You see, that's the thing, people so rarely do 20 on the freeway that it is unexpected, in addition to the increased delta-v. Even fewer people do 60 on most freeways near me, while most do somewhere between 70 and 80, making that the safe range. If you take the mean of the speed range of the majority of vehicles (70 to 80, mean 75) you quickly see that 80 is safer, in terms of delta-v, than even the common speed limit of 65 (though in areas where the speed limit is 70, 80 and the speed limit would be equivalent in terms of delta-v -- unless, of course, the mean speed increases to match). It's certainly safer than 60.
Your speed relative to the markings on the signs along the road has no bearing on your safety, while your speed relative to the other vehicles on the road does. go too slow and you become an obstacle (and hazard) to other drivers, go too fast and other drivers become obstacles to you. And, since traffic is fluid and not all moving at the same rate, it's really a matter of minimizing the number of car you pass, or that pass you; you can't eliminate the delta-v but you can sure minimize it.
Of course, the most important thing you can do on the road is not drive beyond your abilities, with remaining attentive coming in a very close second only because when you're less attentive your ability to drive decreases, but it does not necessarily increase with attention beyond a certain point; ability is clearly the limiting factor.
Uhm... I get that you were trying to make a joke but... If the traffic in front of you is stopped, you're stopping to avoid an accident, one of the allowed reasons to stop. it is only the first stopped-for-no-reason jackass who's breaking the law.
This is Slashdot, people who actually think that way are quite common here so, yes, whoosh, because there was no indication that you were in any way joking. I've seen you around enough that you should know what you wrote is something one might expect to see written here in all seriousness.
You don't put feminism in your pocket and ignore it until you're no longer behind the wheel. You still have the right to your speech, just as a feminist does, but you don't have the right to endanger others with said speech; speech that actively endangers others is not protected. For example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, which can incite people to run from the theater, possibly trampling over each other (there have been deaths related to this very activity) is illegal, unless there is an actual fire.
You were so close to the perfect explanation of what the person you are replying to fails to understand. Oh so so so close.
Not to mention I don't see how texting and driving is more of a distraction than having some screaming toddler in the back.
You don't see (the road) because you're texting; a screaming toddler might prevent you from hearing the radio, but doesn't require you to take your eyes off the road.
It's not so much that they don't have to see, it's that the phone screen they're staring at is in their lap, rather than in the direction they should be looking, so they simply can't see.
Overspray from flushing toilets enters through the outlet, not the inlet. Plus, the air turbulence created by the decice blows already-airborne bacteria and bacterua from nearby surfaces at the user. Then, there's the doorknob you have to touch on the way out, right after the guy who didn't wash, at which point... why did you bother washing? If you had a paper towel, all of that would ba avoided.
"News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters" are two separate clauses. Not all news for nerds matters and not all stuff that matters is news for nerds, but it all belongs here.
The HEPA filter will filter overspray that enters through the unit's inlet while the unit is not operating? It will filter overspray that enters the unit's exhaust path while it is operating? Please re-explain physics to me, then, since I clearly don't understand the subject at all.
Oh, wait, no, I do understand; a filter on the inlet won't do either of those things.
You get it from the bathroom stall.
So, I guess I never clarified thusly:
And please don't say toilet paper; that's going to be among the most contaminated items in the room.
Oh, wait, I did. I guess you didn't literally say toilet paper, so, there's that.
If you are such a germophobe then carry a small travel size of tissues as I do during pollen season.
It's not about being a germophobe, it's about not wanting to negate just having washed my hands. If I'm just going to pick up the same germs I just washed off, why even bother? And if my goal is to not pick up the germs from the door knob immediately after washing my hands, why the hell would I reach for something that sits right next to the source of the overspray (e.g. toilet paper)?
If you don't have a purse you probably have a pocket.
I do. Several, actually. They contain, amongst other items, a phone, a wallet, and some keys. I don't really have room in there for a pack of tissues, Mr. Judgy McJudgersen.
