Explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Printable View
Explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Well it's retarded because you can't park diagonally on a line, only over it. But that's not socially retarded, merely logcial nitpicking.
I think I'd spit on his windscreen, right in front of the driver's seat.
The vast majority of social order is created through cultural interactions. By logical progression of what vigilantism is, it's not useful. This wouldn't have been an example of vigilantism anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You can. You can park diagonally. It can be on a line. This is because parking implies a space. "Diagonally" implies asymmetric parking within the space. "On the line" implies such is on the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Would he understand that his car was hit due to parking that way?
Probably not. People who box somebody in by parking like an asshat are typically not thoughtful enough to come to that conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Why didn't you spit on his windscreen?
This is why your "teach him a lesson" aspie remark is so retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I claimed that he needed to be taught a lesson, not that the proposed method would have worked. I even said as much in the next sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Ladies and gentlemen, the smartest person in the history of the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
He's very careful with his language, he says he's like the smartest person in the history of the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
And he'd be right, because the smartest person in the history of the planet is obviously male, therefore there is at least one simliarity between the spithotp and wuf, making his statement technically correct.
Which is the best kind of correct
If you think I was being serious, I now know why people here think I'm a jackass.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Translation: when wuf says he's more brillianter than all the things, he means he's okay. He's decent. He's not bad. He's not dumber than a bag of sticks. Well, not a freshly bundled bag of sticks -- those are legit -- but an old musty bag of sticks. He beats the piss out of that musty bag. It's no competition. Musty bag never saw it coming.
You beat stick?
Stick break in half.
Then you have two stick.
Stick win everytime.
i read that in a russian accent. would read again.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2597839
Yay or nay?
For reference, many states have whats called "Implied Consent" laws. Essentially, when you get your driver's license...you agree to submit to breath or blood tests if you are suspected of a DUI. If you refuse, the license is automatically revoked.
This would be a similar idea; provide your phone so that they can determine if you were texting while driving, and if you refuse, license is revoked.
------
I'm against it. I'm not sure we can know exactly what time a car accident occurred (not without expensively looking at a newer car's computer that might record that info), so the information wouldnt be too useful. BAC's are great b/c you just need a window, not an exact time. I'm not sure the rationale for doing this really applies either. While distracted driving is a huge cause of accidents, texting is often just a momentary incident of dangerous driving...meanwhile DUI is an entire trip's worth of dangerous driving. I also dont like giving my phone to people...though the article mentions that it would be strictly for a very limited purpose.
Somehow, as much as you mean this, I still doubt the conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The way you throw the word "intuit" around is adorable.
Sup, wufwugy?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Ultimately yay. A driver's license is a privilege that you have to pass multiple tests to get, and many caveats that you have to perform in order to maintain that privilege. From obeying traffic and parking laws to maintaining the safety of the vehicle to keeping insurance to maintaining your mental state while operating the vehicle.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
If texting while driving is illegal, then whether or not there was an accident, the police should always have the right to determine if you've been texting while driving. How is up to them, but to simply borrow your phone for the specific purpose of assessing this fact sounds pretty ideal, actually.
The difference is that if you refuse a BAC test, then they can arrest you and take your license, but they can't force you to blow into a tube. They can and will take your phone, though... so refusing to let them see it is kind of a moot point if they're just going to arrest you anyway.
You're right that the problem of linking the time of text to the time of accident is a challenge.
***
I don't own a cell phone.
EDIT: Interesting 5th Amendment implications if you refuse to give them your phone, though.
I've seen people obviously on their phone during rush hour on the highway. And not just, "I'll check one thing and put it away" -- I'm talking about spending the entire trip with their focus down in their lap instead of on the road. It really irritates me when I see someone doing that in my rearview mirror, because I don't want to be rear-ended because some bimbo wants to see what her friends posted on Facebook in the last hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I'm for it, if it can be accurate and reliable. What would really be cool is if the phone's own motion sensors could detect the collision and include that information to the cops -- that would solve the timestamp issue.
What would be even more awesome -- fully self-driving cars become a reality and you can use your phone all you want, because you're not driving. Elon Musk claims that Tesla will have that capability in two years.
Fully self-driving cars are already a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightGizmo
AFAIK, they've been a thing for years now. They're not available to the public yet, and I'm not sure why.
