Not allowed. You can't be fired without activating some clause in your contract. The two typical ones are gross misconduct (doing something dangerous, or illegal at work), or repeated misconduct (doing something the boss has asked you not to do repeatedly, and having a paper trail proving that the boss has repeatedly asked you not to do it).
The third is Redundancy (your position no longer exists) which normally comes with a payout. So employers dont like this option.
It's pretty much the same for Australia (and I'd bet, NZ as well), if an employer wants to get rid of someone without having to risk going through the courts or paying them out they really have two options, 1) make their job a living hell so they quit and 2) the "repeated misconduct" option, which is to find something they're doing wrong and give them two warnings about it. Normally it's a mixture between the two with the employer giving the employee something that they know the employee will fail at and letting them fail three times. This is quite illegal but just as hard to prove in court.
She is just seeking reinstatement. They sacked her from her job claiming she has abused sick leave. The proof is on the employer and it should not require the person's privacy to be ruined for that.
Actually, under Australian law (which is pretty much the same as UnZud) misusing sick leave is a sackable offence.
An employer is well within their rights to demand proof that the sick leave was due to actual illness or injury, normally this is in the form of a medical certificate. Seeing as the former employee is claiming unfair dismissal (legal term) they have to prove that the dismissal was unfair. That being said, courts in Australia tend to side with the employee in unfair dismissal cases, so by doing this they are offering the employee a chance to clear their name (no evidence will help the employee as much as an actual medical certificate) however if the facebook shows that she was in Aukland's shopping district (on a sneaky little shopping trip), then it will hurt her case.
When talking about driving, and particularly about penalties, one can rarely use the phrase "in the US". It is handled at the state level and varies widely.
Sorry, I meant to say in California, which I was using as a reference point.
I'll bet that few places have significantly higher fines (probably NYC and other big cities at a guess).
As far as suspensions, due to the necessity of a car in most places in the US, DMVs or courts will provide an allowance so you can drive to work, school, etc. Makes for a big loophole,
The loop hole needs to be closed.
The point of punishment is that it does effect your life. It does affect your ability to go to work, school, etc... and that a driver needs to think about these things before doing things that will get their license suspended.
As I said in my GP post, I think fines are a pretty ineffective way of changing behaviour. If you want to change behaviour you need the people you're trying to change to take it seriously and fines just dont cut it. People complain but they pay the fine and keep doing whatever got them fined in the first place, all the while pretending they're the victim.
Talking on the phone will just inhibit a driver further. So not only will they be tired, they will be tired and distracted. If you're too tired to drive, you need to pull over and get out of the car. Fatigue wont be fixed by distracting the driver even more, stop, have a cup of tea and stretch your legs.
That's simply not true. It is well established that for most people (read "not narcoleptics"), talking aloud—particularly talking about a subject that requires at least a modicum of thought—significantly reduces your likelihood of falling asleep. Any claim to the contrary requires extraordinary proof.
Actually it is true.
And talking wont help. With the phone you're taking an already inhibited driver (fatigued driver) and providing them with a distraction (the phone) to remove their already limited attention from the road.
The only way to reverse fatigue is to rest. Talking wont do a damned thing, talking on the phone will make it worse.
Actually learn about managing fatigue before commenting on managing fatigue.
Here's some reading on basic fatigue management. Also, you completely failed to provide proof of your claims, therefore you cant claim I require proof to refute them (although I did because I'm a nice guy). So actually prove your claims before pretending they are irrefutable.
I don't know, I knew a guy who would, every year, drive from Kiel (Northern Germany) to Malaga (Spain) in his Volkswagen van. While doing so, he would read poems and memorize these so could recite.
The distance is about 2700 Km (1600 miles) and he never had an accident. I don't know how he did it, but for about ten years, he was quite a safe driver (after that, I lost contact to him - because I moved to another place)...
