No, the point is not the speed, in particular, it's that speed is not the problem - it's the interaction between drivers. We are right side of the street drivers (steering wheel on the left), and the general rule of thumb is that slower traffic keeps right, and you pass on the left.
In Germany, if you pass someone on the right, not only are you subject to getting a ticket for it, but the person you pass is subject to getting a ticket for not being in the proper lane and allowing faster traffic to pass on the left. There are places in the U.S. where you can get a ticket for cruising in the left lane, but I can't think of any off-hand where you get a ticket for passing on the right.
Lack of a speed limit helps, because the reason a lot of idiots in the U.S. cruise in the left lanes is they don't like other people violating the speed limit. What's ridiculous is that they are often violating the speed limit anyway - just not as much as others, and they feel like anyone should be happy because they are going "fast enough." But then people pass to the right to maintain speed.
There's a large list of idiot behavior I see on my daily commute, but the biggest issue with bad crashes is when people keep changing lanes to weave around slower traffic because few people are following the rule of thumb for slower drivers to keep right and to pass on the left (and not cruise in the left lane if you don't have to - I know one person who got a ticket for doing that on the New Jersey Turnpike, and they were looking for sympathy and weren't getting any). Now, I'm not excusing dangerously weaving down the interstate to pass by all the drivers who aren't following the "rule of the road," but I'm saying there's at least two problems there - and one of them is NOT with the weaver.
But Samsung sells a variety.... it'd be a fair comparison to compare Galaxy phones (all editions combined, since that's what they're doing with iPhones). But Apple doesn't offer the variety other manufacturers do... then they get to claim their singular product has outsold everyone else.
That's the thing, isn't it? LOTR books? Harry Potter? I've only ever had to buy one of each of those. People with iPhones, on average, seem to be on at least their third one by now.
It's easy to drift off your speed - that's why I use cruise control even in moderate (but obviously not stop and go or slow and go traffic. At the same time, even when it's very light traffic, if I've been catching up to someone slowly for miles, then try to pass, at least 3/4 of the time they speed up.
I always hate that every time there is an accident involving a truck and "regular" vehicle there's always some cop on the news talking about how the truck driver is a professional to it was likely the car driver's fault. I drive about 5MPH over the limit (if the flow of traffic will allow) and often have large trucks tailgate me (pulling up behind me, not me cutting in front of them). I also see them abruptly change lanes in heavy traffic, and exhibit all sorts of the same terrible behaviors I see the regular commuters doing. It's bull$%!t.
I love this topic because I always get to mention the Autobahn. No speed limit and half the traffic fatalities per mile as US interstates, all because the slower people keep right, and allow the faster people to just pass.
I freely admit I generally exceed the speed limit (although usually by more like 5MPH), and I get annoyed when we have five or more lanes through our city and people are driving below the limit in the center and left of center lanes. Someone is in the "proper" lane if they are generally passing people to their right and being passed on the left. At the same time, I don't feel like I should have to get over and go slower so that the person behind me can exceed the limit even more than I am. If it's not going to slow me down, I have no issue moving over to allow a faster driver to pass. I promise you - if you want to go faster than I'm going, I really don't want to be in your way, but you have to give me reasonable time to pass the people I'm passing.
The problem is most people hate being passed, and think the people passing are jerks (instead of simply not caring, which we should all do more of - worry about yourself). I think it has to do with transactional analysis. I often drive in off-peak hours, and use cruise control (not autopilot!) because it actually helps me pay more attention to the road without worrying about driving a consistent speed.
It's true that it seems like people will speed up when passing.... and often slow down after they pass you. What I've observed is that it's almost always the person being passed speeding up. They may not even realize they're doing it - it's probably only millimeters of difference on the accelerator, and then they complain the person passing them slowed down. The vast majority of the time I'm passing people - using cruise control - they speed up to match. Maybe they feel like if they are being passed then they are going too slow. I think more often people just don't like "losing" the social interaction with others on the roadway. All I know is that it ends up causing a lot more traffic problems because you then create rolling roadblocks, causing people to have to change more lanes to go around. For me, I'll often speed up some more - and if they speed up to match, I'll drop back to my original speed and get behind them... at which point they generally slow down. Quite frustrating, but I don't want to be the person blocking traffic.