That's great, a HEPA filter the place that doesn't want to spend on paper towels will never spend on replacing. It also does nothing for:
sprayover from nearby toilets being flushed [which] will enter the unit and be propelled when it starts up
And where am I to carry this tissue? I don't exactly carry a purse and I never see any in public restrooms. And please don't say toilet paper; that's going to be among the most contaminated items in the room.
I was at a casino in Washington with a smoking section in December. The non-smoking section was up a half-flight of stairs, where all the smoke collected, and you had to walk through the smoking section to get to it. You know, the arrangement could have actually worked out if the smoking section were upstairs instead.
There is no norming group for a given scale, the scale and norming group are two completely different things, which I explained previously (and you could learn for yourself in about 5 minutes of research). The very same test, as I explained (and as explained on the page I linked to regarding what is likely the exact test you took), will apply to several different norming groups (in the case of that test, divided into age groups), all of which will be scored using the same scale.
So, no, if you were to give everyone in your shop a test that reports on that scale, the average would not necessarily be well over 100. It would depend on how it was normalized; if against the general population, yes, it likely would be; however, you could also normalize against just that test group. This is the point you are missing.
The score (and percentile, for that matter) really mean nothing unless you know what group it relates to. If your norming group is global and includes mud-hut-dwellers[1] (before anyone jumps on that, I'm not bringing race into this, there are people of all races who live in mud huts), drug addicts, and the mentally disabled, your score will be higher because they bring down the average. Likewise if the scoring isn't broken down by age (as your test likely was, though you really don't know because you didn't care to ask when you took the test). If, however, as with the test I linked to in my last post, the test splits the mentally handicapped and mentally gifted into their own groups (a score falling into either category is re-scored against an adjusted scale), then further divides into smaller groups by age, your score will be lower, as the lower end of the scale has been removed, adjusting the bell curve downward. Again, this has nothing to do with the scale used and everything to do with the norming group you fall into, which, again, has nothing to do with the scale.
I suggest you read through the details of that test, as it is very likely the one you actually took. Here's a gem that might surprise you:
Q: Why is reliability lower for the intellectually gifted and the intellectually disabled (formerly referred to as mental retardation) special group samples than for the normative sample?
A: It is a consistent finding that the restriction in the range of scores obtained by these groups frequently results in lower reliabilities."
For that particular test (in fact, for that scale), a high or low score is unreliable and indeterminate. I know this isn't what you want to hear (none of what I'm saying is), as it challenges your view of yourself as a highly intelligent being. The thing is, though, that's not at all what I'm trying to do; I'm trying to get you to realize what that test actually means. Your unwillingness to do so only points more strongly to the inaccuracy of the test you took at the upper and lower extremes. Your score of 151 is great, it means you scored higher than 99.9% of some unknown group for which you don't know the demgraphics; yay. It also isn't necessarily higher than my 137, as we were scored on different scales and against different norming groups; again, comparing numbers only means anything when the test, scale, and norming group are identical. I suggest you go find out how norming groups for the test you took are broken down, and which one you fall into, so you can know what your score actually means; it could simply mean you were compared against more impaired people than I was, or it could mean you're actually more intelligent (and for some reason afraid to use that intelligence to understand the test itself).
[1] Not that people who live in mud huts are necessarily less intelligent, but as a whole it can be proven they are.
The inlet is at the base of the unit. It doesn't take much study to figure out it's gonna suck up anything down there and blow it out the outlet, that's how a blower works. Not necessarily from the floor itself, but fungal spores and bacteria from feet near the inlet are quite likely to be sucked up. Also, sprayover from nearby toilets being flushed will enter the unit and be propelled when it starts up. Plus, you can't use the Dyson Blade to pull the bathroom door open, so you're touching the same knob or handle that was touched by everyone who didn't wash their hands, thereby re-contaminating yourself. With a paper towel, you grab one on the way in, use that to touch any surfaces (stall door/latch, flush lever, faucet, lever to dispense another towel), then use a second towel to dry your hands and open the door on your way out. You never have to touch a surface in that bathroom beyond the initial lever pull to dispense that first towel, and you don't even have to do that with an automated diapenser.