I know people who have crashed because they couldn't stay off their phone, all at fault crashes. 3 of them have had multiple crashes and yet they still wonder why it's cheaper for me to insure my sports car than it is for them to insure a Corolla. I have also been in 1 crash where someone who was on the phone totalled my Pulsar (well, that's how I got the sports car, kind of a long story but the Pulsar was insured for more than it was worth).
However you'll find listening to music or even reading is quite different to texting and phone calls. I tried listening to Spanish lessons in my car and finding that I have to go back over them when I'm not driving simply because when the road requires more of my attention I simply tune out to whatever the instructor on the tape is saying. If I had of concentrated on the lesson and ignored my driving I'd probably have ended up finishing the course in hospital. The same with passengers or music, these are distractions I can easily tune out. However a phone call or text isn't like this, it demands your attention and most people dont tune out and worse yet, prioritise their phone over their driving.
Could it simply be that there's fewer accidents after 9 PM, regardless as to whether people are on the phone or not?
They looked at accident data before and after the "free minutes" were available. So they were not comparing 9PM to 6PM, but rather 9PM with free minutes to 9PM without free minutes.
Anyway, I find their conclusion hard to believe. I was in several near accidents while talking before I swore off using the phone while driving.
Their assumption is that the "free minutes" changed anyone's phone call habits or driving behaviour. This is a pretty bad assumption.
I'm becoming convinced that no legislation can fix this other than legalizing autopilots on cars. Most people who are driving would rather not be driving.
The problem isn't with the legislation, it's with the lack of meaningful punishment.
In Perth, Western Australia if you get caught on the phone whilst on the road its $300 and 3 demerit points (a full licensed driver can accrue 12 before losing their license). More people would think twice if it carried an instant 30 day suspension, for those who dont, at least we have a better chance to get them off the road.
Same with speeding, fines in the US are ridiculously low. in the US, up to 15 MPH over (22KPH) is only $35, 25 MPH (40 KPH) is only $70. This is no disincentive, if a 15+ MPH ticket came with a 1 month suspension as well as a fine people will start to take note. In WA (Australia), 0-9 KPH over is A$75 and 10-19 is A$150, in Germany 30 KPH has a 1 month suspension, German drivers are a hell of a lot more polite than Australians.
Please note, I dont want to see an increase in fines, I believe fines at this low level are ineffective as a method of changing behaviour. I'd like to see an increase in suspensions, license suspensions will change behaviour or they will get morons off the road (considering driving whilst suspended in Australia can end up with 2 years behind bars).
There's also another way to interpret the data—that the negative effects of using the phone more after 9 P.M.
Or that phone usage has not actually dropped, it's only the law that has changed.
It's like when speed zones change. A council on my route recently changed a speed zone from 60 KPH to 70 KPH after the completion of a new roundabout, however 90% of drivers are still doing 60 because they wont change their habits. People have always done 60 down that road, so they'll keep doing it.
for fully awake drivers are cancelled out by the positive effects of ongoing interaction with another person helping keep sleepy drivers more alert. If this is the case, then banning cell phone use might actually cost lives....
This is utter bollocks.
A tired driver has already had their abilities reduced. Fatigue is the thrid biggest killer behind speed and drugs and alcohol and the biggest cause of accidents after drugs and alcohol. The problem with using a mobile phone whilst driving is that it distracts the driver. The driver has their attention taken off the road and put onto another task, what is worse is that the driver prioritises this other task over driving.
Talking on the phone will just inhibit a driver further. So not only will they be tired, they will be tired and distracted. If you're too tired to drive, you need to pull over and get out of the car. Fatigue wont be fixed by distracting the driver even more, stop, have a cup of tea and stretch your legs.
Distracted driving has always been the problem and being on the phone distracts drivers even more, this has been proven in multiple tests, so the study in the article can easily be explained by people ignoring the law.
* Footnote: The average meal at mcdonald's costs around $6. The ratio is accurate: This is like going to McDonald's to order a happy meal and winding up spending more than you do on rent for it. Whups.