The problem is that areas had record cold this past winter, and "deniers" get slammed for correlating a weather event to global climate change - but when "alarmists" do the same thing, most people just nod. It is a double standard. For the record, again, before anyone gets all irate about it, I do not deny global climate change - I'm just not biased enough to be blind to the double standard.
Before I get slammed for this, note that I certainly don't deny global warming/climate change, but when we get record cold (which some areas got last winter), and "deniers" use that as evidence that global warming is a sham, what do you say to them?
That's how it should work - and that's why I don't think they are violating NN with either this or binge-on, but I also think the law goes to far - otherwise this wouldn't even be a question. I support the intent of NN, which, to me, means service providers can't charge content providers for use of their networks (because the customers of the service providers are already paying for the bandwidth), and they can't throttle bandwidth or extort money from content providers to use that bandwidth. But a company offering a freebie to it's actual customers doesn't violate the ideal of NN. If Nintendo is paying for it, then maybe - but otherwise there is nothing wrong here.
No. Well, yes and no. If you look at it from the point of view of competitors, then yes, but if you look at it from the point of view of customers, then no - even if my favorite game doesn't get free bandwidth, because all that means is nothing has changed for me.
The problem with the net neutrality rules is they go too far. I agree with the concept in so far as service providers need to recognize who their customers are and not extort content providers - who are NOT the service provider's customers. The problem with the poster child (Comcast/Netflix) is that Netflix was never pushing content onto Comcast's networks - Comcast's customers, who were already paying for the bandwidth, were pulling it - that's how Comcast's customers were deciding to use the bandwidth they paid for. In addition, it was anti-competitive because Comcast offers it's own content streaming service.
What you've got here is a nice freebie T-Mobile throws in for it's customers, and it can't even do that without people complaining it violates net neutrality. Unless Nintendo is paying T-Mobile, I see no violation of the "ideal" of net neutrality, I see potential violation of the law because the law goes too far. Like the streaming services T-Mobile gives customers "for free" (it's not really, because they potentially suffer from reduced bandwidth for that content, but it's the customers choice - so be it), T-Mobile is NOT getting paid by the content providers for giving them necessary bandwidth - it is as it should be, the customers are using the bandwidth how they see fit - nobody is losing or missing out on anything.
Points taken, but I don't think autopilot was operating outside of it's current design. If people need examples of how NOT to use it, then this case is it.
CS has always been activists, but over the past couple of years they've changed their magazine to a much less useful format, added bigger pictures and "web like" graphics and word clouds... much less content, much more flash, and much more emphasis on being activists instead of product reviews. Not saying it's not still useful, but they've annoyed me more than once with their activism.... one of the reasons I like their ratings is so that I don't need the government to intervene, it helps me make intelligent decisions.
Airbags and seat belts kill, too - but they save way more lives than they take, so they are standard mandatory equipment. I certainly think we need more time to evaluate, but I'd be willing to bet that autopilot has avoided accidents that dumb asses would have otherwise caused.
Actually, what I see is a lot lazy people who don't attempt to find out information for themselves when they could rather be clubbing, playing Pokemon Go, or watching reality TV.
Amusing. I'd actually rather see a 9th and 10th amendment committee. In fact, if I were president there'd be a chicken in every pot and a hooker in every bed. No... seriously, I'd have a 10th amendment advisory committee that I would consult before signing any laws.
I agree with you, but I also believe we can't just ignore the constitution, and strongly support second amendment rights - which is why we need an amendment to clarify the second and put those restrictions on it. Until then, I'd unhappily accept crazies and criminals getting guns in lieu of the greater evil of violating the constitutional rights of everyone. The reason this won't happen isn't because of gun happy conservatives, many of whom would accept a clearly worded amendment specifically restricting gun sales to those deemed incompetent or with felony records, it's because they won't accept an overreaching, wishy-washy, "gray," subject to gross misinterpretation, amendment that liberals would put in place because they'd only want this to be the first step in eliminating second amendment rights altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the point is not the speed, in particular, it's that speed is not the problem - it's the interaction between drivers. We are right side of the street drivers (steering wheel on the left), and the general rule of thumb is that slower traffic keeps right, and you pass on the left.
In Germany, if you pass someone on the right, not only are you subject to getting a ticket for it, but the person you pass is subject to getting a ticket for not being in the proper lane and allowing faster traffic to pass on the left. There are places in the U.S. where you can get a ticket for cruising in the left lane, but I can't think of any off-hand where you get a ticket for passing on the right.