I was once told that it's an insurance nightmare. If a self-driven vehicle is in an accident, then who's liable? The person who owns the car and had nothing to do with it's operation? The company who made the car? The company who wrote the driving software? The company that made the faulty sensor which failed and caused the software to have a blind spot?
I heard this over a decade ago, but I suppose that if you give insurance agencies 10 years, they'll figure out what to charge you for your insurance. So I don't know if that's the whole truth.
I'm still a bit unsure if this would count as being forced to provide evidence of your own guilt in a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightGizmo
Moreso, it's a crime that you are not yet officially accused of. Until the officer has issued you a ticket / summons, you are not accused, right? The officer wants to examine your phone to find evidence that you committed a crime, so he's not even asserting that his best judgement says you were breaking the law, yet, right?
They don't work is probably the main reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
They actually work quite well. Last I checked, google's cars have been in only a handful of minor collisions over the course of hundreds of thousands of miles driven, and all of them were the fault of a third party driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
It really does seem like the biggest hurdle is that of where liability falls. Things get weirder when you realize with the number of cars on the road, there are near infinite scenarios that play out on the roads, and an non-insignificant subset of these scenarios are situations where there needs to be a decision made where lives are ranked against each other. The simplest example would be a situation where a pedestrian suddenly is in the path of a self driving car and the only options involve death for the pedestrian or a telephone pole and death for the occupant. Things get more interesting the more omniscient the software is-- how many "normal" lives is a nobel laureate's life worth? Is a young life worth more than an older life-- how about a baby (very little societal sunk cost) vs a young adult (quite a bit of societal sunk cost that is just about to pay off)?
I find this topic infinitely fascinating-- the train switch and the fat man type of hypothetical is great, but here we have similar thought experiments, yet they are almost assuredly going to play out in real life and need concrete answers-- and in a hurry.
You've described what is the most interesting part of AI-based technology for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I didn't realize that Google's cars were so far along, that's sweet.
A friend of mine thinks that self-driving cars will be blocked by lobbyists for a long time - mainly auto insurance companies, but also maybe taxis - because of the impact on their revenue and all the jobs it will eliminate.
I really don't think so. Tesla already has auto-pilot, so does the mercedes S-class. Volvo said they will take full responsibility for any crash caused by their auto-pilot system. Tesla not so much. Right now it works like auto-pilot in airplanes. It drives as long as it feels confident it knows what's going on, and if it's confused it will beep at you to take control back. That's the way it will be for a while. So we already have self-driving on highways, and self-parking has been a thing for a decade, so I don't see much of a problem.
I thought Google's cars were still being developed for less than idea conditions? All their tests have come out excellent when it's clear dry sunny days, not so much when it's raining or whatever.
joe rogan claims to have a friend who has a self-driver. it works on well-established roads only.
Only...
A great question to ask is, "what if you discovered that one of your central beliefs was wrong?"
I always held one single complaint for how AI could never become like our I - computers are, at heart, serial. There's a heartbeat that triggers a cascade of flip-flops and then another heart beat. Certainly the experience of consciousness is more dynamic and continuous than can ever be achieved by a machine
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-0...ss-slices.html
Or maybe not.
Depends on the belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I believe some things because I think they're true, and I believe other things because it helps me be happy.
E.g. I believe in QM and GR because I think they're useful to understand the universe in which I live. If they were shown to be wrong, I would discard them and learn the new statements which are more right.
Whereas if I learned that it was wrong to believe that people are generally good, I would not change my belief, because it's not about whether or not it's true, it's about giving people the benefit of the doubt.
How exciting would it be to discover they weren't? However that might be. It's not a question about how firmly you stand in the Real, but how you would react to it changing beneath your feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think it would be very exciting, personally.
You mean like confirmation of the Higgs field or the direct observation of gravity waves?
;)
I don't get this, explain a bit more?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think I probably agree with you but I don't really have that many inherent beliefs which I think the vast majority of people do.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
It isn't a thing you agree with. It's as simple as answering to
What if you discovered that one of your central beliefs was wrong?
"I think it would be very exciting, personally"Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
A statement that I "probably agree" with.
Does that clear that up?
