I should have said I was speaking from the perspective of automatic transmission.
Your comments about how a sports car needs to be driven seem valid but I really have to ask.. why on earth would you drive a sports car on snow covered roads? If the answer is "its my only car," well that's your fault anyway.
Seems odd though that I can keep my car (automatic) in first (and when I said low gear I mean first or second) all the way up to red-line, which is 7500 rpm, without stalling. Again, driving a car that can't seems to simply be a very poor choice for snow driving, and I'd suggest not doing something so stupid.
Yes I do, they CAN restric specific channels over the wire but blocking it from the head end would impact everyone, how for instance would they allow me to get a specific channel but prevent my neighbor from getting it?
You realize this technology is at least 20 - 30 years old, right? They had set top boxes for quite a while which would unscramble channels based on if you paid for HBO or not. It wasn't the nightmare you claimed.
The cable companies _could_ make everything digital only over night
Uck. Adelphia did this. We only have digital boxes in the house, and now all the channels even below 100 are 100% digital.
The effect? Many of those lower channels now have problems; like skipping sound, frozen and / or broken images, etc. Certain channels have this problem more than others, and some days its fine, but some days its not. Its infuriating. Fortunatly the city is rolling out fiber to all the houses, offering cable tv, internet and phone. Only four months more at most of Adelphia...
I'd have to reserve judgement until you can provide references.
My experience says that having lights for a road at night is more dangerous; as you pass under them, they temporarly block your view out of the windshields. This seems effect seems to be worse if you're driving in the rain. Had they not been there, I could see 100% of the time (or more than if they were not, if its raining).
Some roads are highways which have no pedistrian access (interstate), but most lit roads are residential.
At any rate, police reports are the last place I'd look for accurate information about the cause of accidents. There's little investigation, and at worst they sometimes just write down 'speeding' so they can continue pushing for lower speed limits (which are actually less safe, following the 85th precintile rule). Of course your police may be different than we have here in the US..
When it shifts from first to second, you now need less gas to go faster.. but usually you don't let off the gas when that happens so you end up spinning your wheels more because the same amount of gas is making your tires spin faster. At least that's my experience, and I'm pretty sure that's what they tell you when you're learning to drive.
When you're moving, keeping it in first or second will also cause you to rev your enginer higher, which is something you usually avoid... so you let off the gas. A physchological way to keep a check on your speed.. if the road is entirely snow covered, you shouldn't be going fast anyway... the faster you go the further you'll slid when you need to stop.
Same is true with Honda. The bean counters seem to screw everything up with quality as they wont to sell junk for the same price as their previous higher quality automobiles. I guess it looks good on someone's resume that they saved X amount of money but long term it hurts profits and corporate image.
Huh? Honda's have a great track record. I have an Acura (fancy Honday) and only had one problem; the transmission, which had been recalled and fixed, and has been fine every since.
Sometimes you just need to gun it to get somewhere.
That's bull; gunning it will just cause your tires to slip more quickly. To move when its really slippery, you need to keep it in first and move the car slowly.
Don't believe me.. try running on a frozen lake instead of walking.. see how fast you fall on your ass each time.
The problem with god though is that there is always a more simplier explaination for unexplained phenomina. Science doesn't just say 'well yes, everything exists until proven otherwise.' They don't even bother making something up until they hit some observed phenomina that isn't explained by anything else. Then they come up with theories, then they attempt to test the theories.
God was a good explination before we really started embrassing science... but its no longer a good explaination anymore. Let's try to respect Occam's Razor. There's no need for the theory of god at all. What are we trying to explain by saying there is a god? What do you prove without evidence at all?
We can certainly go your route, and everything which doesn't have proof of existence at all exists... but why bother? What will that gain us? Nothing really. So we infer from the lack of evidence that those things don't exist, until we do have evidence. Seems like a good convention to me.. otherwise we'd be drowning in theories which are totally useless.
As far as Newtonian physics goes, it wasn't competely invalidated. He's laws still hold in many situations, which is one of the reasons its still taught (the fact that the math is a bit easier helps too). Does it explain everything? No. Does it explain a fair subset of observed behaviors. Yes, which is why its still useful.
What has believing in god gotten us? Wars over pieces of land that also just happen to have a lot of oil under them? The holdback of culture and science, because some dusty book about a mythical figure says we shouldn't pursue certain ideas? Plan B being held up SOLEY to appease these delusional masses?
I'd argue we'd be better off without god, even if it did exist...
Nope, not in Vegas, but I've driven in Philadelphia, NYC, Rochester NY, Port Charlotte & Orlando FL, and Baltimore, Camden & Trenton NJ, to name some of the bigger cities, and I've yet to come across anyone slamming on their brakes at every light as I've described.