* Addendum: Not in Australia, you're looking at $8.
If I were paying $1.2 billion for something as rote as a payroll system, it better be fucking amazing.
The real WTF is that IBM still don't have an off-the-shelf payroll system.
Paying people's wages is almost the original computer application.
Not really,
IBM makes SFA from selling software, it's selling services that makes them money. So having a product that is functional off the shelf eliminated the need for expensive consulting to customise the product for individual clients (thus killing revenue).
IBM is a services company, not a software company.
Machining can be done with a file, this is largely how Khyber pass guns are made.
Give it up already.
This, cheap weapons can be made in back yards with rudimentary tools. They can be mass produced without much machining at all (Al la the STEN linked to earlier, it was mostly pressed from sheet metal).
However quality firearms are not so easy to make, guns like the Sten which were very cheap to manufacture tend to have a lot of problems (the STEN had a lot of loading/feed issues, especially if held by the magazine).
So if you just want to get a cheap, no-nonsense sub machine gun you can easily do it from unskilled labour in a impromptu workshop. If you want a SMG that will work no-matter what, it's a bit more difficult.
People dont give a shit how a structurally sound a bridge is constructed either, only a tiny tiny % of its users do.. Just because only a few know enough to care doesnt change the argument. Very often it is the unpopular ideas that are correct.
This.
People dont give a shit how safe a bridge is until it collapses, then they care a lot. People dont give a shit until it affects them, but by then it's too late.
People are dicks like that.
So it really is up to that tiny, tiny % of geeks or structural engineers to effect change.
We use firefox across our work network, and for obvious reasons, the head of our company has ordered Facebook blocked. The last thing I want is everyone being ordered to use Internet Explorer as a result. Even better if we can install one that doesn't even have those functions.
If you're relying on browsers to block websites, you're already doing it wrong.
Block *.facebook.com on the firewall. This will prevent any client from accessing it.
Have the boss make it known to the users at large Facebook is blocked and accessing it is a sackable offence. This is very important as if the boss does not make an announcement end users will hound you to unblock it as they think you made the decision.
And because you call iOS7 crippleware even before it's out.
Given the fact that IOS's 1 through 6 were crippleware, I think that it's a safe bet that IOS 7 will be the same. I highly doubt Apple will reverse their policy of limiting what the user can do.
Carriers exist to project power when it's not a case of total war against a strong opponent (i.e., every conflict since WWII). Nothing else does that job as well - not even close. When war gets hot then of course its the Boomers that matter, and surface ships are irrelevant.
Destroyers have never been able to project power - that's never been their mission in the history of navies.
The Destroyer's role has always been defensive. They are the ships you use to hunt submarines.
In the next total war, submarines are going to matter less as fast ships that can unleash a small fleet of drones and get out before subs can respond will project power. In fact subs will probably have the same role swapping ICBM's for tube launched drones (Note, Japan experimented with submarine carriers like the I400 in WWII).
Nuclear torpedoes have the yield to take out a single ship, not an entire carrier group, and can be defeated the same way any other torpedo can (if unguided, it can miss or be evaded, especially if fired from extreme range, if guided, it can be tricked).
Torpedoes can also be intercepted.
An undersea nuclear detonation will have the majority of its energy dissipated by the ocean itself, so the torpedo itself has to be precisely detonated to produce enough displacement to capsize ships.
Nukes tend to be the most dangerous when airburst, ground detonation will reduce the energy of the blast significantly, underwater will reduce it even more, beyond that the big killer will be radiation. These two things make using nukes in naval combat less effective than conventional weapons.
Can we stop deliberately confusing "stuff I believe" with "religion"?
Religion is just "stuff people believe in".
(I say this as an atheist. Religious people do this too. "Atheism is just a religion", "evolution is a religion", "environmentalism is a religion". No it isn't.)
These aren't religions as they have a basis in fact (or in the case of atheism, the complete absence of belief).
