If I pass then move over after just two car lengths, I've pretty much demonstrated the classic definition of cutting someone off. The only result is that they are then caused to either tailgate me or unexpectedly slow down, potentially causing a problem for the person behind them.
I'm not sure what reasons you may have for passing someone, but generally when I pass someone, it is because they are traveling at a lower speed than I would prefer. In passing them, I have already accelerated to a higher speed than they are traveling. When I merge back over, I am still moving faster than they are- because of this, there is no reason for them to unexpectedly slow down.
The only way I can see this becoming an issue is if you're accelerating to pass somebody, then slowing down to the same or a slower speed than that person is traveling. If that's the case, you're just being an asshole.
...who has actually stumbled across products and services that I find extremely useful due in no small part to Googles targetted ads?
I mean, is it really such a bad thing? No matter what ad is showed to me, its still my choice to click on it or not. If they're going to be there, they may as well be things I may find interesting.
...the AP doesn't want to cause unfair embarrassment to the alleged victims in case their story is true...
Doesn't even touch on the subject of rape being worse than being accused of rape. Specifically refers to hiding the identity of alleged victims to prevent unfair embarassment.
why wouldn't the AP also avoid publishing the name of the defendant, to avoid causing them vastly greater unfair embarrassment in case the victim's story is false?
Also does not make any hardship comparison between the act of rape itself and false accusation thereof; Again, it specifically refers to the hardship associated with public knowledge of the events.
I personally know a number of victims of sexual assault- among them my younger brother, by one of our cousins, who attempted the same with me as well. And you know what? It's rather presumptuous of you to put so much weight on the embarassment of the victims. From my experience, embarassment is the LEAST of their concerns. Even if nobody knows what happened to the victim, the victim still knows, and the victim still lived through it. Putting so much weight on their public embarassment serves only to trivialize the actual crime itself, and is a great disservice to the victims.
On the other hand, a person falsely accused of sexual assault is a victim as well. I wholeheartedly agree that the act of falsely accusing someone of sexual assault is not as disgusting or grave an offense as actually sexually assaulting someone. However, The falsely accused has to bear that scarlet letter for the rest of his or her life. The lifelong hardships faced by a sexual assault victim, on the other hand, aren't lessened in the least by hiding the act from public knowledge.
I'm not entirely certain how you can claim that public embarassment of a sexual assault victim is anywhere near a measurable percentage of the hardships he or she deals with. But as I said previously, it rather trivializes the hardships that sexual assault victims go through, and doing so does them a great disservice.
That could be addressed by making one of the mirrors slightly concave. This would distort the image slightly, but could probably work.
That being said, with that change suddenly there is a need to make sure the image is in focus, and the whole system was already a bit complicated for the layman anyway.
And even if it was made to work effortlessly, I still wouldn't use it, because as I said I hate touchscreens.
This is true. This could be mitigated by using two mirrors instead, but that'd be a bit more involved for an end user to setup. Anyone can tilt one mirror, but the average joe may have trouble lining up two. As a bonus, the image wouldn't have to be inverted at least.
For the record, I hate touch screens. That being said...
A lot of the comments here seem to have to do with the ergonomics of touchscreens; either you are holding your arms up in the air while working with them, or you're staring down at your desk and cramping up your neck.
But this whole problem could be avoided by placing a reflective surface above your desk and inverting the image on the screen. Screen flat on your desk, image reflects off the mirror. You look straight at it, and see the screen. For those people who can't type by touch and use the 'hunt and peck' method, this has the added advantage of being able to see whats on the screen and the keyboard he or she is typing on simultaneously.
Of course, this does nothing for the whole greasy fingerprints on the screen issue, which is the dealbreaker for me, but it at least cuts back on the ergonomic issues.
As long as we're going for bad analogies, this is more akin to a car pulling into a different brands factory and modifying the equipment there to reproduce more of itself instead of the competing model. Show me a car that can do that?
As said, it's a gray area, and there is no simple, definitive way to prove whether it is alive or not. Certainly, viruses are a bit too compicated to write off as simply a bunch of chemicals, but as to whether they're alive or not, noone can say. Anyone who truly believes that they can say either way definitely is certain to be overestimating his or her own knowledge.