I've been studying common sense my entire life so, yes, I've got a study to back that up. My findings are published above.
And yet it's still blowing germs from foot level to face level. Or am I the one wierdo who doesn't wash their shoes and/or feet when using a public restroom?
That doesn't do anything for DVD and Blu-ray, both of which are much more akin to a pirate download. I just pirate before I pay; if it sucks, I "get my money back" by not having spent it in the first place; if it doesn't suck, I want to experience it in theaters, so I pay. If It really doesn't suck, I also buy it on Blu-ray when it's available. If I couldn't pirate, I simply wouldn't buy; by the time I can see it elsewhere "legally" without buying it, I no longer have a reason to.
Right, but the problem is that we use half-effective antibacterial soaps which leave the bacteria alive to breed future generations immune to those antibacterial agents, and which our immune systems have not previosly been exposed to in order to build a defense. Or, you know, the common cold or flu.
The solution I've seen is a 15ft hallway with an abrupt 180 degree turn into the bathroom. You get privacy, as there is no angle to view into the room from outside the hallway, and there's no door to deal with. There's usually another 90 degree turn in the opposite direction to get to the urinals in these designs, obviously stalls with doors for #2, and the sinks are on the wall nearest the end of the hallway.
Doesn't treating viral infections spread by poor hygiene user up more resources than a few paper towels? In that case, paper towels win on both fronts.
Screw touching the sides, they blow more air, at higher velocities, than the traditional hand blowers we already knew were worse than paper towels. You're having those germs thrown at your face by the thing, not rubbed into your hands.
Ah yes, treat everyone in the same vague demographic as if they were an amorphous mob of clones who act and think the same way.
That's not what's happening at all. You see, there are 22 year olds who don't need to be told and 22 year old who can't be told. That's a total of two groups, not one.
How do you know it's worthless until you see it? And that is an argument a shoplifter can't use in most cases; you can return most items to most stores for a full refund or, at worst, the cost of a small restocking fee. When I can do that with a movie I don't like (which used to be the case with VHS and in the early DVD days), I'll consider it.
Slashdot Mirror
You compensate for speed with following distance. If you aren't doing that, you're driving beyond your abilities.
You see, that's the thing, people so rarely do 20 on the freeway that it is unexpected, in addition to the increased delta-v. Even fewer people do 60 on most freeways near me, while most do somewhere between 70 and 80, making that the safe range. If you take the mean of the speed range of the majority of vehicles (70 to 80, mean 75) you quickly see that 80 is safer, in terms of delta-v, than even the common speed limit of 65 (though in areas where the speed limit is 70, 80 and the speed limit would be equivalent in terms of delta-v -- unless, of course, the mean speed increases to match). It's certainly safer than 60.
Your speed relative to the markings on the signs along the road has no bearing on your safety, while your speed relative to the other vehicles on the road does. go too slow and you become an obstacle (and hazard) to other drivers, go too fast and other drivers become obstacles to you. And, since traffic is fluid and not all moving at the same rate, it's really a matter of minimizing the number of car you pass, or that pass you; you can't eliminate the delta-v but you can sure minimize it.
Of course, the most important thing you can do on the road is not drive beyond your abilities, with remaining attentive coming in a very close second only because when you're less attentive your ability to drive decreases, but it does not necessarily increase with attention beyond a certain point; ability is clearly the limiting factor.
Uhm... I get that you were trying to make a joke but... If the traffic in front of you is stopped, you're stopping to avoid an accident, one of the allowed reasons to stop. it is only the first stopped-for-no-reason jackass who's breaking the law.
This is Slashdot, people who actually think that way are quite common here so, yes, whoosh, because there was no indication that you were in any way joking. I've seen you around enough that you should know what you wrote is something one might expect to see written here in all seriousness.
You don't put feminism in your pocket and ignore it until you're no longer behind the wheel. You still have the right to your speech, just as a feminist does, but you don't have the right to endanger others with said speech; speech that actively endangers others is not protected. For example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, which can incite people to run from the theater, possibly trampling over each other (there have been deaths related to this very activity) is illegal, unless there is an actual fire.
