I still don't want to run into a guy who grew up breathing fluorine.
That's only slightly more reactive than oxygen... (um... ok, a fair amount more, but we're talking relatively) In fact, it's so reactive that the likelihood of it occurring in elemental form is crazy unlikely.
In any case, no body would really have much of an interest in meeting nearly anyone else. Whatever chemical process they use to store energy, or make energy, it's going to be reactive!
It was a different test. The one he took was the 10th grade version. The one in the summary is 3 sample questions from each of the 4th and 8th grade tests
You didn't hit the "Next" button did you? There were more than 3 sample questions, and it graded your answers at the end...
I wouldn't have picked up a calculator because I could do it quicker in my head than it would take to type the numbers in. I remember doing a 400 question 1 hour multiple choice test when I joined the army (maths, English, and logic); you know one of those ones that gets harder and harder as you progress through the questions. I managed to finish it with 5 minutes or so to go. I put my hand up, one of the guys came over and said "You know I can't help you with any of this", I said "I've finished". He was shocked, he'd never seen anyone finish it before. The first half of the test was easy, the answers were obvious (to me at least). The second half was harder, but knowing how to instantly rule out wrong answers, for all types of questions, is the key to going quickly. If you pulled out a calculator for every maths question you'd never be able to finish. I think one of the goals of the test was to make it very hard to actually complete the test and get a good score (you were penalised for wrong answers). I still managed to get over 370 points.
I've taken the ASVAB twice myself, and got a 99th percentile both times. I still used a calculator for this test, because I could use one. I am not a calculator, and I'm not supposed to be. I know where the number should go, and the later forms of math are all symbolic manipulation anyways, so why sweat the arithmetic? Arithmetic is one of the base axes of all math, but that doesn't mean that if I can't do rote mathematics in my head that I'm worthless or bad at math, or even that I'm not as good at math as you are.
Sure, you're better at arithmetic, but I haven't done pure arithmetic since the 7th grade...
That wasn't from the same test - it was from a test for 4th graders. But if you need a calculator for that problem (esp given the multiple choice answers), you probably didn't do well in math.
I actually used a calculator, and I did extremely well in math. Why? Math is not arithmetic. I looked at the problem, realized I might need to get some scratch paper to work on it, then saw "You can use a calculator." and promptly opened up a calculator on my computer. Why should I do something mentally if it can be done more accurately by a machine?
See, I've worked in a build lab before, and almost everything was automated, because if a human had to give input, that input could be wrong, and it could break the build. So we attempted to automate absolutely everything that we could. Sure, I could eventually do (45*75)/25 in my head... but I also might come up with the wrong answer. Better to let a computer take care of that... you know, because that's what it does... compute.
... and be sure that none of your "wrong" answers are "right" in a way that you would want to give points for.
I was in a science class in middle school, and sometimes I would get back an exam that had an answer marked wrong that I had simply interpreted the question wrongly.. or something like that. Anyways, I would bring it to the teacher, explain my logic, and reasoning, and usually got a corrected grade for that question... probably more so, because I could explain my argument logically and rationally than for anything else. (I was like 12-ish, give me a break, I don't remember details.)
Of course, in college, I had a TA mark a problem dealing with induction that I did as wrong. I brought it to the professor, and he noted that it was indeed correct, and he ended up scolding the TA for marking my test wrong. Oddly, it was kind of a fallacious argument that the professor made. Basically, like, "I know this student is good, and is likely going to have the right answer, and you're in the wrong for not recognizing that." But then, the TA marked me wrong because I didn't fit his happy rote-memory version of what was correct, rather than me actually being wrong... so in a way, the TA kind of did deserve the scolding because he was grading brainlessly...
I guess the point of my whole post is: students who can explain why they should be right should not be afraid to bring such concerns to the teacher. If a student is right just by dumb luck, they don't really deserve to be right at all, but a student who is actually thinking and reasoning deserves to be right even if his answer doesn't match the answer in the book. (That being said, (45 x 75) / 24 = 141, regardless of the explanation that the student gives...)
But humans, we're pussies by comparison. We have to live in this nice 'goldilocks' zone. Oh not too hot, not too cold, not too much radiation, juuuuuust right.
Actually, we evolved into the goldilocks zone. The Earth isn't perfectly suited for life, life has developed to make the best out of the Earth as is. Why, if the oxygen levels were higher, and the climate warmer, then we could have, I don't know, like giant lizard-like animals roaming the Earth as the dominant species. The conditions aren't goldilocks, we just kept morphing until the conditions appear to be goldilocks.
That means don't complain profusely about your boss every day, don't send explicit messages to you lover, and certainly don't use Facebook to archive those pictures of that wild bachelor party.