Nope. It's not a question with a certain answer. You're allowed to answer it however you like, so you're allowed to whichever flights of imagination you wish.
If you want to fly so far as "I'll settle with this here", then so be it.
Today my (intelligent) friend raised the topic of flat earth seriously.
After watching something like 20 minutes of some 2 hr bullshit, I basically told her that if the world is flat the the only logical explanation for it is that God made it that way.
I mean for fuck's sake.
After that we watched Room 237, and I'm now convinced Stanley Kubric made the fake moon landing footage, and was hinting at it in the Shining. I can get on with that sort of nonsense a bit more than flat fucking earth. At least science doesn't outright say fuck you, it just sighs and rolls its eyes.
Many years ago, a man was told that on a specific day, at a specific time, in a specific city, if you looked down a well, you could see your shadow's reflection against the water deep below, for the Sun was directly overhead. On that same day, at that same time, in a different city, a stick would cast a shadow. A man measured the distance between the two cities, understood the difference of their position relative to the sun and judged almost correctly the circumference of the Earth.
His name was Eratosthenes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJemDZcgIZEQuote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
In, like, 250 BC or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Columbus. lol.
Oh, by the way... everything's flat if you move past it fast enough. Even the Earth. Flat as a pancake.
General Relativity and space contraction tells us as much.
@spoon
Students previously expelled from universities for alleged sexual assault are beginning to win lawsuits against the universities.
Idk if you saw that yet, but I thought you'd like to know
I like the big swinging pendulum experiment myselfQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The Foucault pendulum was ~2,000 years later than Eratosthenes, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
It's been done at the South Pole, though... so that's pretty interesting. They discovered that the Earth rotates about once every 24 hours. Well done.
There was a Foucault pendulum at the St Louis Science Center when I was young. I didn't really get it at the time, but it was pretty boring. It's just a huge pendulum and you kind of had to walk away and come back to it to notice that it had changed its plane of oscillation.
That's the beauty of this nonsense - to take these problems on the scale of a human life is to see them as worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But yet, they aren't.
???Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
huh what?
That's not what I was saying.
Worthless?
I feel like I should be offended or something, but I'm not.
Yeah it's great stuff for a beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
The explosive velocity of TNT is less than the escape velocity of the Earth.
So.
If you had an Earth-mass planet made of TNT, and you 'sploded it, you would still have an Earth-mass planet... just a much larger, less dense planet than you started with.
Fun.
So it would be utterly stupid to attempt to build a rocket intended to go to the moon with TNT?
Sounds like a fun thing to do, I want to try it.
Some bits will have escape velocity, and those bits will reduce the overall gravity of the TNT planet left, which will, in turn, reduce the escape velocity, which will allow for more bits to escape.
If you exploded a planet of TNT, it would scatter to some extent but largely coalesce into a planet of ash, charcoal, coal.
Depends on how you're exploding it. If all at once, no way does it keep all its mass. If surface to the core, I'd bet it would. If core to the surface, I'm guessing it wouldn't.
Nope.
At least, I strongly disagree, given my current beliefs. :p
Explosive velocity of TNT is 6,900 m/s. Escape velocity of Earth-mass object is 11,186 m/s.
Very little of the expanding gas would have enough favorable collisions to increase it's velocity to escape.
EDIT: The question of all at once vs. inside out vs. outside in is interesting.
So... no diamonds?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
What's the point, then?
*sigh*
It's gonna depend on its mass. If it's a moon-mass planet of TNT, its escape velocity should be low enough that it will explode faster than it collapses back in on itself.Quote:
If you exploded a planet of TNT, it would scatter to some extent but largely coalesce into a planet of ash, charcoal, coal.
Also, why would it settle into a planet of ash, charcoal and coal? It's a planet of TNT, which is carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. You're gonna have a lot of nitric acid, hydrocarbons, water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon trioxide (does that even exist?), as well as coal, charcoal and diamond.
/pedantry
Because ash, charcoal and coal is more poetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
More poetic than dioxide, monoxide and trioxide?
I got three rhymes, you only got two.
OK. I thought we all agreed that it would probably 'splode ong's noggin to hear about chemistry.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Which one of you haters tried to splode ongie's noggin?