With things like Evolution, it doesn't require your belief, evolution wont grind to a halt just because no-one believes in it. That's the difference between a religion and a science.
I swerved into the next lane (the middle lane) to avoid crunching into the truck (who'd gone from ~60 mph to maybe 30 in an instant).
OK, I believed you up until here.
If you know anything about driving heavy vehicles you know that they dont just drop 45 KPH in an instant. Trucks are naturally slow to stop to avoid the rear wheels going faster than the front wheels (commonly called drifting and with a vehicle that is 8 metres long, drifting is very, very, fucking bad) and a good truck driver will avoid braking sharply to protect his load.
So a car will be able to brake faster than a truck.
After that is out of the way, in my country you would have broken the law by travelling so close to the vehicle in front that you were unable to stop without hitting the other vehicle when they braked in an emergency (Legal wording here). Keeping a minimum safe distance is not just law here in Australia, it's a good defensive driving technique anywhere. For the average vehicle, 2-3 seconds is the minimum safe distance, for a truck it's longer (6 seconds min) as they take longer to stop and it keeps you out of a trucks absolutely massive blind spot.
So yes, this is your fault and could have been avoided by following the proper defensive driving technique of maintaining a safe distance.
You haven't managed to prove a police state, you've just inadvertently revealed that you're a bad driver.
Along with trying to eliminate the unnecessary worlds from Oldspeak, we are also trying to eliminate the unnecessary spaces. We find this approach doubleplus good.
Slashdot Mirror
The third is Redundancy (your position no longer exists) which normally comes with a payout. So employers dont like this option.
It's pretty much the same for Australia (and I'd bet, NZ as well), if an employer wants to get rid of someone without having to risk going through the courts or paying them out they really have two options, 1) make their job a living hell so they quit and 2) the "repeated misconduct" option, which is to find something they're doing wrong and give them two warnings about it. Normally it's a mixture between the two with the employer giving the employee something that they know the employee will fail at and letting them fail three times. This is quite illegal but just as hard to prove in court.
WILL be used against you.
So maybe it would be a good idea to not post every detail about your life on the Internet.
Especially if you're chucking a sickie to go on a shopping trip.
She is the one filing a complaint.
http://www.howtolaw.co.nz/bring-a-wrongful-dismissal-claim-against-your-employer-xidp392272.html
http://www.era.govt.nz/
Are you serious?
She is just seeking reinstatement. They sacked her from her job claiming she has abused sick leave. The proof is on the employer and it should not require the person's privacy to be ruined for that.
Actually, under Australian law (which is pretty much the same as UnZud) misusing sick leave is a sackable offence.
An employer is well within their rights to demand proof that the sick leave was due to actual illness or injury, normally this is in the form of a medical certificate. Seeing as the former employee is claiming unfair dismissal (legal term) they have to prove that the dismissal was unfair. That being said, courts in Australia tend to side with the employee in unfair dismissal cases, so by doing this they are offering the employee a chance to clear their name (no evidence will help the employee as much as an actual medical certificate) however if the facebook shows that she was in Aukland's shopping district (on a sneaky little shopping trip), then it will hurt her case.
When talking about driving, and particularly about penalties, one can rarely use the phrase "in the US". It is handled at the state level and varies widely.
Sorry, I meant to say in California, which I was using as a reference point.
I'll bet that few places have significantly higher fines (probably NYC and other big cities at a guess).
As far as suspensions, due to the necessity of a car in most places in the US, DMVs or courts will provide an allowance so you can drive to work, school, etc. Makes for a big loophole,
The loop hole needs to be closed.
The point of punishment is that it does effect your life. It does affect your ability to go to work, school, etc... and that a driver needs to think about these things before doing things that will get their license suspended.
As I said in my GP post, I think fines are a pretty ineffective way of changing behaviour. If you want to change behaviour you need the people you're trying to change to take it seriously and fines just dont cut it. People complain but they pay the fine and keep doing whatever got them fined in the first place, all the while pretending they're the victim.