But I hate my boss; he's a total asshole! And my boyfriend loves getting steamy messages (hey, Brian, I'm not wearing panties today. Surprise for when you get home after work!;) ), and I archive all the bachelor parties that I perform at. I need to have a portfolio after all! How will the next bachelor party find out if they want me vs. that skank across town?
Click here to visit my private webpage, for my special webpage (Registration, and credit card required)
It's possible that AC is a native German speaker, and knows English as a second language. In German, nouns are all capitalized.
I considered this, but the text at argument would then be:
"Are you trying to run with the Bulls in Pamplona while trying to figure where that Division by Zero takes Place?"
Notice that the last two nouns in the original were not capitalized. Also, even native Germans tend to not follow capitalization rules even in German on web forums and the like.
Actually, that wiki article states that lane splitting is illegal in "many states", but it gives no reference, and the only states they specifically mention are Colorado and Nebraska.
Misread this. So, disregard my previous comments about it.
Regardless, California is the "exceptional" state that everyone uses as an example for "sometimes lane-splitting is tolerated". However, the MSF and any lawyer will tell you that outside of California, you risk being ticketed for lane-splitting, since it is incredibly unlikely that any other state tolerates lane-splitting. (New Mexico, was specifically mentioned in the WP article as a state where lane-splitting is not explicitly illegal, but that other laws prevent lane splitting.)
Specifically, in all training provided here in the US, the directions are "lane-splitting is illegal, except in California". But since it isn't explicitly illegal in every other state, that's why I keep using "apparently" and other weasel words. It's not because I'm trying to weasel out of answering the question, but because the question is fundamentally indeterminable. It's possible that you might get a court to agree that your lane splitting were legal, just like it's possible that the Iowa Supreme Court might rule that their state constitution provides for same-sex marriage. That doesn't mean that any such ruling is likely, and as such the best advice anyone can give is: "don't do it, you might get a ticket, because it might be illegal".
snowgirl, I truly respect any other rider. I'm only offering advice because, thru the fog of the Internet, you seem to be a newish rider who is just reciting some recently taught doctrine.
My sincere apologies if I've misinterpreted our relative levels of experience.
You have underestimated my experience.
That is the exactly the problem with this mindset. The way you should react to a driver who does not see you (common) is very different from the way you should react to an aggressive/malicious driver who doesn't like you (rare). If you assume the rare case, you may be setting yourself up for an accident in what is actually the common case.
I'm entirely confused here. Assuming that a driver doesn't see me, vs that driver will attempt to hurt me, is a difference only in INTENT not in deed or action. If a car pulls out in front of me, then it doesn't matter if they didn't see me, or they were trying to intentionally harm me, because I'm still dead. So, let me ask you, why shouldn't I assume that just because a driver sees me, that they won't pull out in front of me? I've heard tons of stories of "the person was looking RIGHT AT ME when they pulled out in front of me!"
And at that point all of the intent of the driver in the world is meaningless. Perhaps they didn't register what was going on, perhaps they thought they could make it, perhaps they REALLY DID want to kill you. But none of that matters, because you're the one paying the price.
That means that if someone is standing at a light to make a left-hand turn, or approaching a light to make a left-hand turn, or even waiting on a light for a left-hand turn, then as I'm approaching to go straight through that same intersection, I ensure that I am traveling at a speed such that if that person chooses to make that turn for any reason or intent possible that I will be able to stop in time. Even if that means that I'm creeping up to that intersection.
According to Wikipedia, the only state that really seems to allow lane-splitting (and indeed, is the universal example of a state that allows lane-splitting in the USA) is California. In general, lane-splitting in the US is illegal, while it seems that it is generally widely legal in Europe.
Actually, that wiki article states that lane splitting is illegal in "many states", but it gives no reference, and the only states they specifically mention are Colorado and Nebraska.
If you'll read my quote again, "the only state that really seems to allow..." (emphasis added for the reading impaired) What does this mean? It means that no shit, I saw the Colorado and Nebraska text. Yet they were equivocal about if those states actually allow lane-splitting or not. Why treat them like you can't lane-split? Because the text also explicitly states that New Mexico has no laws against lane-splitting either, but it does have plenty of laws that mean that lane-splitting would not be legal, and legal precedent is that lane-splitting is a violation of other laws.
No, again, hydrogen bonding is not driven by magnetism.
You know why we don't talk about it being driven by gravity? Even though the particles have mass, exert gravitational attraction etc? Because it's a tiny, inconsequential aspect of the bonding. It would be incorrect to talk about the gravitational attraction when it plays a close to negligent role in day to day interactions of such a system.
This is the same reason, we don't talk about magnetism. It has as much relevance as gravity.
