I can work around em, but yea... when my trains all get piled up it is a problem...
and cars going to the right lane miles before their exit causing a backup with cars merging on is a problem too...
As others have noted, this is realistic. There's also a real-world solution for it - exits should occur before merges. That way, there's an empty lane for cars to merge into. By having a merge before the exit, as highway throughput increases, you experience jams.
UK motorways (at least) have the exits before the merges/joining lanes. I cannot imagine why you would do it the other way round.
I don't think anyone who counts Doom 3 as an old game is quite ready for the Boss Grumpy Old Man level. You need to practice moaning about how text only games on a CDC mainframe in the 1960s were better than any of the Fancy Dan games nowadays. Or, at least, how in the 1970s you had to type in your own games in Assembly Language, and if you made a typo you destroyed your whole house in an electrical fire.
Or just download the crack for steam that allows you to play the games without them even opening steam... I have this for Borderlands 2, Earth defence force, x-com:TFD, and several other games including HL:2
Any system that requires a crack to use is not a good or trustworthy system.
It's like saying that since you can crack Windows, it doesn't require verification any more than Linux.
you sound like one of those crazy people that stands on the sidewalk with 500 words written in sharpie on a repurposed pizza box trying to tell everyone how Obama's chemtrails are making your teeth liberal
In most places, this would be an insult. On slashdot, it's merely a description of a popular lifestyle choice.
The idea that "management" is a one size fits all process is utter nonsense. For instance, In a sales driven organisation, you have to allow the sales people a lot of slack as long as they're delivering the goods. If a company parachutes in a load of clueless MBAs with no industry experience, they only have themselves to blame if they piss off those doing the work.
It is self evidently possible to introduce reasonable financial and management controls in creative organisations, otherwise they would all fail. It's just that, as with everything, there is a good and a bad way of doing it.
I do have evidence, you you care. Remember back in the 90's when Clinton instituted a "Luxury Tax" on things like Boats, Airplanes and super expensive cars? Wasn't supposed to impact anyone except the "super rich".
Well guess what, it nearly killed entire industries when the rich simply avoided the taxes, by not buying new "Luxury" items. Guess who it hurt? Yeah, those moronic workers who were laid off as demand for those items disappeared.
That just makes the case for taxing income at source rather than relying on any sort of sales tax (which genuinely is regressive).
The justification for progressive taxation is that the richer you are, the less you need that additional million (or billion) and the more you can afford to have it taxed.
And, yes, I know this depends on a socialist view of sharing out some of the wealth in society for the general good.
On the next level, where someone goes to jail for a month, someone who makes 10 million a year loses a lot more money than someone who makes 20,000 a year. Do you think the guy making 500 times as much should only go to jail for 23 minutes instead of a month because he loses more money? I don't think so.
1st degree murder is "banned" and the fines are dire, but people still do it.
Yes, but far fewer people do it than would otherwise, and it's necessary to have some sort of sanction in a world where there are sociopaths and other imperfect human beings.
So the idea that, say, a 20 mph speed limit near a school in the morning and early afternoon might be for safety reasons is just communist propaganda or something?
I've seen more jackasses in Hondas than I have in BMWs. Driving a less expensive car doesn't make you a better or more responsible driver, it just makes you stand out less.
You know those little feet under the back of your keyboard that let you tilt it up so it faces you? They're terrible. Your keyboard should be flat or, ideally, pitched away from your body. Whatever else the keyboard might offer in terms of ergonomics - tenting, a split and/or curved layout, angled key columns - at least do yourself the favour of getting one that has a negative tilt. That way your wrists can be straight and your fingers can reach down to the keys, as opposed to having to tilt your hands upwards, causing you damage that will, eventually, come back to bite you in the ass.
Unless you have hands coming straight out of your torso at belly-button level which is who nonergonomic keyboards seem to be designed for these days.
You can't touch type properly if the keys are sloping away from you. There is a reason why proper keyboards (including old manual typewriters) have the keys in ascending rows.