But viruses DO have all they genetic material they need to replicate themselves. They merely use another organism for the actual mechanics of it. If they did not have sufficient genetic material, they would be unable to rewrite enough of the hosts dna to replicate themselves in the first place.
All viruses are parasites that depend on a host's replicating machinery by definition, therefore cannot be considered living.
Don't all 'higher' animals begin life essentially as a parasite within the mother? Now granted, its the same species in this scenario, but it's still something to think about.
What about fungi? They are considered organisms and alive, yet they grow as a parasite in or on a living host or other form of organic matter, and cannot grow or reproduce without said host. That's not too far off from how a virus reproduces. True, fungal reproduction does begin within the cells of the fungus itself, but the line really isn't as clear as many would think.
On that note, no life form truly reproduces autonomously; the chemicals that life is formed of are created/encoded from outside materials. Animals take in these outside materials by eating, plants draw them from the ground, fungi from the aforementioned host/organic matter.
That said, It is true that when viruses replicate, the 'parent' virus does not take in material to reproduce (and rather, as mentioned, hijacks the host cells systems to do so). As important as that distinction may sound, I believe that when compared to how 'true' life forms reproduce, it seems mainly a question of semantics. It's a tough call, I guess all that can be said is that viruses certainly define the term 'gray area...'
Case in point here- Command and Conquer Series, Red Alert vs. Red Alert 2.
Certainly, Red Alert 2 had more detailed graphics. However, Red Alert 2 in my opinion also had a much more "cartoony" look.
The original had more of a utilitarian and, well, military feel to it. I personally preferred this to its successor, despite the increased detail and higher resolutions it shipped with..
The drug education curriculum in high schools is mandated by the same government that keeps cannabis illegal. Gross exaggeration and scare tactics are often used.
It's similar in a lot of ways to sex education actually- It is a bit more difficult to get pregnant than sex ed would have you think.
There is a difference between merely advertising, and knowingly participating in a company's targeted manipulation of your friend to extract money.
Yeah, there is. Displaying ads is advertising. Nobody is making you or anybody else click an ad banner. And only you decide if you want a product or not. "Targeted manipulation" my ass. If, hypothetically speaking, one of your friends sees an ad through this system thats leads he or she to purchase a product, it was still said friends decision to make the purchase. You're really reaching here.
My PS2 has a red LED, a green LED, and a blue LED.
A single red one that indicates the power switch is on but the system is on 'standby'
A green one and a blue one that are on to indicate power, active mode, and a disc in the tray
Alright, now we're getting somewhere and it's interesting to read. It seems like you're in a pretty good position as well, given that you can actually focus on addressing the issues without being swamped with the standard set of issues all day long. In a sense then, I suppose that the exact type of user that drives me nuts is the kind that makes up a good chunk of your livelihood.
Sometimes you need to do a workaround just to keep things rolling, but I agree that this type of customer does tend to just pile workaround after workaround onto a machine, which just doesn't work, and as you said ends up making it worse in the long run.
Not just that, a number of so-called 'technical' people love to reinstall programs or reimage machines to fix trivial issues. Case in point, one of our former techs would reinstall excel anytime someone botched his UI to the point of not being able to work with it./regserver anyone? Still a band-aid, but certainly more time efficient. Eventually, we set it up to maintain a standard interface, preventing the issue from recurring, which is ideal. Of course we got complaints, as is always the case when users get restricted, but at least they weren't breaking it a dozen times a day or more. Unfortunately, office politics seemed to outweigh productivity concerns, but thats another story...
Slashdot Mirror
This is also a great time to have kids.
Not much else to do with the power out, amirite?
But windows told me it performed an illegal operation and had to be shut down...
If I pass then move over after just two car lengths, I've pretty much demonstrated the classic definition of cutting someone off. The only result is that they are then caused to either tailgate me or unexpectedly slow down, potentially causing a problem for the person behind them.
I'm not sure what reasons you may have for passing someone, but generally when I pass someone, it is because they are traveling at a lower speed than I would prefer. In passing them, I have already accelerated to a higher speed than they are traveling. When I merge back over, I am still moving faster than they are- because of this, there is no reason for them to unexpectedly slow down.