Lack of a speed limit helps, because the reason a lot of idiots in the U.S. cruise in the left lanes is they don't like other people violating the speed limit. What's ridiculous is that they are often violating the speed limit anyway - just not as much as others, and they feel like anyone should be happy because they are going "fast enough." But then people pass to the right to maintain speed.
There's a large list of idiot behavior I see on my daily commute, but the biggest issue with bad crashes is when people keep changing lanes to weave around slower traffic because few people are following the rule of thumb for slower drivers to keep right and to pass on the left (and not cruise in the left lane if you don't have to - I know one person who got a ticket for doing that on the New Jersey Turnpike, and they were looking for sympathy and weren't getting any). Now, I'm not excusing dangerously weaving down the interstate to pass by all the drivers who aren't following the "rule of the road," but I'm saying there's at least two problems there - and one of them is NOT with the weaver.
Yes - I meant they are counting all iPhones as "iPhone," but I don't think they're counting all "Galaxy" phones as one phone.
Awkwardly phrased, but he was referring to the Bible, not LOTR.
But Samsung sells a variety.... it'd be a fair comparison to compare Galaxy phones (all editions combined, since that's what they're doing with iPhones). But Apple doesn't offer the variety other manufacturers do... then they get to claim their singular product has outsold everyone else.
That's the thing, isn't it? LOTR books? Harry Potter? I've only ever had to buy one of each of those. People with iPhones, on average, seem to be on at least their third one by now.
It's easy to drift off your speed - that's why I use cruise control even in moderate (but obviously not stop and go or slow and go traffic. At the same time, even when it's very light traffic, if I've been catching up to someone slowly for miles, then try to pass, at least 3/4 of the time they speed up.
Agreed!
I always hate that every time there is an accident involving a truck and "regular" vehicle there's always some cop on the news talking about how the truck driver is a professional to it was likely the car driver's fault. I drive about 5MPH over the limit (if the flow of traffic will allow) and often have large trucks tailgate me (pulling up behind me, not me cutting in front of them). I also see them abruptly change lanes in heavy traffic, and exhibit all sorts of the same terrible behaviors I see the regular commuters doing. It's bull$%!t.
I love this topic because I always get to mention the Autobahn. No speed limit and half the traffic fatalities per mile as US interstates, all because the slower people keep right, and allow the faster people to just pass.
I freely admit I generally exceed the speed limit (although usually by more like 5MPH), and I get annoyed when we have five or more lanes through our city and people are driving below the limit in the center and left of center lanes. Someone is in the "proper" lane if they are generally passing people to their right and being passed on the left. At the same time, I don't feel like I should have to get over and go slower so that the person behind me can exceed the limit even more than I am. If it's not going to slow me down, I have no issue moving over to allow a faster driver to pass. I promise you - if you want to go faster than I'm going, I really don't want to be in your way, but you have to give me reasonable time to pass the people I'm passing.
The problem is most people hate being passed, and think the people passing are jerks (instead of simply not caring, which we should all do more of - worry about yourself). I think it has to do with transactional analysis. I often drive in off-peak hours, and use cruise control (not autopilot!) because it actually helps me pay more attention to the road without worrying about driving a consistent speed.
It's true that it seems like people will speed up when passing.... and often slow down after they pass you. What I've observed is that it's almost always the person being passed speeding up. They may not even realize they're doing it - it's probably only millimeters of difference on the accelerator, and then they complain the person passing them slowed down. The vast majority of the time I'm passing people - using cruise control - they speed up to match. Maybe they feel like if they are being passed then they are going too slow. I think more often people just don't like "losing" the social interaction with others on the roadway. All I know is that it ends up causing a lot more traffic problems because you then create rolling roadblocks, causing people to have to change more lanes to go around. For me, I'll often speed up some more - and if they speed up to match, I'll drop back to my original speed and get behind them... at which point they generally slow down. Quite frustrating, but I don't want to be the person blocking traffic.
Reminds me of this oldie-but-goodie., particularly:
The problem is that areas had record cold this past winter, and "deniers" get slammed for correlating a weather event to global climate change - but when "alarmists" do the same thing, most people just nod. It is a double standard. For the record, again, before anyone gets all irate about it, I do not deny global climate change - I'm just not biased enough to be blind to the double standard.
