone 150 yards behind you with a closing speed difference of 30 mph, that's about 10 seconds distance. Would that be failure to yield? How about 500 yards?
if you got rear-ended by a car while you were trying change lanes, you would be 100% at fault for the collision.
How would that go with "I changed lanes when he was about 2 football fields behind me, and over 10 seconds later he hit me, failing to take due care."
And I find your suggestion amusing when I see roughly 0% of cars following your requirements for bicycles.
The safest thing to do, in my experience, is just stay on the right hand side and manually walk the bike across to get onto the road you intended to turn onto.
In my experience, the safest thing to do is to never get in the bike lane.
The one I knew was in Texas. I didn't know the details, but looking at the site, they are required to be on their meds. It doesn't have an (if any) at the end, so it's possible that she didn't need any meds, and thus was ineligible to drive, or something like that. I also didn't know her when her license was revoked, so maybe it was related to some circumstances about it's loss
I also noted that India and China, as well as much of Africa don't allow any driving after a seizure.
Slashdot Mirror
Every language on Earth, including ones that evolved completely separately, have the concept of noun and verb. You would obviously use those as points of commonality for deciphering it. Even if looking at the Earth languages where nouns are optional, they are still implied.
I've seen sci fi that implied the foreign language was all adjectives, but that doesn't seem very practical.
Why are you using TCP for a transmission with no confirmation? UDP would be more appropriate. Even your jokes are technically incorrect.
My experience is the opposite... a lot of automobile drivers are total jackasses to cyclist where I live (which usually means they speed up as soon if you signal to lane change just because they've decided they don't want you to be in front of them).
That works too. They rarely will slam on the brakes next to you. They like to be just ahead of you. Then you pull in right behind them. They would have accelerated, leaving a larger than normal gap behind them. And the car behind couldn't hit you without hitting them, so you are safe.
Every baby (with perhaps a tiny number of exceptions) on the planet learns language. Nearly every "higher" species has some language or communication. I'm making the assumption that they are able to teach their babies communication. You are assuming they have no linguistic capabilities at all. That seems absurdly improbable for a civilization capable of communicating with us.
only that the speed difference between cars and bikes is large enough that the increased adequate spacing to safely merge is not likely to ever actually happen in practice.
In my experience, it's easy to safely change lanes on a bike. I did it for, a few thousand miles one summer.
In practice, once you start signaling, cars let you in. Often because of the novelty of a bike in heavy city traffic.
You send the entire works of Shakespeare. Let them figure it out. We've decoded harder from scraps of dead languages.
Re-read your comments. You implied that the space would need to be infinite, if the vehicle changing lanes was going slower than the car they pulled out "in front of".
Anyways. to merge into any lane of traffic, whether you are driving a car or riding a bicycle, you must be moving at approximately the same speed as the traffic in that lane, or else there must be extra distance beyond what is necessary to accommodate a regular vehicle merge.
Sure. But you obviously don't ride a bike, do you even know how? There are large accordian spots in traffic. Someone slowed to make a lane change, or took off slowly from a light. These results in lots of opportunities for bikes to "slip in" without disrupting traffic. Sure, the guy they "cut off" can't go as fast as they like, but in most cases needn't even touch the brake to adopt the new speed.
Unless they drive like you sound, and floor it to get on the tail of the bike and honk because they have some insane belief that bike can never legally change lanes.
They only need to slow down to ensure adequate spacing... *NOT* to accommodate any particularly slower speed you may be moving at. If you *ARE* moving slower than the traffic in the lane you are intending to merge into, whether you are a car or a bicycle, then *YOU* are responsible for any ACDA rule violation
So a bike that pulls out with "adequate spacing" and gets run over by someone behind is at fault because the car had adequate spacing when the bike pulled out, but isn't required to slow, even when they had adequate spacing?
Nope, that's not how it works. If the bike pulls out with adequate spacing, then the car behind is responsible for slowing to maintain ACDA. That is the rule.
That you evilly applied the rule while you worked for an evil insurance company doesn't change reality.
You are wrong. If the traffic is that heavy, then it is slow. I commuted 15 miles (each way) in Dallas for a three month period. There were no bicycle lanes in Dallas at the time. http://blogs.dallasobserver.co...
Looks like they got one 2 years ago. But nowhere near where I was riding. I would go in the morning in rush-hour traffic, and home at lunch. Your advice is bad. The safest thing for a bike is to always ride in traffic, regardless of whether there's a bike lane or not. Certainly in places like Dallas, where there are so few bike lanes the cars don't know what to do with them, and are likely to fail to yield to people in the bike lane. And changing lanes on a bike is not at all how you describe. Can you even ride a bike?
did you still have the time between the driver’s entry in your lane and the accident to slow down enough to maintain that clear distance?
From your own cite. Seems to prove you wrong. If someone sees you changing lanes, and doesn't slow after you begin your change (are in their path) then they violated the ACDA rule you linked to.
If there is a high volume of traffic merging safely and legally while traveling 20 to 30 km/s more slowly is not really a realistic proposition.
Where are you where it's possible for a 30 km/*s* speed difference? I wouldn't cut off anyone going Mach 90 either.
No, they are designed to be lifted by lift. Lifts use designed jackpoints. A forklift could be set to mimic this action. That's well within the design parameters of the cars.
The door was unlocked with a sign hanging on it saying "open". Try again.
He said "video". The rules for that are more variable. More than one motel owner has put cameras in the bathrooms, and wasn't able to be prosecuted for it because he didn't capture audio.
Your response to a video question is about audio.
I can tell you exactly how that woud go.. You'd get as far as "I changed lanes..." and the insurance company would rule against you. Immediately.... automatically. 100%. Every time....
You are wrong. Then word it differently. "After traveling in the middle lane for quite some time, the guy behind me hit me."
I've been told on slashdot, many times, that the guy in the back is always wrong.
And it's hilarious that you are holding bikes to a higher standard than cars. More than half of lane changes I see (car on car) require immediate evasive action to prevent a collision.
any VCs about want to spend their money on something really useful to humanity?
If they wanted to do that, they wouldn't be vulture capitalists.
Didn't you hear? Reagan deliberately sabotaged the negotiations for the release of the American hostages so that they'd not be released before the election. Not his last Treason. It was a good election ploy, though.
if you got rear-ended by a car while you were trying change lanes, you would be 100% at fault for the collision.
How would that go with "I changed lanes when he was about 2 football fields behind me, and over 10 seconds later he hit me, failing to take due care."
And I find your suggestion amusing when I see roughly 0% of cars following your requirements for bicycles.
The safest thing to do, in my experience, is just stay on the right hand side and manually walk the bike across to get onto the road you intended to turn onto.
In my experience, the safest thing to do is to never get in the bike lane.
And if free will is an illusion, then you have no rights?
With a jai alai glove on?
Depends on where they get to touch you.
It's a shame that gravity still works for them, even though it's "just a theory".
The one I knew was in Texas. I didn't know the details, but looking at the site, they are required to be on their meds. It doesn't have an (if any) at the end, so it's possible that she didn't need any meds, and thus was ineligible to drive, or something like that. I also didn't know her when her license was revoked, so maybe it was related to some circumstances about it's loss
I also noted that India and China, as well as much of Africa don't allow any driving after a seizure.
That's not what http://slashdot.org/comments.p... says.