But it's good to see you finally started using a vaguely correct term to describe the situation.
I know it's not gravity, and I know the physics formula involved in modeling gravity. But arguing that hydrogen bonding is not magnetism because it's a different aspect of electromagnetic force is not right either.
Electrostatic and magnetic force are the same force. There are only four forces out there at our energy levels: gravity, strong, weak, and electroMAGNETIC. So, unless you're here to tell me that hydrogen bonding is driven by gravity, strong or weak nuclear force, then it's driven by electromagnetic force. And unless you want to tell me that magnets are driven by gravity, strong, or weak nuclear force, then it's driven by electromagnetic force.
Jesus fucking christ... you're all caught up on this "it's not centrifugal, it's centripetal force" bullshit. It's the same god damn force driving magnets and hydrogen bonding.
The "drive like everyone is out to kill you" has nothing to do with the actual motivations of ANY driver. What it does is get you in the mindset so that you're already assuming that they might maliciously hit you, so if a driver is just being careless, it doesn't matter, because you were already prepared for them intentionally trying to hitting you.
Why take such a crazy and over the top assumption? Because it's your life on the line. An ex-boyfriend called it the "bash value". In a nut shell, if two vehicles collide, the one with the higher bash value wins. So, little cars have to worry about any and every collision with an SUV even if it is the fault of the driver of the SUV, but in a motorcycle, you have to worry about any car hitting you, because that little two-door smart car still has more bash value than you do... This translates to: yield and give the right of way to everyone else... because if you try and take the right of way, and they accidentally don't notice, or something like that? You're fucked.
And thus, the advice to drive like everyone is out to kill you: it keeps you in a mindset that doesn't let you get into a situation where a careless driver will accidentally run you over.
I don't know what the lane-splitting rules are by state. I've ridden through most of the states in the US, and have always worn a helmet/boots/jacket and always split lanes in traffic.
According to Wikipedia, the only state that really seems to allow lane-splitting (and indeed, is the universal example of a state that allows lane-splitting in the USA) is California. In general, lane-splitting in the US is illegal, while it seems that it is generally widely legal in Europe.
Based on my experience, you should PASS a dangerous driver as quickly as possible, with as wide a berth as possible, and increase the margin. If you hang out behind them, you get boxed into a worse situation with other cars.
Perfect sense, except that often times they're going a reasonable speed compared to the speed limit (either at, or 5 miles over), and so in order to give yourself a wide berth, you're looking at speeding. This whole attitude of "I have to be faster than everyone else" actually endangers you more than sitting in a situation where you have a clear picture of what is going on, and what your dangers are, and where you're mentally preparing constantly for hazards. If you're boxing yourself in because you're staying behind a bad driver, then you're doing it wrong.
The basic advice that I've heard is: "On a motorcycle, drive like everyone is out to kill you.... and you deserve it." (The later being a nice emphasis to remind you that some people won't even feel bad about plowing you down, because they will rationalize it away as the motorcyclist's fault.)
The other one I've heard is that you should always be behind a dangerous driver. That way, you have the best chance of keeping an eye on what they're doing. (If someone is tailgating you, you're better off being behind them, where you can choose to observe a safe following distance. If someone is drunk, who knows what the hell they're doing behind you, and if you stare in your rear-view mirror to be safe there, you're probably going to be getting yourself in trouble ahead.)
Last one, I remember hearing that stop-and-go traffic is particularly dangerous for motorcyclists, and that is why some states allow them to cut lanes (NOT ALL STATES LET YOU CUT LANES), because the danger to the motorcyclist is actually greater in the stop-and-go, than them driving through the traffic between the lanes. I actually only know of California as a place that allows lane cutting, but there is no reason why it couldn't be elsewhere.
Another odd rule that motorcyclists get to "break"? In Washington state motorcyclists do not have to maintain any amount of insurance on their motorcycle. (85% of crashes are single vehicle, and so the motorcyclist is likely only screwing himself, and then most two car collisions are either not the motorcyclist's fault, or are relatively non-damaging to other cars and property.)
I assume their plan is that 2 seconds is plenty of time to avert an accident by hitting the guy who was going to run the red light with some sort of rocket? This is MIT we're talking about, so I'm going to assume some sort of rocket is involved somehow.
Actually, lasers. Their plan involves lasers disabling the car.
I notice that, despite being an MIT team, they analyzed data from an intersection somewhere in Virginia. Probably because their model from a Boston intersection was even simpler:
I spent a week in Las Vegas on an extended vacation visiting a friend. I came to the conclusion that the general rules of lights there were: "If I had to stop for the light, then I'm going through it, even if it turns red again."... it did keep the traffic flowing, and since everyone seemed to be working on the same rules, it didn't really seem to endanger anyone...