You can pull over to deal with either of them. And you should.
Nothing punctuates the phrase "don't make me stop this car" better than actually stopping it.
Not to mention I don't see how texting and driving is more of a distraction than having some screaming toddler in the back.
You don't see (the road) because you're texting; a screaming toddler might prevent you from hearing the radio, but doesn't require you to take your eyes off the road.
It's not so much that they don't have to see, it's that the phone screen they're staring at is in their lap, rather than in the direction they should be looking, so they simply can't see.
Overspray from flushing toilets enters through the outlet, not the inlet. Plus, the air turbulence created by the decice blows already-airborne bacteria and bacterua from nearby surfaces at the user. Then, there's the doorknob you have to touch on the way out, right after the guy who didn't wash, at which point... why did you bother washing? If you had a paper towel, all of that would ba avoided.
"News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters" are two separate clauses. Not all news for nerds matters and not all stuff that matters is news for nerds, but it all belongs here.
Yup, this directly affects porn and that will get the masses moving.
The HEPA filter will filter that.
The HEPA filter will filter overspray that enters through the unit's inlet while the unit is not operating? It will filter overspray that enters the unit's exhaust path while it is operating? Please re-explain physics to me, then, since I clearly don't understand the subject at all.
Oh, wait, no, I do understand; a filter on the inlet won't do either of those things.
You get it from the bathroom stall.
So, I guess I never clarified thusly:
And please don't say toilet paper; that's going to be among the most contaminated items in the room.
Oh, wait, I did. I guess you didn't literally say toilet paper, so, there's that.
If you are such a germophobe then carry a small travel size of tissues as I do during pollen season.
It's not about being a germophobe, it's about not wanting to negate just having washed my hands. If I'm just going to pick up the same germs I just washed off, why even bother? And if my goal is to not pick up the germs from the door knob immediately after washing my hands, why the hell would I reach for something that sits right next to the source of the overspray (e.g. toilet paper)?
If you don't have a purse you probably have a pocket.
I do. Several, actually. They contain, amongst other items, a phone, a wallet, and some keys. I don't really have room in there for a pack of tissues, Mr. Judgy McJudgersen.
sprayover from nearby toilets being flushed [which] will enter the unit and be propelled when it starts up
And where am I to carry this tissue? I don't exactly carry a purse and I never see any in public restrooms. And please don't say toilet paper; that's going to be among the most contaminated items in the room.
I see you've never stayed long enough for the lights to come back on.
I was at a casino in Washington with a smoking section in December. The non-smoking section was up a half-flight of stairs, where all the smoke collected, and you had to walk through the smoking section to get to it. You know, the arrangement could have actually worked out if the smoking section were upstairs instead.
So, no, if you were to give everyone in your shop a test that reports on that scale, the average would not necessarily be well over 100. It would depend on how it was normalized; if against the general population, yes, it likely would be; however, you could also normalize against just that test group. This is the point you are missing.
The score (and percentile, for that matter) really mean nothing unless you know what group it relates to. If your norming group is global and includes mud-hut-dwellers[1] (before anyone jumps on that, I'm not bringing race into this, there are people of all races who live in mud huts), drug addicts, and the mentally disabled, your score will be higher because they bring down the average. Likewise if the scoring isn't broken down by age (as your test likely was, though you really don't know because you didn't care to ask when you took the test). If, however, as with the test I linked to in my last post, the test splits the mentally handicapped and mentally gifted into their own groups (a score falling into either category is re-scored against an adjusted scale), then further divides into smaller groups by age, your score will be lower, as the lower end of the scale has been removed, adjusting the bell curve downward. Again, this has nothing to do with the scale used and everything to do with the norming group you fall into, which, again, has nothing to do with the scale.
I suggest you read through the details of that test, as it is very likely the one you actually took. Here's a gem that might surprise you:
Q: Why is reliability lower for the intellectually gifted and the intellectually disabled (formerly referred to as mental retardation) special group samples than for the normative sample?