The only way I can see this becoming an issue is if you're accelerating to pass somebody, then slowing down to the same or a slower speed than that person is traveling. If that's the case, you're just being an asshole.
Not an issue here, as long as the dimensions of Mom's basement exceed those.
Yes, you're probably one in a thousand.
Ba-dum KSH!
Well played, sir.
...who has actually stumbled across products and services that I find extremely useful due in no small part to Googles targetted ads?
I mean, is it really such a bad thing? No matter what ad is showed to me, its still my choice to click on it or not. If they're going to be there, they may as well be things I may find interesting.
He has this ULTIMATE set of tools.
[citation needed] -love, Mom
...the AP doesn't want to cause unfair embarrassment to the alleged victims in case their story is true...
Doesn't even touch on the subject of rape being worse than being accused of rape. Specifically refers to hiding the identity of alleged victims to prevent unfair embarassment.
why wouldn't the AP also avoid publishing the name of the defendant, to avoid causing them vastly greater unfair embarrassment in case the victim's story is false?
Also does not make any hardship comparison between the act of rape itself and false accusation thereof; Again, it specifically refers to the hardship associated with public knowledge of the events.
I personally know a number of victims of sexual assault- among them my younger brother, by one of our cousins, who attempted the same with me as well. And you know what? It's rather presumptuous of you to put so much weight on the embarassment of the victims. From my experience, embarassment is the LEAST of their concerns. Even if nobody knows what happened to the victim, the victim still knows, and the victim still lived through it. Putting so much weight on their public embarassment serves only to trivialize the actual crime itself, and is a great disservice to the victims.
On the other hand, a person falsely accused of sexual assault is a victim as well. I wholeheartedly agree that the act of falsely accusing someone of sexual assault is not as disgusting or grave an offense as actually sexually assaulting someone. However, The falsely accused has to bear that scarlet letter for the rest of his or her life. The lifelong hardships faced by a sexual assault victim, on the other hand, aren't lessened in the least by hiding the act from public knowledge.
I'm not entirely certain how you can claim that public embarassment of a sexual assault victim is anywhere near a measurable percentage of the hardships he or she deals with. But as I said previously, it rather trivializes the hardships that sexual assault victims go through, and doing so does them a great disservice.
That could be addressed by making one of the mirrors slightly concave. This would distort the image slightly, but could probably work.
That being said, with that change suddenly there is a need to make sure the image is in focus, and the whole system was already a bit complicated for the layman anyway.
And even if it was made to work effortlessly, I still wouldn't use it, because as I said I hate touchscreens.
This is true. This could be mitigated by using two mirrors instead, but that'd be a bit more involved for an end user to setup. Anyone can tilt one mirror, but the average joe may have trouble lining up two. As a bonus, the image wouldn't have to be inverted at least.
For the record, I hate touch screens. That being said...
A lot of the comments here seem to have to do with the ergonomics of touchscreens; either you are holding your arms up in the air while working with them, or you're staring down at your desk and cramping up your neck.
But this whole problem could be avoided by placing a reflective surface above your desk and inverting the image on the screen. Screen flat on your desk, image reflects off the mirror. You look straight at it, and see the screen. For those people who can't type by touch and use the 'hunt and peck' method, this has the added advantage of being able to see whats on the screen and the keyboard he or she is typing on simultaneously.
Of course, this does nothing for the whole greasy fingerprints on the screen issue, which is the dealbreaker for me, but it at least cuts back on the ergonomic issues.
6. Profit!!
[citation needed]
If driving a car is so unsafe that you are required to wear a seatbelt, do you want to drive one?
Seatbelts and airbags won't do much for a drop from signifcant altitude... evacuation via parachute would basically be required.
...I have to transfer to a PvE server on WoW, in hopes that I will stop beating my family whenever I get ganked.
Speaking of bleach, this kind of thing is exactly why the gene pool should be chlorinated. There is definitely some funky shit growing in there...