That's simply not true. It is well established that for most people (read "not narcoleptics"), talking aloud—particularly talking about a subject that requires at least a modicum of thought—significantly reduces your likelihood of falling asleep. Any claim to the contrary requires extraordinary proof.
Actually it is true.
And talking wont help. With the phone you're taking an already inhibited driver (fatigued driver) and providing them with a distraction (the phone) to remove their already limited attention from the road.
The only way to reverse fatigue is to rest. Talking wont do a damned thing, talking on the phone will make it worse.
Actually learn about managing fatigue before commenting on managing fatigue.
http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Publications/HVDF_Basic_July08.pdf
Here's some reading on basic fatigue management. Also, you completely failed to provide proof of your claims, therefore you cant claim I require proof to refute them (although I did because I'm a nice guy). So actually prove your claims before pretending they are irrefutable.
Maybe the Xbox factory is just a front for drugs or something.
Nah, drugs are highly profitable. Microsoft's entertainment division doesn't do profitable.
I don't know, I knew a guy who would, every year, drive from Kiel (Northern Germany) to Malaga (Spain) in his Volkswagen van. While doing so, he would read poems and memorize these so could recite.
The distance is about 2700 Km (1600 miles) and he never had an accident. I don't know how he did it, but for about ten years, he was quite a safe driver (after that, I lost contact to him - because I moved to another place)...
I know people who have crashed because they couldn't stay off their phone, all at fault crashes. 3 of them have had multiple crashes and yet they still wonder why it's cheaper for me to insure my sports car than it is for them to insure a Corolla. I have also been in 1 crash where someone who was on the phone totalled my Pulsar (well, that's how I got the sports car, kind of a long story but the Pulsar was insured for more than it was worth).
However you'll find listening to music or even reading is quite different to texting and phone calls. I tried listening to Spanish lessons in my car and finding that I have to go back over them when I'm not driving simply because when the road requires more of my attention I simply tune out to whatever the instructor on the tape is saying. If I had of concentrated on the lesson and ignored my driving I'd probably have ended up finishing the course in hospital. The same with passengers or music, these are distractions I can easily tune out. However a phone call or text isn't like this, it demands your attention and most people dont tune out and worse yet, prioritise their phone over their driving.
Could it simply be that there's fewer accidents after 9 PM, regardless as to whether people are on the phone or not?
They looked at accident data before and after the "free minutes" were available. So they were not comparing 9PM to 6PM, but rather 9PM with free minutes to 9PM without free minutes.
Anyway, I find their conclusion hard to believe. I was in several near accidents while talking before I swore off using the phone while driving.
Their assumption is that the "free minutes" changed anyone's phone call habits or driving behaviour. This is a pretty bad assumption.
I'm becoming convinced that no legislation can fix this other than legalizing autopilots on cars. Most people who are driving would rather not be driving.
The problem isn't with the legislation, it's with the lack of meaningful punishment.
In Perth, Western Australia if you get caught on the phone whilst on the road its $300 and 3 demerit points (a full licensed driver can accrue 12 before losing their license). More people would think twice if it carried an instant 30 day suspension, for those who dont, at least we have a better chance to get them off the road.
Same with speeding, fines in the US are ridiculously low. in the US, up to 15 MPH over (22KPH) is only $35, 25 MPH (40 KPH) is only $70. This is no disincentive, if a 15+ MPH ticket came with a 1 month suspension as well as a fine people will start to take note. In WA (Australia), 0-9 KPH over is A$75 and 10-19 is A$150, in Germany 30 KPH has a 1 month suspension, German drivers are a hell of a lot more polite than Australians.
Please note, I dont want to see an increase in fines, I believe fines at this low level are ineffective as a method of changing behaviour. I'd like to see an increase in suspensions, license suspensions will change behaviour or they will get morons off the road (considering driving whilst suspended in Australia can end up with 2 years behind bars).