The person tailgating you is likely going faster than you. So why do you feel it's your right/duty to block them? You are not the enforcer of laws. Get out of the way, let them go by, or whatever. It's not your job to police people. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Why do you feel they have a higher-priority right to go faster than I do to go the speed I'm going? If they don't like the speed I'm driving, they can pass me. It's not like I'm driving under the speed limit - I'm generally a few MPH above it. Also you apparently think tailgating only happens on freeways, since "getting out of the way" isn't practical on a two lane road.
My solution to tailgating is to slow down. As soon as they back off - or as soon as they're not behind me (passing or whatever) - I immediately return to normal speed. But, frankly, if they're going to drive in a way that increases the chances of an accident involving me, I'm going to make sure any accident happens at a lower speed.
As a motorcyclist, I take this same approach. Fuck you tailgaters, I don't want to die, because you want to following me so close. If you're going to decrease your reaction time to me stopping, then I'm going to reduce the chance that I'm going to have to stop. And don't flip me the bird when you drive by... it's my fucking LIFE on the line... worst you have to deal with is the insurance totalling your car...
Personally I don't care if people tail gate me. If I am in my nice car I have full coverage, and if I am in the junk truck that I don't care because it is the junk truck. People tend to avoid tailgating vehicles that look like parts are going to fall off of them. I have never lost a part on the road but you wouldn't know that from looking at the junk trucks I have owned.
From what I've noticed about rear-enders that involve a truck, usually the truck is mostly untouched, while the car is demolished. I had someone hit my parked truck (she was drunk, it was in the road in the correct direction) and she hit it so hard that it went up over the curb, and plowed into a wood fence. It ended up crumpling a corner of her Mercedes in and made the car completely undriveable (of course, her response? "Don't call the cops, just let me drive away, please."). Meanwhile, the only damage to the truck was that the driver-side read end was bent up in a pretty looking curve. I swear, you saw it from one side and you're like "I don't see any damage", then you compare it to the other side, and you're all "oh!!! I see it now."
Of course, since paneling is so crazy expensive, the insurance decided to total the truck...
People say "your blood will boil", but that's not actually what happens; the bubbles will be dissolved gasses coming out of solution.
Um, that's the definition of boiling: Dissolved gasses coming out of solution. Can be induced by heating the fluid, lowering the atmospheric pressure, or both.
Boiling is actually the transition of the liquid into a gas, not gasses dissolved in the liquid coming out of solution. They look incredibly similar, but boiling can happen with a pure liquid, while dissolved gasses kind of by definition cannot come out of solution in a pure liquid. (Yes, the liquid turns to a gas and then kind of dissolves itself in the liquid, but it turns out that a gaseous form of a substance dissolved in the liquid form of that same substance is indistinguishable from the liquid itself.)
So, on the first hand, the meaning of "boiling blood" means blood, wherein the liquid medium itself is actually turning into a gas, and thus generating gaseous bubbles, while blood with the gasses coming out of solution is itself not turning into a gas... (the later happening at lower temps, and higher pressures than the former.)
But don't they have cures for that? Sure its kills lots of people, but only the the ones no one gives a damn enough to do anything for them. There are vaccines (or at least partial ones) and there are treatments.
As much as I appreciate your "fuck the poor" attitude in this respect... there is only so much money being offered to save these lives, and it is not enough.
Likewise, I'd be willing to sacrifice the entire human population if it gave me a lifetime of entertainment.
You know... if you just started enacting your sacrifices on a mass scale, then you could get a lifetime of entertainment... it wouldn't be a particularly LONG lifetime, but you would be enjoying it until the end of your life.
The article links to this Nature story that asserts that completely eradicating mosquitos would have no measurable effect on the environment. They don't really do anything but spread disease. They might have a role as a food source for other animals, but they don't appear to be very significant.
But we might be missing an important part of the chain, and wiping out the mosquitos might throw the world completely out of balance. Then again, humans have so many reasons to hate the little buggers that it still might be worth it.
Also, it's important to note that this particular mosquito is an invasive species of mosquito. It was never around in most of its ecosystems in the first place...
Slashdot Mirror
I still don't want to run into a guy who grew up breathing fluorine.
That's only slightly more reactive than oxygen... (um... ok, a fair amount more, but we're talking relatively) In fact, it's so reactive that the likelihood of it occurring in elemental form is crazy unlikely.
In any case, no body would really have much of an interest in meeting nearly anyone else. Whatever chemical process they use to store energy, or make energy, it's going to be reactive!
Much worse are people who try to use tidbits of science to push political agendas without having the slightest idea of what they are talking about.