The way to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome is to take short but frequent breaks from the keyboard, even if it's just lifting your arms up and doing a few stretches.
You only want an ergo suggestion if it is awesome? As a software engineer, I've been using the Microsoft Narual 4000 for longer than I can remember. Before that, I had an earlier generation Microsoft ergo keyboard. Yeah, this thing is clunky, but honestly it is the most comfortable thing I've ever used for long term typing. Being a software engineer, ya'know that is an assload of typing!
I wonder if you'd snap out of it if someone, say, raped your wife (or mother, or daughter, or best friend) to death after torturing her for fun.
The price you pay for living in a civilised society is that you're not allowed to simply abduct such people and beat them to death yourself. The benefit of living in a civilised society is that you don't have to abduct such people and beat them to death yourself to get justice.
I would, though, like to hear your opinion on sending a man to work every day so that a bit of his paycheck can be used to buy breakfast, lunch, dinner, and much more for the person who raped his wife to death.
If someone stole my car or burgled my house, I wouldn't be particularly thrilled about paying for their time in jail. That doesn't mean I think they should be executed.
Those of us who oppose the death penalty see no reason to "fix" the system, and instead prefer to keep it as dysfunctional as possible until there is enough popular will to abolish it.
Revealing a typical left wing tactic. When popular opinion opposes what you want, rather than argue the case and convince people to do things the way you would prefer introduce "improvements" to the current system which actually make it worse, then use the results of these "improvements" to argue that the system is hopelessly flawed and must be replaced.
Yes, the prison and justice systems in the US are run by fanatical left wingers desperately trying to undermine the moral fabric of society, and probably doing something with fluroide.
Or at least the prison should be how it was when my country was part of the USSR - no TV, no complaining that you do not like the conditions there and also hard work for some. When people got out of prison they did not want to return there at all, unlike some criminals now who get out of prison, start committing crimes again and go back to prison shortly after.
Any argument which concludes with admiration for the USSR's justice system is inherently flawed.
The "social contract" is an expression that one must suspend some "natural rights" (i.e. the freedom to "do whatever you want") in order to obtain the benefits of living in a society (i.e. to protect rights that need social defense).
And this is precisely what so many of the rugged individualists on slashdot can't stand, and why they have been poo-pooing the Social Contract so vigorously. In the libertarian/Randian/Thatcherite view of many people here there is literally no such thing as society.
The "social contract" is a fiction created by the elite to keep the rest of us in line.
I always understood it to be a fiction or metaphor used by those who opposed the elite. Rousseau might have been wrong about many things, but he certainly believed in liberty, equality and fraternity.
The funny thing is that stuff like the constitutions of democracies are the closest real thing to actual social contracts. But the people who speak of social contracts tend to ignore that stuff.
And people who ignore ideas like the social contact tend to believe that things like the Constitution are eternal verities, rather than partial codifications of already existing behaviour, designed primarily to formalise the power structure of that society..
umm, the income tax is actually found in the constitution, not any "social contract"
Better yet. where is this social contract so i can have my lawyer take a look at it and see if it stands up
It's a metaphor, it would be like going to a stock exchange and trying to touch the Invisible Hand.
I believe you need to read Rosseau. There is something called "The Social Contract", which is something of a "shrink wrap license" you agree to by being born
We have gone over this time and time again that EULAs are unenforceable. therefore Rosseaus "social contract" is bunk.
Not really. You or I can't just opt out of whatever laws (or even customs) we feel like. We all have varying rights and responsibilities depending on where we live. Short of finding a self supporting desert island and only talking to the seagulls, you don't really have a choice.
Slashdot Mirror
I can work around em, but yea... when my trains all get piled up it is a problem...
and cars going to the right lane miles before their exit causing a backup with cars merging on is a problem too...
As others have noted, this is realistic. There's also a real-world solution for it - exits should occur before merges. That way, there's an empty lane for cars to merge into. By having a merge before the exit, as highway throughput increases, you experience jams.