I'm not saying that it never happens, but to think most people brake so hard at every light that it triggers the ABS is simply absurd, as I've said.
Everyone thinks they have the worst drivers until they get to a bigger city and drive there. Its not really that the drivers are worse, its that there are different expectations and Vegas was different from Tijuana. In Burlington, pedestrians think its ok just to walk into the street, anytime, anywhere, and most drivers expect this and stop for them. Try doing that in Philly, you'll quickly be the new hood ornimate on the car..
The great spagetti monster exists. I don't have any evidence but that doesn't mean he doesn't, right? I don't think you have a firm grasp of that statement nor of the scientific method.
2) Most things that we accept exist don't have scientific evidence for their existence. Nonscientific evidence outweighs scientific evidence by a large margin. In practice, nonscientific evidence (personal experience, secondhand accounts, even hearsay) often allows us to make useful predictions about life.
Really, like what? There's a reason hearsay is not allowed in criminal trials. Its not reputable. Secondhand accounts are also crap as well. I was in an accident once and there were some widely different accounts of what happened, many of which were flat out wrong... and those were 'firsthand' accounts.
Personal experience often leads to wrong conclusions as well. Which is why many people argue from points which seem to make sense, but science actually proves the non-intitutive conclusion is the correct one.
Your traction control likely stinks. Get a higher quality car. Mine doesn't prevent me from moving through snow at all, and actually can help stop fish tailing..
Driving at an appropriately reduced speed means traction control and abs are unnecessary.
Wow, what a load of shit. Anything that helps keep control of the car, especially in slippery conditions is a good thing. It doesn't take much to slip, even going slow. My car's advanced traction control is pretty good at stopping fishtailing for example.
People need to realise they are steering a couple of tonnes of sheet steel and upholstery at breakneck (50mph) speed. It shouldnt be too easy, and it shouldnt be taken lightly. All these 'driver aids' simply make people more complacent.
No, driving should not be taken lightly, but having safe guards when the unexpected occurs is a good thing. No one will ever drive perfectly.
However, more and more people drive as if the ABS etc are there to be taken advantage of all the time. If on a dry day you see your ABS light flickering all the time as you drive, you are driving too fast and braking too hard.
I know lots of people that have ABS (pretty much everyone I know, actually) and not one of them drives like this. ABS only kicks in when you'd leave a nice little tire streek if your car didn't have ABS. To say that people are just slamming their brakes at every light is absurd. I've seen plenty of shit driving, but no one is purposefully breaking like that for the hell of it.
Please, get over your fear of technology. Its there to help us out, and for the most part it does a very good job.
I realize this; and when civil suits can become criminal or crimanal suits visa versa, its wrong and goes against the idea of double jeopardy. Either the state can punish you for a criminal act, or you can be sued because you caused some financial harm to someone else... but both should not be allowed.
How is it bad logic? We have no scientific evidence of Santa Claus either. Is it valid to think he's real anyway?
I think believing in something without reason is bad logic, and that's exactly what all these cultists do.
Dark matter theories didn't come out of no where; scientists started observing phemonenon they could not explain. So they came up with theories to explain it, and then tried to test their theory. THAT is valid scientific method. To date, no tests have come close to proving the existence of a god or gods, nor have we observed anything that even justifies the theory of a god.
For example copyright infringment CAN be both criminal or civil. If you commit a criminal offense the offended can bring a civil suit against you for the criminal act.
That doesn't seem right to me. As you pointed out, one can be found liable in a civil court although the criminal court found them not guilty. In other words, there's not enough proof that the person did the act in the first place, so they just go to the civil court to cause more harm because they didn't have enough evidence.
Much like changing traffic laws so that offenses are 'civil.' Its just an end run around the constitution. If you were not found guilty of criminal charges, that should be the end of it.
The record companies' expert witness examined her hard drive, and somehow determined that two "disk-cleaner utility programs" (as the court put it) had been used to delete data intentionally. Specifically, he noted that iMesh and BearShare were installed at one time, and were configured to use the handle, "ugotburnedby21".
That's a pretty interesting claim don't you think, considering they had not yet examined the drive. Because 'bear share' was used at a certain ip address does not mean its installed on a machine using that address. It could have been someone else, it could have been another computer all together.
Slashdot Mirror
I should have said I was speaking from the perspective of automatic transmission.
Your comments about how a sports car needs to be driven seem valid but I really have to ask.. why on earth would you drive a sports car on snow covered roads? If the answer is "its my only car," well that's your fault anyway.
Seems odd though that I can keep my car (automatic) in first (and when I said low gear I mean first or second) all the way up to red-line, which is 7500 rpm, without stalling. Again, driving a car that can't seems to simply be a very poor choice for snow driving, and I'd suggest not doing something so stupid.