As long as we're going for bad analogies, this is more akin to a car pulling into a different brands factory and modifying the equipment there to reproduce more of itself instead of the competing model. Show me a car that can do that?
As said, it's a gray area, and there is no simple, definitive way to prove whether it is alive or not. Certainly, viruses are a bit too compicated to write off as simply a bunch of chemicals, but as to whether they're alive or not, noone can say. Anyone who truly believes that they can say either way definitely is certain to be overestimating his or her own knowledge.
But viruses DO have all they genetic material they need to replicate themselves. They merely use another organism for the actual mechanics of it. If they did not have sufficient genetic material, they would be unable to rewrite enough of the hosts dna to replicate themselves in the first place.
All viruses are parasites that depend on a host's replicating machinery by definition, therefore cannot be considered living.
Don't all 'higher' animals begin life essentially as a parasite within the mother? Now granted, its the same species in this scenario, but it's still something to think about.
What about fungi? They are considered organisms and alive, yet they grow as a parasite in or on a living host or other form of organic matter, and cannot grow or reproduce without said host. That's not too far off from how a virus reproduces. True, fungal reproduction does begin within the cells of the fungus itself, but the line really isn't as clear as many would think.
On that note, no life form truly reproduces autonomously; the chemicals that life is formed of are created/encoded from outside materials. Animals take in these outside materials by eating, plants draw them from the ground, fungi from the aforementioned host/organic matter.
That said, It is true that when viruses replicate, the 'parent' virus does not take in material to reproduce (and rather, as mentioned, hijacks the host cells systems to do so). As important as that distinction may sound, I believe that when compared to how 'true' life forms reproduce, it seems mainly a question of semantics. It's a tough call, I guess all that can be said is that viruses certainly define the term 'gray area...'
Case in point here- Command and Conquer Series, Red Alert vs. Red Alert 2.
Certainly, Red Alert 2 had more detailed graphics. However, Red Alert 2 in my opinion also had a much more "cartoony" look.
The original had more of a utilitarian and, well, military feel to it. I personally preferred this to its successor, despite the increased detail and higher resolutions it shipped with..
The drug education curriculum in high schools is mandated by the same government that keeps cannabis illegal. Gross exaggeration and scare tactics are often used.
It's similar in a lot of ways to sex education actually- It is a bit more difficult to get pregnant than sex ed would have you think.
Only wrong in lack of imagination, no offense meant.
So long as the pieces still "click" onto other pieces, they're all interchangeable; there's always some way to use even the specialized pieces.
There is a difference between merely advertising, and knowingly participating in a company's targeted manipulation of your friend to extract money.
Yeah, there is. Displaying ads is advertising. Nobody is making you or anybody else click an ad banner. And only you decide if you want a product or not. "Targeted manipulation" my ass. If, hypothetically speaking, one of your friends sees an ad through this system thats leads he or she to purchase a product, it was still said friends decision to make the purchase. You're really reaching here.
Thats what THE LADIES call me!
My PS2 has a red LED, a green LED, and a blue LED. A single red one that indicates the power switch is on but the system is on 'standby' A green one and a blue one that are on to indicate power, active mode, and a disc in the tray
Alright, now we're getting somewhere and it's interesting to read. It seems like you're in a pretty good position as well, given that you can actually focus on addressing the issues without being swamped with the standard set of issues all day long. In a sense then, I suppose that the exact type of user that drives me nuts is the kind that makes up a good chunk of your livelihood.
/regserver anyone? Still a band-aid, but certainly more time efficient. Eventually, we set it up to maintain a standard interface, preventing the issue from recurring, which is ideal. Of course we got complaints, as is always the case when users get restricted, but at least they weren't breaking it a dozen times a day or more. Unfortunately, office politics seemed to outweigh productivity concerns, but thats another story...
Sometimes you need to do a workaround just to keep things rolling, but I agree that this type of customer does tend to just pile workaround after workaround onto a machine, which just doesn't work, and as you said ends up making it worse in the long run.
Not just that, a number of so-called 'technical' people love to reinstall programs or reimage machines to fix trivial issues. Case in point, one of our former techs would reinstall excel anytime someone botched his UI to the point of not being able to work with it.