In other news today...
-
Why bother when others are prepared and willing to do the checking for you. Of course there remains the small chore of making the correction, and I guess I'm going to have to do that myself - unless some kind hearted Member with the appropriate Privileges is volunteering...
It was late, I had just been woken up by a loud crashing bang - small accident in another bedroom, and my mental arithmetic barely copes with simple stuff when I am firing on all cylinders and reaching for the turbo.
Either that, or I need to throw my 2005 calender away and start using my 1935 one
-
if someone really can detect these things, then we'd love to know how.
My sister lives within the shadow (literally, at some times of day on certain days of the year) of what I believe is still Melbourne's most powerful AM radio transmitter (50kW at 774kHz). I have heard audio from those broadcasts coming faintly from the steel flue above the wood-burning stove in her living room.
-
Yes. IMO, driving more that 5 mph or 20% ish below the limit is as much a hazard as driving over the speed limit.
Reality correlates with your opinion. Although, at low speeds (35 MPH isn't really that fast) it's probably less of a problem than at 65+ MPH interstate speeds.
-
Going slow is a hazard, but not as much as speeding is. I've seen someone claim "going 10mph under is worse than going 20mph over", for example. I wanted to smack him.
-
Doesn't it all depend on the road, though?
-
Doesn't it all depend on the road, though?
Yes. On some roads the person doing 10mph under is the more dangerous person than the one speeding.
-
And on the southern parts of A45 I always drive waaaaaay too slowly - my car can't get anywhere close to infinity kph!
-
The danger is about drivers doing unexpected things. If everyone's happily going along a few km/h over the limit it flows nicely. When a few people are going slower then the limit it causes the other drivers to have to react.
It's why learners are so dangerous because they will slam on the brakes if the light's yellow rather than speeding up like everyone else.
-
The danger is about drivers doing unexpected things.
On the other hand, if you have a car that drives itself using beta technology doing 180kph on a highway, that could very well provoke "unexpected things" from the drivers going "JESUS CHRIST A MURDER MACHINE ON THE LOOSE!".
Even if the Google car driving at turtle-speed might be somewhat more dangerous from the traffic viewpoint, it's much more reassuring and prevents people from panicking and doing stupid things.
-
prevents people from panicking and doing stupid things
Nothing prevents people from doing stupid things.
-
Going slow is a hazard, but not as much as speeding is. I've seen someone claim "going 10mph under is worse than going 20mph over", for example. I wanted to smack him.
Wrong. You're comparing speed under or over to the speed limit. You should be comparing to the actual speed of the other traffic, which is what actually matters... well, as long as you don't hit a stationary object, I guess. (Don't do that.)
Going significantly slower or faster than traffic is a hazard. It's all about differential speed. If you are going faster or slower than 85% of the other traffic, you're creating a significant road hazard, regardless of what the speed limit is. So yes... it's quite possible for 10 MPH under the speed limit to be worse than 20 MPH over.
Granted, if there's a 10 MPH speed differential and the faster vehicle is going 80 MPH, it's likely to be a worse accident than an accident with a 10 MPH speed differential where the faster vehicle is going 70 MPH. However, that only comes into play if you get into an accident, and you'll lower your chances of that if you travel at the speed of traffic, even if they're speeding.
-
Meanwhile, else where in the world:
-
3 April 2015
Not quite "meanwhile"...
-
Oh but it is. It happened Thursday IIRC. Not Headline news, and not really in the news until today and only them because there "may" be an IS link. But then it occurred on a different continent and one for which there is (from our perspective) little interest.
-
It happened Thursday IIRC
And BBC reporters dug the TARDIS out of their studio so that they could have coverage of it back in April? This was half a year ago, and I think it made some headlines back then. Not as much as the Paris attacks, because John Doe's reaction was probably "where the fuck is Kenya anyway?" but still.
-
I do wish they would not do that - use the TARDIS that is, without making it clear that they are. But then, I suppose, they achieved (in me at least) their objective.
-
-
-
I might be wrong, but I think the point was the Kenyan attack happened on a Thursday (a weekday), + "media coverage approximately as you'd expect for a bunch of dark-skinned people getting killed in a country that no-one cares about".
By comparison, the Paris attacks happened on a Friday (also a weekday), + "media coverage approximately as you'd expect for a bunch of white people getting killed in a country full of rich white people".
I think the only significance of it being Thursday was to point out that both attacks happened on weekdays, late in the week, so if there was going to be a difference in the amount of media coverage, that wouldn't be the reason.
-
Oh, right.
-
It happened Thursday IIRC. Not Headline news, and not really in the news until today and only them because there "may" be an IS link.
