Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:27:23 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you
get that
idea.

the motor vehicle code.

Not in my state (AZ/US):

(d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as
provided in section 28-646, a pedestrian facing a steady red signal
alone shall not enter the roadway.

yes in your state:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00792.htm
28-792. Right-of-way at crosswalk
A. Except as provided in section 28-793, subsection B, if traffic
control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver
of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping
if need be in order to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway
within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway
on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is
approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to
be in danger. A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave any curb or other
place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so
close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

"if traffic control signals are not in place or are not in operation".

See?

see 'pedestrian shall not enter the roadway'.

except that sometimes they do.

He is already determinedly trying to change the context of the
argument.

stick to the topic.

as usual, you're resorting to ad hominem attacks.

You are either changing the context of the argument or stupid, and I
don't think you are stupid.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:10:28 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting
her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.

Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that
idea.

the motor vehicle code.

If that is true it is a most unusual motor vehicle code. Which one i
it. Can you cite/quote it?

nothing unusual about it. see other posts.

All of which do not apply to the situation where there are traffic
signals.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

ask yourself why cops are enforcing something you say doesn't exist:

http://richmondsfblog.com/2010/07/20...-or-it-could-c
ost-you-police-planning-stings/
SFAppeal reports that the SFPD will be kicking off targeted
pedestrian stings in and around the area of Golden Gate Park,
specifically the district patrolled by the Park Police.
...
The law states that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a
crosswalk, vehicles must yield. Drivers must yield even if the
pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk intersection. If the
pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk, they must look before
stepping off the curb but if it is a marked crosswalk they are free
to step into the intersection. Vehicles must yield in both situations.

But we should be discussing cross walks with signals. Your quote
doesn't cover that situation

yes it does.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane
street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid
hitting
her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.

Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that
idea.

the motor vehicle code.

If that is true it is a most unusual motor vehicle code. Which one i
it. Can you cite/quote it?

nothing unusual about it. see other posts.

All of which do not apply to the situation where there are traffic
signals.

wrong.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:29:01 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

ask yourself why cops are enforcing something you say doesn't exist:

http://richmondsfblog.com/2010/07/20...-or-it-could-c
ost-you-police-planning-stings/
SFAppeal reports that the SFPD will be kicking off targeted
pedestrian stings in and around the area of Golden Gate Park,
specifically the district patrolled by the Park Police.
...
The law states that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a
crosswalk, vehicles must yield. Drivers must yield even if the
pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk intersection. If the
pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk, they must look before
stepping off the curb but if it is a marked crosswalk they are free
to step into the intersection. Vehicles must yield in both situations.

But we should be discussing cross walks with signals. Your quote
doesn't cover that situation

yes it does.

Let me know when you argue that succesfully before a judge.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/02/2019 15:54, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 02/12/2019 9:36 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:
Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid
hitting her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.


Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that
idea.

Given these are international forums, in most countries around the world
vehicles always have to give way to pedestrians. No matter how "idiotic"
they may be. The obligation is on the driver to avoid hitting
pedestrians. In the UK, if you hit a pedestrian wiht your car you will
be charged with either "Dangerous driving" or "Driving without due care
and attention" and you have to make the case that it was unavoidable.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:00:00 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2019-02-12 04:36, KWills Shill #3 wrote:
[...]
It's worth noting [MS's continued W7 support] charge is only if people want to get
updates, not to use Windows 7. If one wants to take the risk, they can
continue to use 7 without having to pay anything.
If they should ever try charging, for any OS, as you suggest, I
expect a mass migration to iOS or Linux. I know from personal
experience that the Mint distro of Linux has a look and feel like
Windows, so there won't be much of a learning curve.

Yes, I like Mint too, but it doesn't run WordPerfect. :-(

It used to. But that was way back when WordPerfect 6 was a thing.
When I use Linux, I use LibreOffice.

--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5...202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:32:10 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 2/12/19 3:37 AM, KWills Shill #3 wrote:

[snip]


I pay $40/month for unlimited data and text. But at a cost of
only 100 minutes a month. And they don't roll over. For me, this has
not been an issue.
Oh, after a set amount of data, it goes from 4G LTE to 3G. But
there is no additional cost for me. I've yet to reach the limit, so
this is also not an issue for me.