UK motorways (at least) have the exits before the merges/joining lanes. I cannot imagine why you would do it the other way round.
many men will throw themselves at women with nice bodies. many women will throw themselves at men with nice wallets.
welcome to reality.
I'm a man, and I throw myself at women with huge...tracts of land
You damn kids can get off my lawn anytime now.
I don't think anyone who counts Doom 3 as an old game is quite ready for the Boss Grumpy Old Man level. You need to practice moaning about how text only games on a CDC mainframe in the 1960s were better than any of the Fancy Dan games nowadays. Or, at least, how in the 1970s you had to type in your own games in Assembly Language, and if you made a typo you destroyed your whole house in an electrical fire.
In all fairness, games like TF2 you can't play in offline mode to your hearts content. But that's mostly because it has no single player mode.
So you can't play an online only game offline?
Thanks Obama.
Or just download the crack for steam that allows you to play the games without them even opening steam... I have this for Borderlands 2, Earth defence force, x-com:TFD, and several other games including HL:2
Any system that requires a crack to use is not a good or trustworthy system.
It's like saying that since you can crack Windows, it doesn't require verification any more than Linux.
you sound like one of those crazy people that stands on the sidewalk with 500 words written in sharpie on a repurposed pizza box trying to tell everyone how Obama's chemtrails are making your teeth liberal
In most places, this would be an insult. On slashdot, it's merely a description of a popular lifestyle choice.
It is self evidently possible to introduce reasonable financial and management controls in creative organisations, otherwise they would all fail. It's just that, as with everything, there is a good and a bad way of doing it.
Everyone is allowed to speak the same. Money is just a tool to adjust reach of that speech (bullhorn)
That would be reasonable if speech had no effect in the real world, and therefore all rich people were doing was shouting louder.
In practice, speech has real world consequences, so you are favoured if you are rich.
I do have evidence, you you care. Remember back in the 90's when Clinton instituted a "Luxury Tax" on things like Boats, Airplanes and super expensive cars? Wasn't supposed to impact anyone except the "super rich".
Well guess what, it nearly killed entire industries when the rich simply avoided the taxes, by not buying new "Luxury" items. Guess who it hurt? Yeah, those moronic workers who were laid off as demand for those items disappeared.
That just makes the case for taxing income at source rather than relying on any sort of sales tax (which genuinely is regressive).
The justification for progressive taxation is that the richer you are, the less you need that additional million (or billion) and the more you can afford to have it taxed.
And, yes, I know this depends on a socialist view of sharing out some of the wealth in society for the general good.
We have a constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. Socialistic viewpoints don't work here.
Where socialism has failed to provide equal protection under the law in some countries, that is the fault of the countries, not socialism.
On the next level, where someone goes to jail for a month, someone who makes 10 million a year loses a lot more money than someone who makes 20,000 a year. Do you think the guy making 500 times as much should only go to jail for 23 minutes instead of a month because he loses more money? I don't think so.
Please don't give them ideas.
1st degree murder is "banned" and the fines are dire, but people still do it.
Yes, but far fewer people do it than would otherwise, and it's necessary to have some sort of sanction in a world where there are sociopaths and other imperfect human beings.
So the idea that, say, a 20 mph speed limit near a school in the morning and early afternoon might be for safety reasons is just communist propaganda or something?
I've seen more jackasses in Hondas than I have in BMWs. Driving a less expensive car doesn't make you a better or more responsible driver, it just makes you stand out less.
I have one word for you: Audi.
You know those little feet under the back of your keyboard that let you tilt it up so it faces you? They're terrible. Your keyboard should be flat or, ideally, pitched away from your body. Whatever else the keyboard might offer in terms of ergonomics - tenting, a split and/or curved layout, angled key columns - at least do yourself the favour of getting one that has a negative tilt. That way your wrists can be straight and your fingers can reach down to the keys, as opposed to having to tilt your hands upwards, causing you damage that will, eventually, come back to bite you in the ass.