A: It is a consistent finding that the restriction in the range of scores obtained by these groups frequently results in lower reliabilities."
For that particular test (in fact, for that scale), a high or low score is unreliable and indeterminate. I know this isn't what you want to hear (none of what I'm saying is), as it challenges your view of yourself as a highly intelligent being. The thing is, though, that's not at all what I'm trying to do; I'm trying to get you to realize what that test actually means. Your unwillingness to do so only points more strongly to the inaccuracy of the test you took at the upper and lower extremes. Your score of 151 is great, it means you scored higher than 99.9% of some unknown group for which you don't know the demgraphics; yay. It also isn't necessarily higher than my 137, as we were scored on different scales and against different norming groups; again, comparing numbers only means anything when the test, scale, and norming group are identical. I suggest you go find out how norming groups for the test you took are broken down, and which one you fall into, so you can know what your score actually means; it could simply mean you were compared against more impaired people than I was, or it could mean you're actually more intelligent (and for some reason afraid to use that intelligence to understand the test itself).
[1] Not that people who live in mud huts are necessarily less intelligent, but as a whole it can be proven they are.
The inlet is at the base of the unit. It doesn't take much study to figure out it's gonna suck up anything down there and blow it out the outlet, that's how a blower works. Not necessarily from the floor itself, but fungal spores and bacteria from feet near the inlet are quite likely to be sucked up. Also, sprayover from nearby toilets being flushed will enter the unit and be propelled when it starts up. Plus, you can't use the Dyson Blade to pull the bathroom door open, so you're touching the same knob or handle that was touched by everyone who didn't wash their hands, thereby re-contaminating yourself. With a paper towel, you grab one on the way in, use that to touch any surfaces (stall door/latch, flush lever, faucet, lever to dispense another towel), then use a second towel to dry your hands and open the door on your way out. You never have to touch a surface in that bathroom beyond the initial lever pull to dispense that first towel, and you don't even have to do that with an automated diapenser.
I've been studying common sense my entire life so, yes, I've got a study to back that up. My findings are published above.
Right, and we're discussing reality as it exists beyond the very flawed study.
And yet it's still blowing germs from foot level to face level. Or am I the one wierdo who doesn't wash their shoes and/or feet when using a public restroom?
That doesn't do anything for DVD and Blu-ray, both of which are much more akin to a pirate download. I just pirate before I pay; if it sucks, I "get my money back" by not having spent it in the first place; if it doesn't suck, I want to experience it in theaters, so I pay. If It really doesn't suck, I also buy it on Blu-ray when it's available. If I couldn't pirate, I simply wouldn't buy; by the time I can see it elsewhere "legally" without buying it, I no longer have a reason to.
Right, but the problem is that we use half-effective antibacterial soaps which leave the bacteria alive to breed future generations immune to those antibacterial agents, and which our immune systems have not previosly been exposed to in order to build a defense. Or, you know, the common cold or flu.
The solution I've seen is a 15ft hallway with an abrupt 180 degree turn into the bathroom. You get privacy, as there is no angle to view into the room from outside the hallway, and there's no door to deal with. There's usually another 90 degree turn in the opposite direction to get to the urinals in these designs, obviously stalls with doors for #2, and the sinks are on the wall nearest the end of the hallway.
Doesn't treating viral infections spread by poor hygiene user up more resources than a few paper towels? In that case, paper towels win on both fronts.
Screw touching the sides, they blow more air, at higher velocities, than the traditional hand blowers we already knew were worse than paper towels. You're having those germs thrown at your face by the thing, not rubbed into your hands.
Ah yes, treat everyone in the same vague demographic as if they were an amorphous mob of clones who act and think the same way.
That's not what's happening at all. You see, there are 22 year olds who don't need to be told and 22 year old who can't be told. That's a total of two groups, not one.
How do you know it's worthless until you see it? And that is an argument a shoplifter can't use in most cases; you can return most items to most stores for a full refund or, at worst, the cost of a small restocking fee. When I can do that with a movie I don't like (which used to be the case with VHS and in the early DVD days), I'll consider it.