I'm on Verizon. They say they're going to eliminate 2G and 3G at the end
of the year (voice calls will use VOLTE). I wonder what they're going to
then.

[snip]

I'm on T-Mobile through Metro PCS. I admit I don't pay attention
to its plans for 2G and 3G termination. If it becomes an issue, I'll
face it then.

--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5...202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:21:53 +0000, Chris wrote:

In the UK, if you hit a pedestrian wiht your car you will be
charged with either "Dangerous driving" or "Driving without due
care and attention" and you have to make the case that it was
unavoidable.

Yes we have very much a blame culture in the UK, there's no such
thing as an 'accident'.

I don't see any mention of vehicle emergency braking systems on here
but they are available in many new cars.

Wolf K wrote:
If it fixed some of the flaws of MS Word, such as the lack of
fine-grained control

Just curious, what do you mean by "fine-grained control"?

(BTW was a WP user back at the ol' 5.1 days but 6.0 killed it for me...)

trimmed the conspiracy, no string connected pin-ups on my wall

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 12/02/2019 19.12, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 2/11/19 10:34 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

[snip]

It was sold "as is".

According to the deceptive fine print, it wasn't sold at all.

Maybe, but in any case, "as is". No assurance of being fit for any
purpose expressly or implied, bla bla bla.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

ask yourself why cops are enforcing something you say doesn't exist:

http://richmondsfblog.com/2010/07/20...-or-it-could-c
ost-you-police-planning-stings/
SFAppeal reports that the SFPD will be kicking off targeted
pedestrian stings in and around the area of Golden Gate Park,
specifically the district patrolled by the Park Police.
...
The law states that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a
crosswalk, vehicles must yield. Drivers must yield even if the
pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk intersection. If the
pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk, they must look before
stepping off the curb but if it is a marked crosswalk they are free
to step into the intersection. Vehicles must yield in both situations.

But we should be discussing cross walks with signals. Your quote
doesn't cover that situation

yes it does.

Let me know when you argue that succesfully before a judge.

learn to read.

The law states that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a
crosswalk, vehicles must yield.

that refers to *any* crosswalk, with or without traffic control signals.

In article , Chris
wrote:

Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for
printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As
I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her
phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very
nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid
hitting her.

pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his
brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for
not paying attention.


Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a
traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that
idea.

Given these are international forums, in most countries around the world
vehicles always have to give way to pedestrians. No matter how "idiotic"
they may be. The obligation is on the driver to avoid hitting
pedestrians. In the UK, if you hit a pedestrian wiht your car you will
be charged with either "Dangerous driving" or "Driving without due care
and attention" and you have to make the case that it was unavoidable.

correct.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2019-02-12 23:16, nospam wrote:
i highly, highly doubt you taught anything beyond the basics, which is
whatever is sufficient to obtain a license.

Doubt all you want. You're getting really good at denying facts that
contradict your nonsense.

not at all.

you haven't answered what type of driving you supposedly taught.

it's quite clear you only taught the basics, and probably not very well
at that.

On 2/13/2019 2:21 AM, Chris wrote:

Given these are international forums, in most countries around the world
vehicles always have to give way to pedestrians. No matter how "idiotic"
they may be. The obligation is on the driver to avoid hitting
pedestrians.

In my state (AZ/US) it is the same. Even though the car may have the
right of way, the driver must still *TRY* to avoid hitting any
pedestrian, even if the pedestrian is in the wrong (such as walking
against a red light). If the collision does occur, the offending
pedestrian would be listed as 'at fault' in the accident report and (if
he survives) issued a traffic citation.

However if the driver took a "bought and paid for" attitude and ran down
the at fault pedestrian even though he could have avoided the accident
then the driver could be charged with aggravated assault or in the event
of a death, vehicle homicide.

In my prior life having investigated thousands of traffic accidents over
a 25 year period I don't ever remember such a cold-hearted accident.
However there were several where the driver could have stopped but
didn't because he was impaired...