Yes I do, they CAN restric specific channels over the wire but blocking it from the head end would impact everyone, how for instance would they allow me to get a specific channel but prevent my neighbor from getting it?
You realize this technology is at least 20 - 30 years old, right? They had set top boxes for quite a while which would unscramble channels based on if you paid for HBO or not. It wasn't the nightmare you claimed.
Its amazing how many people don't know that HBO is about 20 - 30 years old huh?
The cable companies _could_ make everything digital only over night
Uck. Adelphia did this. We only have digital boxes in the house, and now all the channels even below 100 are 100% digital.
The effect? Many of those lower channels now have problems; like skipping sound, frozen and / or broken images, etc. Certain channels have this problem more than others, and some days its fine, but some days its not. Its infuriating. Fortunatly the city is rolling out fiber to all the houses, offering cable tv, internet and phone. Only four months more at most of Adelphia...
Someone at the cable co. (Adelphia) told me that they actually have to pay HBO to be able to carry them.
I'd have to reserve judgement until you can provide references.
My experience says that having lights for a road at night is more dangerous; as you pass under them, they temporarly block your view out of the windshields. This seems effect seems to be worse if you're driving in the rain. Had they not been there, I could see 100% of the time (or more than if they were not, if its raining).
Some roads are highways which have no pedistrian access (interstate), but most lit roads are residential.
At any rate, police reports are the last place I'd look for accurate information about the cause of accidents. There's little investigation, and at worst they sometimes just write down 'speeding' so they can continue pushing for lower speed limits (which are actually less safe, following the 85th precintile rule). Of course your police may be different than we have here in the US..
When it shifts from first to second, you now need less gas to go faster.. but usually you don't let off the gas when that happens so you end up spinning your wheels more because the same amount of gas is making your tires spin faster. At least that's my experience, and I'm pretty sure that's what they tell you when you're learning to drive.
When you're moving, keeping it in first or second will also cause you to rev your enginer higher, which is something you usually avoid... so you let off the gas. A physchological way to keep a check on your speed.. if the road is entirely snow covered, you shouldn't be going fast anyway... the faster you go the further you'll slid when you need to stop.
Same is true with Honda. The bean counters seem to screw everything up with quality as they wont to sell junk for the same price as their previous higher quality automobiles. I guess it looks good on someone's resume that they saved X amount of money but long term it hurts profits and corporate image.
Huh? Honda's have a great track record. I have an Acura (fancy Honday) and only had one problem; the transmission, which had been recalled and fixed, and has been fine every since.
Sometimes you just need to gun it to get somewhere.
That's bull; gunning it will just cause your tires to slip more quickly. To move when its really slippery, you need to keep it in first and move the car slowly.
Don't believe me.. try running on a frozen lake instead of walking.. see how fast you fall on your ass each time.
The problem with god though is that there is always a more simplier explaination for unexplained phenomina. Science doesn't just say 'well yes, everything exists until proven otherwise.' They don't even bother making something up until they hit some observed phenomina that isn't explained by anything else. Then they come up with theories, then they attempt to test the theories.
God was a good explination before we really started embrassing science... but its no longer a good explaination anymore. Let's try to respect Occam's Razor. There's no need for the theory of god at all. What are we trying to explain by saying there is a god? What do you prove without evidence at all?
We can certainly go your route, and everything which doesn't have proof of existence at all exists... but why bother? What will that gain us? Nothing really. So we infer from the lack of evidence that those things don't exist, until we do have evidence. Seems like a good convention to me.. otherwise we'd be drowning in theories which are totally useless.
As far as Newtonian physics goes, it wasn't competely invalidated. He's laws still hold in many situations, which is one of the reasons its still taught (the fact that the math is a bit easier helps too). Does it explain everything? No. Does it explain a fair subset of observed behaviors. Yes, which is why its still useful.
What has believing in god gotten us? Wars over pieces of land that also just happen to have a lot of oil under them? The holdback of culture and science, because some dusty book about a mythical figure says we shouldn't pursue certain ideas? Plan B being held up SOLEY to appease these delusional masses?
I'd argue we'd be better off without god, even if it did exist...
Nope, not in Vegas, but I've driven in Philadelphia, NYC, Rochester NY, Port Charlotte & Orlando FL, and Baltimore, Camden & Trenton NJ, to name some of the bigger cities, and I've yet to come across anyone slamming on their brakes at every light as I've described.
I'm not saying that it never happens, but to think most people brake so hard at every light that it triggers the ABS is simply absurd, as I've said.