There's also another way to interpret the data—that the negative effects of using the phone more after 9 P.M.
Or that phone usage has not actually dropped, it's only the law that has changed.
It's like when speed zones change. A council on my route recently changed a speed zone from 60 KPH to 70 KPH after the completion of a new roundabout, however 90% of drivers are still doing 60 because they wont change their habits. People have always done 60 down that road, so they'll keep doing it.
for fully awake drivers are cancelled out by the positive effects of ongoing interaction with another person helping keep sleepy drivers more alert. If this is the case, then banning cell phone use might actually cost lives....
This is utter bollocks.
A tired driver has already had their abilities reduced. Fatigue is the thrid biggest killer behind speed and drugs and alcohol and the biggest cause of accidents after drugs and alcohol. The problem with using a mobile phone whilst driving is that it distracts the driver. The driver has their attention taken off the road and put onto another task, what is worse is that the driver prioritises this other task over driving.
Talking on the phone will just inhibit a driver further. So not only will they be tired, they will be tired and distracted. If you're too tired to drive, you need to pull over and get out of the car. Fatigue wont be fixed by distracting the driver even more, stop, have a cup of tea and stretch your legs.
Distracted driving has always been the problem and being on the phone distracts drivers even more, this has been proven in multiple tests, so the study in the article can easily be explained by people ignoring the law.
* Footnote: The average meal at mcdonald's costs around $6. The ratio is accurate: This is like going to McDonald's to order a happy meal and winding up spending more than you do on rent for it. Whups.
* Addendum: Not in Australia, you're looking at $8.
If I were paying $1.2 billion for something as rote as a payroll system, it better be fucking amazing.
The real WTF is that IBM still don't have an off-the-shelf payroll system.
Paying people's wages is almost the original computer application.
Not really,
IBM makes SFA from selling software, it's selling services that makes them money. So having a product that is functional off the shelf eliminated the need for expensive consulting to customise the product for individual clients (thus killing revenue).
IBM is a services company, not a software company.
As an American, I find it easier to understand Australian English than many American-born English speakers.
No wukka's mate.
http://thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/BSP-SMG_Book.pdf
Machining can be done with a file, this is largely how Khyber pass guns are made.
Give it up already.
This, cheap weapons can be made in back yards with rudimentary tools. They can be mass produced without much machining at all (Al la the STEN linked to earlier, it was mostly pressed from sheet metal).
However quality firearms are not so easy to make, guns like the Sten which were very cheap to manufacture tend to have a lot of problems (the STEN had a lot of loading/feed issues, especially if held by the magazine).
So if you just want to get a cheap, no-nonsense sub machine gun you can easily do it from unskilled labour in a impromptu workshop. If you want a SMG that will work no-matter what, it's a bit more difficult.
People dont give a shit how a structurally sound a bridge is constructed either, only a tiny tiny % of its users do.. Just because only a few know enough to care doesnt change the argument. Very often it is the unpopular ideas that are correct.
This.
People dont give a shit how safe a bridge is until it collapses, then they care a lot. People dont give a shit until it affects them, but by then it's too late.
People are dicks like that.
So it really is up to that tiny, tiny % of geeks or structural engineers to effect change.
Wow a share button?!?!
This is what Mozilla is wasting time on now?
Don't forget the NEW LOGO!
http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/06/firefox_logo.png
I'm at a loss for words, but that picture tells you everything you need to know about the UI/art direction types at Mozilla. It's painful.
Yep, they're spending more time on product development than marketing.
Which is why I use Firefox (I also use Chrome for the same reason, sold product, little marketing).
We use firefox across our work network, and for obvious reasons, the head of our company has ordered Facebook blocked. The last thing I want is everyone being ordered to use Internet Explorer as a result. Even better if we can install one that doesn't even have those functions.