Actually there were suicide bombings in Beirut the day before the attacks in Paris, and there was very little news coverage of them. The Kenya bombing you posted took place back in April. Maybe you're conflating the two?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/world/middleeast/beirut-lebanon-attacks-paris.html
-
Did not know about the Beirut thing, but the point (re: what is and is not reported) is the same. The Kenya thing as pointed out, to my embarrassment, by @Maciejasjmj (who @loopback0 by a day) was earlier this year.
-
-
I do that a lot, especially if a topic "explodes" overnight and having to
trolltrawl through several 10's (or 100's) or posts before replying is a chore.
-
I might be wrong, but I think the point was the Kenyan attack happened on a Thursday (a weekday), + "media coverage approximately as you'd expect for a bunch of dark-skinned people getting killed in a country that no-one cares about".
Which was a lot? I dunno...I remember it getting a lot of coverage. Though less facebooking and stuff about it.
-
I didn't hear about it until today.
-
Didn't hear about what?
-
I was replying to boomzilla, who quoted another post from me, wherein you will find the information you seek.
-
Looks like another Chinese chemical plant blew up.
-
Now China's gonna close their borders with Syria too!
-
WaPo, bringing you the important stuff:
-
It's not today's news, but in case anybody was still upset about the brown kid getting in trouble for his fake bomb... SWAT has been called and a girl suspended over her halloween costume, which consisted of a trench coat and gas mask:
<wish I could find a reference to the race of the female student. The city of Pueblo, CO is approximately 72% white, so it's a pretty good chance she was white. It'd be fun to throw that in the face of all the flaming liberals who say the only reason bomb kid was overreacted is because he has brown skin and a terrorist name and school officials are all racist bastards.
Also, in keeping with the "school officials are fucking idiots" theme: Dad brings camera to football games and takes photos of his own daughter, a cheerleader. School says no, you can't take photographs because we have an exclusive contract with XYZ photographers. Dad says WTF, there are other parents in the stands with similar cameras taking photos of their kids and none of them are being stopped? XYZ photographers chime in with uhh, we actually had no problem with him; school says STFU and keep out of this; XYZ says fuck this, you're all fucking idiots, we don't want our name to be associated professionally with a bunch of idiots so we're firing you as a client.
-
The second article makes 30% sense, considering said father is a professional photographer. But it's still insane and stupid.
-
He probably showed up with a professional camera and someone got worried that that's technically a breach of contract. It seems legit, but it should have been dropped when the other contracted party claimed they had no problem withit.
-
It seems legit, but it should have been dropped when the other contracted party claimed they had no problem withit.
I'll bet there's more history there than the news story let on.
-
I'm assuming (as I tend to do for most of these "idiot school admin" stories) that now they're doubling down to try and save face. After all, it's better to be stupid and wrong than to admit that you were wrong in the first place.
-
That, too, but I just wonder if the dad and the principal have gotten into it before, so there's some existing bad blood between them.
-
The second article makes 30% sense, considering said father is a professional photographer.
He probably showed up with a professional camera and someone got worried that that's technically a breach of contract.
Sure, he might have planned on using his photos professionally and that would've probably been a breach of the school's contract with the other photographer. But if they weren't being nosy about the intentions of all the other parents with cameras, then there was no reason for them to be nosy about his intentions.
If they were really that worried about it they should have either banned cameras altogether or required all parents who wished to take pictures sign a statement agreeing that photos they took could only be used for personal use, not professionally.
-
The school disagrees and now, Denham can only attend school events, if he leaves his camera at home.
Some nice comma abuse!
-
That, too, but I just wonder if the dad and the principal have gotten into it before, so there's some existing bad blood between them.
That seems to usually make it into the story, though.
-
-
So, @Boner has reported about a circumcision ambulance being stolen and then found after a tip-off?!
Too... much...
-
's by @PJH 8 hours ago.
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/no-i-hadnt-heard-of-one-of-these-before-either/53076
-
Oops. I've loads of threads to catch up on, I've had to do actual work this week.
-
-
-
Police say they are hunting for a 30-stone - approximately 400 pounds - bearded woman
Guys, keep this one in your mental database for the next time some British person makes fun of the US for not adopting metric.
-
Also, since the police are in California, I'm quite certain "Police say they are hunting for a 30-stone ... woman" is a false statement. It's very unlikely they said anything at all about stones, and that is entirely an invention of ITV.
-
It's very unlikely they said anything at all about stones, and that is entirely an invention of ITV.
Every other source, UK or US, just describes her weight as 400 pounds.
She's been caught too.
-
Stones were standard in the UK by 1835, long before ITV ever existed.