... like creation scientists?
It was a different test. The one he took was the 10th grade version. The one in the summary is 3 sample questions from each of the 4th and 8th grade tests
You didn't hit the "Next" button did you? There were more than 3 sample questions, and it graded your answers at the end...
I wouldn't have picked up a calculator because I could do it quicker in my head than it would take to type the numbers in. I remember doing a 400 question 1 hour multiple choice test when I joined the army (maths, English, and logic); you know one of those ones that gets harder and harder as you progress through the questions. I managed to finish it with 5 minutes or so to go. I put my hand up, one of the guys came over and said "You know I can't help you with any of this", I said "I've finished". He was shocked, he'd never seen anyone finish it before. The first half of the test was easy, the answers were obvious (to me at least). The second half was harder, but knowing how to instantly rule out wrong answers, for all types of questions, is the key to going quickly. If you pulled out a calculator for every maths question you'd never be able to finish. I think one of the goals of the test was to make it very hard to actually complete the test and get a good score (you were penalised for wrong answers). I still managed to get over 370 points.
I've taken the ASVAB twice myself, and got a 99th percentile both times. I still used a calculator for this test, because I could use one. I am not a calculator, and I'm not supposed to be. I know where the number should go, and the later forms of math are all symbolic manipulation anyways, so why sweat the arithmetic? Arithmetic is one of the base axes of all math, but that doesn't mean that if I can't do rote mathematics in my head that I'm worthless or bad at math, or even that I'm not as good at math as you are.
Sure, you're better at arithmetic, but I haven't done pure arithmetic since the 7th grade...
That wasn't from the same test - it was from a test for 4th graders. But if you need a calculator for that problem (esp given the multiple choice answers), you probably didn't do well in math.
I actually used a calculator, and I did extremely well in math. Why? Math is not arithmetic. I looked at the problem, realized I might need to get some scratch paper to work on it, then saw "You can use a calculator." and promptly opened up a calculator on my computer. Why should I do something mentally if it can be done more accurately by a machine?
See, I've worked in a build lab before, and almost everything was automated, because if a human had to give input, that input could be wrong, and it could break the build. So we attempted to automate absolutely everything that we could. Sure, I could eventually do (45*75)/25 in my head... but I also might come up with the wrong answer. Better to let a computer take care of that... you know, because that's what it does... compute.
... and be sure that none of your "wrong" answers are "right" in a way that you would want to give points for.
I was in a science class in middle school, and sometimes I would get back an exam that had an answer marked wrong that I had simply interpreted the question wrongly.. or something like that. Anyways, I would bring it to the teacher, explain my logic, and reasoning, and usually got a corrected grade for that question... probably more so, because I could explain my argument logically and rationally than for anything else. (I was like 12-ish, give me a break, I don't remember details.)
Of course, in college, I had a TA mark a problem dealing with induction that I did as wrong. I brought it to the professor, and he noted that it was indeed correct, and he ended up scolding the TA for marking my test wrong. Oddly, it was kind of a fallacious argument that the professor made. Basically, like, "I know this student is good, and is likely going to have the right answer, and you're in the wrong for not recognizing that." But then, the TA marked me wrong because I didn't fit his happy rote-memory version of what was correct, rather than me actually being wrong... so in a way, the TA kind of did deserve the scolding because he was grading brainlessly...
I guess the point of my whole post is: students who can explain why they should be right should not be afraid to bring such concerns to the teacher. If a student is right just by dumb luck, they don't really deserve to be right at all, but a student who is actually thinking and reasoning deserves to be right even if his answer doesn't match the answer in the book. (That being said, (45 x 75) / 24 = 141, regardless of the explanation that the student gives...)
But humans, we're pussies by comparison. We have to live in this nice 'goldilocks' zone. Oh not too hot, not too cold, not too much radiation, juuuuuust right.
Actually, we evolved into the goldilocks zone. The Earth isn't perfectly suited for life, life has developed to make the best out of the Earth as is. Why, if the oxygen levels were higher, and the climate warmer, then we could have, I don't know, like giant lizard-like animals roaming the Earth as the dominant species. The conditions aren't goldilocks, we just kept morphing until the conditions appear to be goldilocks.
Also note the GP's username and sig.
I think perhaps that for some people, it's easier for them to believe in gay strippers frequenting slashdot than women programmers.
Satire.
I am not actually a stripper, nor am I engaged in any form of professional erotic enterprise.
That means don't complain profusely about your boss every day, don't send explicit messages to you lover, and certainly don't use Facebook to archive those pictures of that wild bachelor party.
