|
55378008 wrote: UK here so driving on the correct side.
Nope. We drive on the right side, and the contrary of right is wrong. 
Well, I take that since we already took a side of the road you simply took the one left 
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: Nope. We drive on the right side, and the contrary of right is wrong.
I can see where the confusion comes from here, that's why I wrote "correct" and not "right" 
|
|
|
|
|
Here in Ohio I had a commute which involved our busiest two highways for over 20 years.
Through that time I witnessed so much terrible, downright purposely dangerous driving that I never stopped being shocked by it.
And, in the last 5-8 years with the rise of cell phones I would absolutely find people meandering all over the 3 lane highway as if drunk--- and always I would find the driver looking at a cell phone. Always!
One time it was a local news channel van driver going about 40 in the left (fast) lane of the 65mph highway. Absolutely oblivious, they roll!
I was always of a mindset that you get on the highway to get to work. That means put everything down and drive as fast as you can without being pulled over by the local troopers. I think that method makes for better drivers. At least then you're looking at the road.
Put down the cell phones!!! And, drive!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Actually going fast can be less dangerous as you need all your focus.
Of course you might not be able to brake in time when some fumbduck cuts your road suddenly or enter a road without checking if there are car with precedence. And it is extremely dangerous if roads are not extremely well maintained as rains cause holes that at high speed can send cars flying like ragdolls.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: as you need all your focus
I agree.
Also, you are right, of course about all the other dangers.
I live only a few minutes away from work now so it is solved.
But, again, cell phones make for the most dangerous driving of all. Most people wouldn't read a paperback novel while driving but see no problem with reading text on a cell phone. 
Uber is Planning Self-Flying Drone Taxis[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Dreadful. I'm an excessive case: I prefer not even talking when driving, except real small talk that doesn't even involve my brains (and often I snap at my motor-mouth GF cause she's distracting me) and if I don't have long trips I keep the radio off.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and driving can be a relaxing, enjoyable activity, if you not looking at your cell phone every 11 seconds. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, phones are killers on the road.
Right now, I manage 20 miles in about 1 hour and change; by the end of the month I hope to have a small apartment about four blocks away from my work.
I have seen four lane changers, thread the needlers (cross across all lanes of traffic from one side of the street to the other), stop light stalkers (they stop car lengths from the light, then creep up on it - I guess they hope to surprise it) and drivers with the reflexes of dead turtles.
I wish I was back in Alaska, where driving was fun and all you worried about was the occasional moose or rock slide....
An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. - Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
stoneyowl2 wrote: stop light stalkers
Yes, I've noticed those a lot too. So annoying. Also, have you noticed then that the cell phone zombies are indignant when you <beep beep> nicely?
They don't like to be broken out of their trance.
Crazy driver waving cell phone: Stop bothering me with driving laws (written and unwritten)!!!
stoneyowl2 wrote: drivers with the reflexes of dead turtles
Great summary of the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A repost of sorts also
2 guxinto 4 ... 2 times
3 guzinto 9 ... 3 times
and so til I run out a fingers and toes.
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
..is a total of 10 guzinto 35. Do you want stamps with that?
Weird. Usually you want tree-fiddy
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
If I start doing fractions I'll have to lose digits.
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: and so til I run out a fingers and toes.
an teef.
|
|
|
|
|
Representing numbers without using numbers.
3 - tree
33 - Dirty Tree
33,3 - Dirty tree and a turd.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: 2 guxinto 4 ... 2 times
3 guzinto 9 ... 3 times
Following that pattern, I think you just ran out of letters! 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
TRUE MATH
Try to prove it...
1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ... (and goes for the infinity) = 1/2
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Curious and grandi'ous at the same time
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, it has something to do with the way that sums/series work when dealing with infinities. I don't remember exactly how it reduces, but I remember my mind being moderately blown the first time it was explained to me.
Now, my attempt, as I think about right now, would be to reduce it to an infinite series of the sum of one minus one:
(1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + ....
Which would of course reduce to 0 + 0 + 0 + ... = 0...
I know this is wrong (because I've not correctly applied whatever rule leads to the 1/2 answer,) but from a straightforward idiot's logic approach, it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Let S = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1..., then 1 - S = 1 - (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1...). This simplifies to 1 - S = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1.... This means 1 - S = S which is simplified to 1 = 2S and finally S = 1/2.
|
|
|
|
|
Or
S = (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + ... = 0
S = 1 - (1 - 1) - (1 - 1) - ... = 1
2S = 1
S = 1/2
|
|
|
|
|
The traditional - and entirely wrong - approach is:
G = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...
1 - G = 1 - (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...)
= 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - ...
= G
1 = 2G
1 / 2 = G
The correct answer is that the series doesn't have a sum in any meaningful sense.
Or, for the quantum-minded, the sum is both 0 and 1 at the same time. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