If you're relying on browsers to block websites, you're already doing it wrong.
Block *.facebook.com on the firewall. This will prevent any client from accessing it.
Have the boss make it known to the users at large Facebook is blocked and accessing it is a sackable offence. This is very important as if the boss does not make an announcement end users will hound you to unblock it as they think you made the decision.
And because you call iOS7 crippleware even before it's out.
Given the fact that IOS's 1 through 6 were crippleware, I think that it's a safe bet that IOS 7 will be the same. I highly doubt Apple will reverse their policy of limiting what the user can do.
By the same token, when medieval Spain named a ship Most Holy Virgin or something similar, you could be sure it packed at least two hundred guns...
And was sunk by the British who named their ships with proper names like Resolute, Victory and Indefatigable.
Carriers exist to project power when it's not a case of total war against a strong opponent (i.e., every conflict since WWII). Nothing else does that job as well - not even close. When war gets hot then of course its the Boomers that matter, and surface ships are irrelevant.
Destroyers have never been able to project power - that's never been their mission in the history of navies.
The Destroyer's role has always been defensive. They are the ships you use to hunt submarines.
In the next total war, submarines are going to matter less as fast ships that can unleash a small fleet of drones and get out before subs can respond will project power. In fact subs will probably have the same role swapping ICBM's for tube launched drones (Note, Japan experimented with submarine carriers like the I400 in WWII).
Nuclear torpedoes have the yield to take out a single ship, not an entire carrier group, and can be defeated the same way any other torpedo can (if unguided, it can miss or be evaded, especially if fired from extreme range, if guided, it can be tricked).
Torpedoes can also be intercepted.
An undersea nuclear detonation will have the majority of its energy dissipated by the ocean itself, so the torpedo itself has to be precisely detonated to produce enough displacement to capsize ships.
Nukes tend to be the most dangerous when airburst, ground detonation will reduce the energy of the blast significantly, underwater will reduce it even more, beyond that the big killer will be radiation. These two things make using nukes in naval combat less effective than conventional weapons.
Can we stop deliberately confusing "stuff I believe" with "religion"?
Religion is just "stuff people believe in".
(I say this as an atheist. Religious people do this too. "Atheism is just a religion", "evolution is a religion", "environmentalism is a religion". No it isn't.)
These aren't religions as they have a basis in fact (or in the case of atheism, the complete absence of belief).
With things like Evolution, it doesn't require your belief, evolution wont grind to a halt just because no-one believes in it. That's the difference between a religion and a science.
OK, I believed you up until here.
If you know anything about driving heavy vehicles you know that they dont just drop 45 KPH in an instant. Trucks are naturally slow to stop to avoid the rear wheels going faster than the front wheels (commonly called drifting and with a vehicle that is 8 metres long, drifting is very, very, fucking bad) and a good truck driver will avoid braking sharply to protect his load.
So a car will be able to brake faster than a truck.
After that is out of the way, in my country you would have broken the law by travelling so close to the vehicle in front that you were unable to stop without hitting the other vehicle when they braked in an emergency (Legal wording here). Keeping a minimum safe distance is not just law here in Australia, it's a good defensive driving technique anywhere. For the average vehicle, 2-3 seconds is the minimum safe distance, for a truck it's longer (6 seconds min) as they take longer to stop and it keeps you out of a trucks absolutely massive blind spot.
So yes, this is your fault and could have been avoided by following the proper defensive driving technique of maintaining a safe distance.
You haven't managed to prove a police state, you've just inadvertently revealed that you're a bad driver.
That's two words.
Clearly you're not properly trained in Newspeak.
Along with trying to eliminate the unnecessary worlds from Oldspeak, we are also trying to eliminate the unnecessary spaces. We find this approach doubleplus good.
Will they save more if they purchase a hotel and rental car along with delivering the munitions ?
Will it really be cheaper to send troops from Texas to Bagdad with an 8 hour layover in the Falkland Islands?