But I hate my boss; he's a total asshole! And my boyfriend loves getting steamy messages (hey, Brian, I'm not wearing panties today. Surprise for when you get home after work! ;) ), and I archive all the bachelor parties that I perform at. I need to have a portfolio after all! How will the next bachelor party find out if they want me vs. that skank across town?
Click here to visit my private webpage, for my special webpage (Registration, and credit card required)
It's possible that AC is a native German speaker, and knows English as a second language. In German, nouns are all capitalized.
I considered this, but the text at argument would then be:
"Are you trying to run with the Bulls in Pamplona while trying to figure where that Division by Zero takes Place?"
Notice that the last two nouns in the original were not capitalized. Also, even native Germans tend to not follow capitalization rules even in German on web forums and the like.
"combined with some steganography"
Calling data contained in the comment field of a png steganography seems rather overly generous.
He didn't say that it was GOOD stenography...
Actually, that wiki article states that lane splitting is illegal in "many states", but it gives no reference, and the only states they specifically mention are Colorado and Nebraska.
Misread this. So, disregard my previous comments about it.
Regardless, California is the "exceptional" state that everyone uses as an example for "sometimes lane-splitting is tolerated". However, the MSF and any lawyer will tell you that outside of California, you risk being ticketed for lane-splitting, since it is incredibly unlikely that any other state tolerates lane-splitting. (New Mexico, was specifically mentioned in the WP article as a state where lane-splitting is not explicitly illegal, but that other laws prevent lane splitting.)
Specifically, in all training provided here in the US, the directions are "lane-splitting is illegal, except in California". But since it isn't explicitly illegal in every other state, that's why I keep using "apparently" and other weasel words. It's not because I'm trying to weasel out of answering the question, but because the question is fundamentally indeterminable. It's possible that you might get a court to agree that your lane splitting were legal, just like it's possible that the Iowa Supreme Court might rule that their state constitution provides for same-sex marriage. That doesn't mean that any such ruling is likely, and as such the best advice anyone can give is: "don't do it, you might get a ticket, because it might be illegal".
Interestingly, the NHTSA thinks lane-splitting could be a safer alternative, and that it recommends more studies to verify this.
snowgirl, I truly respect any other rider. I'm only offering advice because, thru the fog of the Internet, you seem to be a newish rider who is just reciting some recently taught doctrine.
My sincere apologies if I've misinterpreted our relative levels of experience.
You have underestimated my experience.
That is the exactly the problem with this mindset. The way you should react to a driver who does not see you (common) is very different from the way you should react to an aggressive/malicious driver who doesn't like you (rare). If you assume the rare case, you may be setting yourself up for an accident in what is actually the common case.
I'm entirely confused here. Assuming that a driver doesn't see me, vs that driver will attempt to hurt me, is a difference only in INTENT not in deed or action. If a car pulls out in front of me, then it doesn't matter if they didn't see me, or they were trying to intentionally harm me, because I'm still dead. So, let me ask you, why shouldn't I assume that just because a driver sees me, that they won't pull out in front of me? I've heard tons of stories of "the person was looking RIGHT AT ME when they pulled out in front of me!"
And at that point all of the intent of the driver in the world is meaningless. Perhaps they didn't register what was going on, perhaps they thought they could make it, perhaps they REALLY DID want to kill you. But none of that matters, because you're the one paying the price.
That means that if someone is standing at a light to make a left-hand turn, or approaching a light to make a left-hand turn, or even waiting on a light for a left-hand turn, then as I'm approaching to go straight through that same intersection, I ensure that I am traveling at a speed such that if that person chooses to make that turn for any reason or intent possible that I will be able to stop in time. Even if that means that I'm creeping up to that intersection.
According to Wikipedia, the only state that really seems to allow lane-splitting (and indeed, is the universal example of a state that allows lane-splitting in the USA) is California. In general, lane-splitting in the US is illegal, while it seems that it is generally widely legal in Europe.
Actually, that wiki article states that lane splitting is illegal in "many states", but it gives no reference, and the only states they specifically mention are Colorado and Nebraska.
If you'll read my quote again, "the only state that really seems to allow..." (emphasis added for the reading impaired) What does this mean? It means that no shit, I saw the Colorado and Nebraska text. Yet they were equivocal about if those states actually allow lane-splitting or not. Why treat them like you can't lane-split? Because the text also explicitly states that New Mexico has no laws against lane-splitting either, but it does have plenty of laws that mean that lane-splitting would not be legal, and legal precedent is that lane-splitting is a violation of other laws.
Searching for "colorado lane-splitting", I found a forum where people say it's illegal. And a lawyer's webpage stating that lane-splitting is only legal in California. In fact, I found that apparently there was supposed to be an initiative in 2008 to make lane-splitting legal, Ballotpedia says that no such initiative exists. And the Wikipedia article also gave a reference quite conveniently to Nebraska law stating:
No, again, hydrogen bonding is not driven by magnetism.