Before I get slammed for this, note that I certainly don't deny global warming/climate change, but when we get record cold (which some areas got last winter), and "deniers" use that as evidence that global warming is a sham, what do you say to them?
Well... the same thing applies here.
That's how it should work - and that's why I don't think they are violating NN with either this or binge-on, but I also think the law goes to far - otherwise this wouldn't even be a question. I support the intent of NN, which, to me, means service providers can't charge content providers for use of their networks (because the customers of the service providers are already paying for the bandwidth), and they can't throttle bandwidth or extort money from content providers to use that bandwidth. But a company offering a freebie to it's actual customers doesn't violate the ideal of NN. If Nintendo is paying for it, then maybe - but otherwise there is nothing wrong here.
No. Well, yes and no. If you look at it from the point of view of competitors, then yes, but if you look at it from the point of view of customers, then no - even if my favorite game doesn't get free bandwidth, because all that means is nothing has changed for me.
The problem with the net neutrality rules is they go too far. I agree with the concept in so far as service providers need to recognize who their customers are and not extort content providers - who are NOT the service provider's customers. The problem with the poster child (Comcast/Netflix) is that Netflix was never pushing content onto Comcast's networks - Comcast's customers, who were already paying for the bandwidth, were pulling it - that's how Comcast's customers were deciding to use the bandwidth they paid for. In addition, it was anti-competitive because Comcast offers it's own content streaming service.
What you've got here is a nice freebie T-Mobile throws in for it's customers, and it can't even do that without people complaining it violates net neutrality. Unless Nintendo is paying T-Mobile, I see no violation of the "ideal" of net neutrality, I see potential violation of the law because the law goes too far. Like the streaming services T-Mobile gives customers "for free" (it's not really, because they potentially suffer from reduced bandwidth for that content, but it's the customers choice - so be it), T-Mobile is NOT getting paid by the content providers for giving them necessary bandwidth - it is as it should be, the customers are using the bandwidth how they see fit - nobody is losing or missing out on anything.
ha ha.... that's good. I don't play PGo, but I'm not paying more (than I was) for other games, either.... so.... no difference to me.
Yes, it's blatantly anti-consumer. Somehow. It must be, because net neutrality.
Of course not - but was there really a design flaw in autopilot? Or was it more like the idiot who activates cruise control and then takes a nap?
Points taken, but I don't think autopilot was operating outside of it's current design. If people need examples of how NOT to use it, then this case is it.
CS has always been activists, but over the past couple of years they've changed their magazine to a much less useful format, added bigger pictures and "web like" graphics and word clouds... much less content, much more flash, and much more emphasis on being activists instead of product reviews. Not saying it's not still useful, but they've annoyed me more than once with their activism.... one of the reasons I like their ratings is so that I don't need the government to intervene, it helps me make intelligent decisions.
Airbags and seat belts kill, too - but they save way more lives than they take, so they are standard mandatory equipment. I certainly think we need more time to evaluate, but I'd be willing to bet that autopilot has avoided accidents that dumb asses would have otherwise caused.
Well, that's what I said - people keep asking for new laws when what they need is an amendment.
Actually, what I see is a lot lazy people who don't attempt to find out information for themselves when they could rather be clubbing, playing Pokemon Go, or watching reality TV.
Amusing. I'd actually rather see a 9th and 10th amendment committee. In fact, if I were president there'd be a chicken in every pot and a hooker in every bed. No... seriously, I'd have a 10th amendment advisory committee that I would consult before signing any laws.
I agree with you, but I also believe we can't just ignore the constitution, and strongly support second amendment rights - which is why we need an amendment to clarify the second and put those restrictions on it. Until then, I'd unhappily accept crazies and criminals getting guns in lieu of the greater evil of violating the constitutional rights of everyone. The reason this won't happen isn't because of gun happy conservatives, many of whom would accept a clearly worded amendment specifically restricting gun sales to those deemed incompetent or with felony records, it's because they won't accept an overreaching, wishy-washy, "gray," subject to gross misinterpretation, amendment that liberals would put in place because they'd only want this to be the first step in eliminating second amendment rights altogether.
If someone steps in front of your moving vehicle, then you did not kill them.
Let natural selection take it's course. If people want to wander out in traffic to capture a virtual Pokemon, let them.