Well I'll be fucked...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_trioxide
http://time.com/4296327/justin-trude...puting-answer/
:shock:
gg wp
Do you like tapes or CDs?
CDs
See deez nuts
Smug twat. If you're gonna be a clever fucker, don't smirk about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This was probably funny for a few weeks in 1991.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Wasn't even that good of an explanation, I know fuck all about either types of computer & I could have told you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah I didn't feel particularly enlightened.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Normally I find black face distasteful, but you really pulled it off, spoon!
Yeah me too. Sorry boost.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Err I mean my definition of black dick is irrelevant to the discussion. You'd see that if you read my post.
This week in dumb history:
source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_wheelQuote:
A case of an executioner's willful malpractice[edit]
On 1 October 1786 in the County of Tecklenburg, Heinrich Dolle was to be executed by being broken on the wheel, on account of the aggravated murder of a Jew. The court had decided that Dolle should be broken von oben herab: the first stroke of the wheel should crush his chest (traditionally thought to kill him instantly). The court instructed the executioner Essmeyer that Dolle should be clandestinely strangled (by garrotte) prior to the first stroke. The bystanders were shocked by what they thought was a severely botched execution by Essmeyer and his son, and thought Dolle had been alive during the entire proceeding, and also after Essmeyer had secured Dolle onto the wheel, and raised it on a pole. The town physician climbed up on a ladder (the Essmeyers had gone by then), and could ascertain that Dolle was, indeed alive; Dolle lingered on until he expired six hours later.
The Essmeyers were brought to court for severe malpractice. It was established that the string around Dolle's neck had not been drawn tightly enough, and that Essmeyer had, contrary to his duties as an executioner, accepted the use of a wheel that was not heavy enough. That lacking weight meant that the chest had not been crushed. Furthermore, one arm and one leg of Dolle's had not broken according to proper penal procedure. And finally, the nail that customarily was hammered through the convict's brain in order to fasten him upon the wheel had been hammered in far too low.
Many believed that Essmeyer's act of malpractice had been not so much a display of gross incompetence as it had been a deliberate act of cruelty because Dolle, just prior to his execution, had converted from Catholicism to that of the Reformed Church (the executioner Essmeyer was a devout Catholic). The court did not find sufficient evidence for deliberate malice on Essmeyer's part, but sentenced him to two years' hard labour and banning him from working ever again as an executioner. His young son was, on grounds of mercy, acquitted of any culpable wrongdoings.[13]
TIL: Opossums are rat-looking marsupials which live in N. America.
http://writingexplained.org/wp-conte...at-284x300.png
Possums are chinchilla-looking marsupials which live in Australia.
http://www.ozanimals.com/image/album...ushTail_04.jpg
Of course, this is a scientific distinction.
In America, most people say "possum" when they mean "opossum." So much so, that most listeners would likely think you were being odd if you insist on saying "opossum" when talking about them.
In Australia, most people would be quite confused if you insisted on calling their possum (so named by James Cook after the opossum) an opossum.
TL;DR
Just call them all possums and you'll be fine in regular conversation.
Why the fuck am I being asked to log into www.woaw.org when I refresh this page?
It's mojo's post.
Quote:
Possums are chinchilla-looking marsupials which live in Australia.
Of course, this is a scientific distinction.
I'm assuming based on the raw text there's supposed to be an image between these two sentences, and that image is hosted on woaw.org (an animal welfare site, very unlikely to be malicious). I'm also assuming that to see the image, one needs to log in. Thus, it's asking those of us not automatically logged into the site (ie everyone except mojo) to log in before we can see that image.
Please remove that image link mojo! I suggest rehosting it elsewhere, and editing the link.
Fixed, whatever you did mojo, thanks. That was annoying!
Works fine for me, fuck those who can't see it imo.
He fixed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I don't give a crap about not being able to see the image, it's the being prompted to log into an outside website. Alarm bells ring when that sort of thing happens.
Wait, it's not fixed.
idk what the fuck is going on, but now I can't see that image again, and once again I'm being promted to log into that website.
*edit - now fixed again
*edit 2 - still fixed
*edit 3 - I figured something out...
When I post something, or edit a post, I can see the image and don't get the prompt. Everything is fine.
When I simply refresh, then I'm prompted and it's weird.