You know why we don't talk about it being driven by gravity? Even though the particles have mass, exert gravitational attraction etc? Because it's a tiny, inconsequential aspect of the bonding. It would be incorrect to talk about the gravitational attraction when it plays a close to negligent role in day to day interactions of such a system.
This is the same reason, we don't talk about magnetism. It has as much relevance as gravity.
But it's good to see you finally started using a vaguely correct term to describe the situation.
I know it's not gravity, and I know the physics formula involved in modeling gravity. But arguing that hydrogen bonding is not magnetism because it's a different aspect of electromagnetic force is not right either.
Electrostatic and magnetic force are the same force. There are only four forces out there at our energy levels: gravity, strong, weak, and electroMAGNETIC. So, unless you're here to tell me that hydrogen bonding is driven by gravity, strong or weak nuclear force, then it's driven by electromagnetic force. And unless you want to tell me that magnets are driven by gravity, strong, or weak nuclear force, then it's driven by electromagnetic force.
Jesus fucking christ... you're all caught up on this "it's not centrifugal, it's centripetal force" bullshit. It's the same god damn force driving magnets and hydrogen bonding.
The "drive like everyone is out to kill you" has nothing to do with the actual motivations of ANY driver. What it does is get you in the mindset so that you're already assuming that they might maliciously hit you, so if a driver is just being careless, it doesn't matter, because you were already prepared for them intentionally trying to hitting you.
Why take such a crazy and over the top assumption? Because it's your life on the line. An ex-boyfriend called it the "bash value". In a nut shell, if two vehicles collide, the one with the higher bash value wins. So, little cars have to worry about any and every collision with an SUV even if it is the fault of the driver of the SUV, but in a motorcycle, you have to worry about any car hitting you, because that little two-door smart car still has more bash value than you do... This translates to: yield and give the right of way to everyone else... because if you try and take the right of way, and they accidentally don't notice, or something like that? You're fucked.
And thus, the advice to drive like everyone is out to kill you: it keeps you in a mindset that doesn't let you get into a situation where a careless driver will accidentally run you over.
I don't know what the lane-splitting rules are by state. I've ridden through most of the states in the US, and have always worn a helmet/boots/jacket and always split lanes in traffic.
According to Wikipedia, the only state that really seems to allow lane-splitting (and indeed, is the universal example of a state that allows lane-splitting in the USA) is California. In general, lane-splitting in the US is illegal, while it seems that it is generally widely legal in Europe.
Based on my experience, you should PASS a dangerous driver as quickly as possible, with as wide a berth as possible, and increase the margin. If you hang out behind them, you get boxed into a worse situation with other cars.
Perfect sense, except that often times they're going a reasonable speed compared to the speed limit (either at, or 5 miles over), and so in order to give yourself a wide berth, you're looking at speeding. This whole attitude of "I have to be faster than everyone else" actually endangers you more than sitting in a situation where you have a clear picture of what is going on, and what your dangers are, and where you're mentally preparing constantly for hazards. If you're boxing yourself in because you're staying behind a bad driver, then you're doing it wrong.
The basic advice that I've heard is: "On a motorcycle, drive like everyone is out to kill you.... and you deserve it." (The later being a nice emphasis to remind you that some people won't even feel bad about plowing you down, because they will rationalize it away as the motorcyclist's fault.)
The other one I've heard is that you should always be behind a dangerous driver. That way, you have the best chance of keeping an eye on what they're doing. (If someone is tailgating you, you're better off being behind them, where you can choose to observe a safe following distance. If someone is drunk, who knows what the hell they're doing behind you, and if you stare in your rear-view mirror to be safe there, you're probably going to be getting yourself in trouble ahead.)
Last one, I remember hearing that stop-and-go traffic is particularly dangerous for motorcyclists, and that is why some states allow them to cut lanes (NOT ALL STATES LET YOU CUT LANES), because the danger to the motorcyclist is actually greater in the stop-and-go, than them driving through the traffic between the lanes. I actually only know of California as a place that allows lane cutting, but there is no reason why it couldn't be elsewhere.
Another odd rule that motorcyclists get to "break"? In Washington state motorcyclists do not have to maintain any amount of insurance on their motorcycle. (85% of crashes are single vehicle, and so the motorcyclist is likely only screwing himself, and then most two car collisions are either not the motorcyclist's fault, or are relatively non-damaging to other cars and property.)
I assume their plan is that 2 seconds is plenty of time to avert an accident by hitting the guy who was going to run the red light with some sort of rocket? This is MIT we're talking about, so I'm going to assume some sort of rocket is involved somehow.