Everyone thinks they have the worst drivers until they get to a bigger city and drive there. Its not really that the drivers are worse, its that there are different expectations and Vegas was different from Tijuana. In Burlington, pedestrians think its ok just to walk into the street, anytime, anywhere, and most drivers expect this and stop for them. Try doing that in Philly, you'll quickly be the new hood ornimate on the car..
1) Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack
The great spagetti monster exists. I don't have any evidence but that doesn't mean he doesn't, right? I don't think you have a firm grasp of that statement nor of the scientific method.
2) Most things that we accept exist don't have scientific evidence for their existence. Nonscientific evidence outweighs scientific evidence by a large margin. In practice, nonscientific evidence (personal experience, secondhand accounts, even hearsay) often allows us to make useful predictions about life.
Really, like what? There's a reason hearsay is not allowed in criminal trials. Its not reputable. Secondhand accounts are also crap as well. I was in an accident once and there were some widely different accounts of what happened, many of which were flat out wrong... and those were 'firsthand' accounts.
Personal experience often leads to wrong conclusions as well. Which is why many people argue from points which seem to make sense, but science actually proves the non-intitutive conclusion is the correct one.
I suggest that most countries and their citizens do benefit from street lights.
Actually they don't. We'd be safer not having them.
You're right. Its too bad the gov'ment broke up Ma Bell. Paying only $35 for local service instead of $100 is outragous and only hurting me!
If the new UI is more intutive and efficient, wouldn't it be worth re-learning though? I'd think so.
With your line of reasoning, we should have never left command line interfaces...
Your traction control likely stinks. Get a higher quality car. Mine doesn't prevent me from moving through snow at all, and actually can help stop fish tailing..
Driving at an appropriately reduced speed means traction control and abs are unnecessary.
Wow, what a load of shit. Anything that helps keep control of the car, especially in slippery conditions is a good thing. It doesn't take much to slip, even going slow. My car's advanced traction control is pretty good at stopping fishtailing for example.
People need to realise they are steering a couple of tonnes of sheet steel and upholstery at breakneck (50mph) speed. It shouldnt be too easy, and it shouldnt be taken lightly. All these 'driver aids' simply make people more complacent.
No, driving should not be taken lightly, but having safe guards when the unexpected occurs is a good thing. No one will ever drive perfectly.
However, more and more people drive as if the ABS etc are there to be taken advantage of all the time. If on a dry day you see your ABS light flickering all the time as you drive, you are driving too fast and braking too hard.
I know lots of people that have ABS (pretty much everyone I know, actually) and not one of them drives like this. ABS only kicks in when you'd leave a nice little tire streek if your car didn't have ABS. To say that people are just slamming their brakes at every light is absurd. I've seen plenty of shit driving, but no one is purposefully breaking like that for the hell of it.
Please, get over your fear of technology. Its there to help us out, and for the most part it does a very good job.
I realize this; and when civil suits can become criminal or crimanal suits visa versa, its wrong and goes against the idea of double jeopardy. Either the state can punish you for a criminal act, or you can be sued because you caused some financial harm to someone else... but both should not be allowed.
How is it bad logic? We have no scientific evidence of Santa Claus either. Is it valid to think he's real anyway?
I think believing in something without reason is bad logic, and that's exactly what all these cultists do.
Dark matter theories didn't come out of no where; scientists started observing phemonenon they could not explain. So they came up with theories to explain it, and then tried to test their theory. THAT is valid scientific method. To date, no tests have come close to proving the existence of a god or gods, nor have we observed anything that even justifies the theory of a god.
Doh.. I seem to be having a problem parsing that kind of stuff lately..
showing "blatant contempt" for the court
In this day and age I fail to see how anyone can have anything but contempt for our legal system.
For example copyright infringment CAN be both criminal or civil. If you commit a criminal offense the offended can bring a civil suit against you for the criminal act.
That doesn't seem right to me. As you pointed out, one can be found liable in a civil court although the criminal court found them not guilty. In other words, there's not enough proof that the person did the act in the first place, so they just go to the civil court to cause more harm because they didn't have enough evidence.
Much like changing traffic laws so that offenses are 'civil.' Its just an end run around the constitution. If you were not found guilty of criminal charges, that should be the end of it.
What if she had done this before the court order though?
The record companies' expert witness examined her hard drive, and somehow determined that two "disk-cleaner utility programs" (as the court put it) had been used to delete data intentionally. Specifically, he noted that iMesh and BearShare were installed at one time, and were configured to use the handle, "ugotburnedby21".
That's a pretty interesting claim don't you think, considering they had not yet examined the drive. Because 'bear share' was used at a certain ip address does not mean its installed on a machine using that address. It could have been someone else, it could have been another computer all together.
Why does having a 64 bit processor mean your computer is a server?