I put a different pic up. Is it better?
EDIT: are you using any script blocker? I use NoScript, which is free to use, but I'm sure there are other options. I've been using it for years, so there must be other products which do similar.
I just refreshed and no problem now, thanks. Although the pic has now gone huge. Not that that's a problem.
I have no idea about scriptblocking. I'm a luddite, I don't even have anti-virus software (never have, and have never had a virus).
Noobs gone wild up in this thread
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Oh dear I'm unaware of these little forum quirks that are oh so natural to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
If only I knew what scripts were, then I'd be a better person.
Why would you know if you had a virus?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
*that I know of
Fun topic but anti-virus software is essentially a scam at this point since they can't catch any of the cool new stuff and will never be able to.
Elaborate? This sounds really interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
You can get free programs that do everything you need.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Can I get a free programme to make me tea and spliffs?
It helps computer illiterate people who fall for scams. If you don't download and install viruses, you probably don't need antivirus software. If you know how to set up and use system restore, you probably don't need antivirus software. But if you have a hard time explaining the difference between the internet and an operating system, you probably want some antivirus software.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I'm very much computer illiterate but I don't tend to fall for scams. The only time I've had anything on my computer I didn't want, it was because I did something dumb... downloaded a game from an unknown source, which changed my homepage and gave me a tool bar with facebook login widgets and whatnot. All the uninstall instructions were in Chinese, so I had to do a system restore. I did this easily by asking google.
Anti-virus software doesn't stop people being dumb, in fact it might encourage sloppy browsing and download habits because people are fooled into thinking their computer is "protected".
Is anyone here successful?
Yes. Me. It is my ambition to do as little as possible with my life.
I'm feeling pretty successful this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I got my dream job and spend the rest of my time with an awesome gal watching youtube or playing video games.
Although, to be fair, I felt successful at putting in solid effort to search for a good job even when I was unemployed for years and "solid effort" meant putting 3 - 5 applications out there in a day, then sulking. Man, I'm good at sulking, though.
Frankly, I'm knocking it out of the park, even with this post. Look at how my grammar shines! Look at my amazing spelling! And I put words from my brain on the internet, which is immortality.
Success!
http://cubiclebot.com/wp-content/upl...ess-monkey.jpg
Look at all of my amazing success bananas!
In retrospect, that was probably a bad question to ask.
Yeah I think the question you were looking for is...
"You all remember I'm successful, right?"
Hrm.
I don't consider myself successful yet. I have a huge plan for myself, but I've only completed about 1/3 of what I'm setting out to do. Since I have not yet achieved all which I've sought, I don't consider myself successful.
But if you snapshot my life right now, and compare it to that of my peers, they would probably consider me to be successful. Afterall, I went to school, got a job in the field and specialty I wanted (to an extent) and have a nice car and the beginnings of a marriage and family. But I didn't set out to achieve these things, I set out to achieve them as part of a much larger plan.
----
Let's do this though. What are you trying to accomplish but have so far been unsuccessful at?
Me, I've been trying to get better impulse control. I tend to overspend, tend to be agreeable without thought for its implications, and have a poor diet. The biggest reason I fail at this is because I'm only trying to change it in a half assed way. I've come to realize that most everything comes down to willpower, and I'm not applying mine to fix this side of myself
Not at all, but JKDS nailed it. I don't think I'm very successful, and a big part of that is that I'm only a small way into a large overall plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
God I don't even know where to start. My physical health is the worst it's probably ever been in terms of being in shape, and that's largely due to neglecting it because of everything else that's been on my plate. May has been the month I've planned to be when I try switching to a keto diet (thanks wuf) and start on a regular exercise schedule instead of just eating whatever and exercising sporadically, if at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I'm also struggling to keep up with the work schedule I'd like to maintain. Knowing I can just do nothing and still get the bills paid instead of working harder kind of sucks. I can keeping going for a few weeks or a couple of months at a time, and then I just crap out. This is probably related to the physical, which is honestly my biggest motivation to do something about it with diet and exercise.
I frequently self-sabotage because I'm afraid of being so ridiculously good that it alienates me from people who are close to me. I've been working on recognizing this one a lot in the past few months especially, and it's helping a lot as well.