Unless you have hands coming straight out of your torso at belly-button level which is who nonergonomic keyboards seem to be designed for these days.
You can't touch type properly if the keys are sloping away from you. There is a reason why proper keyboards (including old manual typewriters) have the keys in ascending rows.
The way to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome is to take short but frequent breaks from the keyboard, even if it's just lifting your arms up and doing a few stretches.
You only want an ergo suggestion if it is awesome? As a software engineer, I've been using the Microsoft Narual 4000 for longer than I can remember. Before that, I had an earlier generation Microsoft ergo keyboard. Yeah, this thing is clunky, but honestly it is the most comfortable thing I've ever used for long term typing. Being a software engineer, ya'know that is an assload of typing!
Are you a software engineer by any chance?
I wonder if you'd snap out of it if someone, say, raped your wife (or mother, or daughter, or best friend) to death after torturing her for fun.
The price you pay for living in a civilised society is that you're not allowed to simply abduct such people and beat them to death yourself. The benefit of living in a civilised society is that you don't have to abduct such people and beat them to death yourself to get justice.
I would, though, like to hear your opinion on sending a man to work every day so that a bit of his paycheck can be used to buy breakfast, lunch, dinner, and much more for the person who raped his wife to death.
If someone stole my car or burgled my house, I wouldn't be particularly thrilled about paying for their time in jail. That doesn't mean I think they should be executed.
Those of us who oppose the death penalty see no reason to "fix" the system, and instead prefer to keep it as dysfunctional as possible until there is enough popular will to abolish it.
Revealing a typical left wing tactic. When popular opinion opposes what you want, rather than argue the case and convince people to do things the way you would prefer introduce "improvements" to the current system which actually make it worse, then use the results of these "improvements" to argue that the system is hopelessly flawed and must be replaced.
Yes, the prison and justice systems in the US are run by fanatical left wingers desperately trying to undermine the moral fabric of society, and probably doing something with fluroide.
Or at least the prison should be how it was when my country was part of the USSR - no TV, no complaining that you do not like the conditions there and also hard work for some. When people got out of prison they did not want to return there at all, unlike some criminals now who get out of prison, start committing crimes again and go back to prison shortly after.
Any argument which concludes with admiration for the USSR's justice system is inherently flawed.
The "social contract" is an expression that one must suspend some "natural rights" (i.e. the freedom to "do whatever you want") in order to obtain the benefits of living in a society (i.e. to protect rights that need social defense).
And this is precisely what so many of the rugged individualists on slashdot can't stand, and why they have been poo-pooing the Social Contract so vigorously. In the libertarian/Randian/Thatcherite view of many people here there is literally no such thing as society.
The "social contract" is a fiction created by the elite to keep the rest of us in line.
I always understood it to be a fiction or metaphor used by those who opposed the elite. Rousseau might have been wrong about many things, but he certainly believed in liberty, equality and fraternity.
The funny thing is that stuff like the constitutions of democracies are the closest real thing to actual social contracts. But the people who speak of social contracts tend to ignore that stuff.
And people who ignore ideas like the social contact tend to believe that things like the Constitution are eternal verities, rather than partial codifications of already existing behaviour, designed primarily to formalise the power structure of that society..
umm, the income tax is actually found in the constitution, not any "social contract" Better yet. where is this social contract so i can have my lawyer take a look at it and see if it stands up
It's a metaphor, it would be like going to a stock exchange and trying to touch the Invisible Hand.
I believe you need to read Rosseau. There is something called "The Social Contract", which is something of a "shrink wrap license" you agree to by being born
We have gone over this time and time again that EULAs are unenforceable. therefore Rosseaus "social contract" is bunk.
Not really. You or I can't just opt out of whatever laws (or even customs) we feel like. We all have varying rights and responsibilities depending on where we live. Short of finding a self supporting desert island and only talking to the seagulls, you don't really have a choice.