Actually, lasers. Their plan involves lasers disabling the car.
I notice that, despite being an MIT team, they analyzed data from an intersection somewhere in Virginia. Probably because their model from a Boston intersection was even simpler:
I spent a week in Las Vegas on an extended vacation visiting a friend. I came to the conclusion that the general rules of lights there were: "If I had to stop for the light, then I'm going through it, even if it turns red again." ... it did keep the traffic flowing, and since everyone seemed to be working on the same rules, it didn't really seem to endanger anyone...
The person tailgating you is likely going faster than you. So why do you feel it's your right/duty to block them? You are not the enforcer of laws. Get out of the way, let them go by, or whatever. It's not your job to police people. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Why do you feel they have a higher-priority right to go faster than I do to go the speed I'm going? If they don't like the speed I'm driving, they can pass me. It's not like I'm driving under the speed limit - I'm generally a few MPH above it. Also you apparently think tailgating only happens on freeways, since "getting out of the way" isn't practical on a two lane road.
My solution to tailgating is to slow down. As soon as they back off - or as soon as they're not behind me (passing or whatever) - I immediately return to normal speed. But, frankly, if they're going to drive in a way that increases the chances of an accident involving me, I'm going to make sure any accident happens at a lower speed.
As a motorcyclist, I take this same approach. Fuck you tailgaters, I don't want to die, because you want to following me so close. If you're going to decrease your reaction time to me stopping, then I'm going to reduce the chance that I'm going to have to stop. And don't flip me the bird when you drive by... it's my fucking LIFE on the line... worst you have to deal with is the insurance totalling your car...
Personally I don't care if people tail gate me. If I am in my nice car I have full coverage, and if I am in the junk truck that I don't care because it is the junk truck. People tend to avoid tailgating vehicles that look like parts are going to fall off of them. I have never lost a part on the road but you wouldn't know that from looking at the junk trucks I have owned.
From what I've noticed about rear-enders that involve a truck, usually the truck is mostly untouched, while the car is demolished. I had someone hit my parked truck (she was drunk, it was in the road in the correct direction) and she hit it so hard that it went up over the curb, and plowed into a wood fence. It ended up crumpling a corner of her Mercedes in and made the car completely undriveable (of course, her response? "Don't call the cops, just let me drive away, please."). Meanwhile, the only damage to the truck was that the driver-side read end was bent up in a pretty looking curve. I swear, you saw it from one side and you're like "I don't see any damage", then you compare it to the other side, and you're all "oh!!! I see it now."
Of course, since paneling is so crazy expensive, the insurance decided to total the truck...
People say "your blood will boil", but that's not actually what happens; the bubbles will be dissolved gasses coming out of solution.
Um, that's the definition of boiling: Dissolved gasses coming out of solution. Can be induced by heating the fluid, lowering the atmospheric pressure, or both.
Boiling is actually the transition of the liquid into a gas, not gasses dissolved in the liquid coming out of solution. They look incredibly similar, but boiling can happen with a pure liquid, while dissolved gasses kind of by definition cannot come out of solution in a pure liquid. (Yes, the liquid turns to a gas and then kind of dissolves itself in the liquid, but it turns out that a gaseous form of a substance dissolved in the liquid form of that same substance is indistinguishable from the liquid itself.)
So, on the first hand, the meaning of "boiling blood" means blood, wherein the liquid medium itself is actually turning into a gas, and thus generating gaseous bubbles, while blood with the gasses coming out of solution is itself not turning into a gas... (the later happening at lower temps, and higher pressures than the former.)
But don't they have cures for that? Sure its kills lots of people, but only the the ones no one gives a damn enough to do anything for them.
There are vaccines (or at least partial ones) and there are treatments.
As much as I appreciate your "fuck the poor" attitude in this respect... there is only so much money being offered to save these lives, and it is not enough.
Likewise, I'd be willing to sacrifice the entire human population if it gave me a lifetime of entertainment.
You know... if you just started enacting your sacrifices on a mass scale, then you could get a lifetime of entertainment... it wouldn't be a particularly LONG lifetime, but you would be enjoying it until the end of your life.
The article links to this Nature story that asserts that completely eradicating mosquitos would have no measurable effect on the environment. They don't really do anything but spread disease. They might have a role as a food source for other animals, but they don't appear to be very significant.
But we might be missing an important part of the chain, and wiping out the mosquitos might throw the world completely out of balance. Then again, humans have so many reasons to hate the little buggers that it still might be worth it.
Also, it's important to note that this particular mosquito is an invasive species of mosquito. It was never around in most of its ecosystems in the first place...