![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
mechanic wrote:
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'. It's called protecting the vulnerable. A pedestrian is far more vulnerable than a driver in a car. I don't see any mention of vehicle emergency braking systems on here but they are available in many new cars. They're rare. Vast majority of cars on the road don't have them. |
Ads |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wolf K wrote:
On 2019-02-13 05:42, mechanic wrote: 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. Yes, I call that "creeping autonomy". Such driver-assist tech is IMO a good idea. Except when you start relying on it and it doesn't work. See the poor woman in pheonix. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256 Mark Lloyd wrote: On 2/12/19 1:34 PM, Dan Purgert wrote: Mark Lloyd wrote: I think that's what happened when I had a dual boot (Win and Linux on the same disk). Some Windows program messed up the bootloader. I remember something (uhh, WOW? ... maybe?) deleting boot.ini. A dual-boot (Win/Lin) system boots first to the Linux bootloader which then loads the Windows bootloader. A Windows file shouldn't prevent booting Linux. No, I mean like "World of Warcraft" deleted the Windows boot.ini file by mistake in one of the patches. Although I may well be misremembering the actual culprit. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxkat UACgkQjhHd8xJ5 ooFhEAgAljDWBGTzAHUu67lya1tFeRVEwSMgik5FbGBopD/yLIsRuRyGLcXQmaSX GpiE3iSNPJHvsiJblvDChekaAphwYBViV8MrsZ3/2ljnIJFEFv8bgO8eCOnWATlq yfqrQmxK1qJt3hBbK51HZFolVKbx8t7snMGBNwd4GjzkmQI+Gf gXhh7Pn/XA7sNB hxBWrOtW0B3OUQ5EDLg9C3Xq6BwLtIj9yg6LwQFD7MXGHACVKs RbqGeda6qqBV3t 6eSEymO7VwlkiWX5s3uJLxP+NEkyWki/BF/bNdfxNSFC3RcvUZyza+1QCHQegSv4 M9nwtePTuA3T+2S6EwIGCo/wKJ5cnw== =yE0E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281 |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , 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'. It's called protecting the vulnerable. A pedestrian is far more vulnerable than a driver in a car. exactly. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Chris
wrote: Yes, I call that "creeping autonomy". Such driver-assist tech is IMO a good idea. Except when you start relying on it and it doesn't work. See the poor woman in pheonix. that was human error, not a failure of an autonomous system. the uber operator was not paying attention and didn't notice anything wrong until it was too late. the vehicle's anti-collision system *did* detect the pedestrian, except that it had been disabled because uber was testing their own system, which considered it to be a false positive. the person in the vehicle was supposed to be monitoring what was going on so that the system could learn, except she was watching tv instead. had she been paying attention, there would not have been a crash. also, the person who was hit stepped in front of a moving vehicle, assuming it would stop, and in an area where visibility was limited. that's not a good strategy. autonomous vehicles do not need to be perfect. nothing can be. they only need to be better than humans, which sadly, is not that hard to do. more than 1 million people die every year due to motor vehicle crashes, with ~50 million more injured. that's 2 people killed every *minute*. https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/ nearly all of those could be avoided. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message news
![]() On 2/11/19 8:00 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: In a new blog post entitled “Helping customers shift to a modern desktop”, Microsoft has announced that it will indeed start charging Windows 7 customers a monthly fee from January 14th 2020, if they want to keep their computers safe. This SHOULD refer to security updates, not permission to use the OS. The ESU offer has more limitation/constraints. Note: the Volume Licensing and the discount applicable for Volume Licensing subscriptions(Assurance, Enterprise and Education subscriptions) qp "With that in mind, today we are announcing that we will offer paid Windows 7 Extended Security Updates (ESU) through January 2023. The Windows 7 ESU will be sold on a per-device basis and the price will increase each year. Windows 7 ESUs will be available to all Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Enterprise customers ***in Volume Licensing***, with a discount to customers with Windows software assurance, Windows 10 Enterprise or Windows 10 Education subscriptions. In addition, Office 365 ProPlus will be supported on devices with active Windows 7 Extended Security Updates (ESU) through January 2023. This means that customers who purchase the Windows 7 ESU will be able to continue to run Office 365 ProPlus." /qp ....i.e. only **Volume Licensing** customers, and if purchased also supports Office 365 Plus on Windows 7 until Jan. 2023 - Non-volume licensing end-users(i.e. retail and OEM Windows 7 edition consumers not paying/using/contracted for Volume Licensing) are not included in the 'option to purchase ESU'. Support for non-volume licensing edition security updates will cease, as previously announced/planned in Jan. 2020 -- ....w¡ñ§±¤ñ msft mvp 2007-2018 |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Wolf K
wrote: First line of defence is winter tires. Recent tests by the Ontario Dept of Highways confirmed earlier results: braking deteriorates from around +5C (about 40F) on down. By the time the roads are icy, summer and "all season" and "all weather" tires are hockey pucks. Some people like studs, but they wear into round nubbins a little too quickly for my taste. winter tires may help, but the first line of defense is knowing how to drive in slippery conditions (which also helps in dry conditions, just not as often). even the grippiest winter tires won't help when the vehicle loses traction. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:35:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Mark Lloyd writes: On 2/12/19 7:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: [snip] Person A: "It was sunny yesterday!" nospam: "not last night, it wasn't!" Bang on, Char. Dammit! I at first wrote that but then thought it was unnecessarily provocative and deleted it. (-: I have deleted a post, but not before someone replied so my words weren't really deleted. Even if they hadn't, I doubt you have "deleted your post": unless the server you are using honours delete requests _and_ processed it before communicating with its peers, there is little you can do to delete a post. I deleted it before I posted. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:01:42 -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. 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. No it doesn't. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:16:38 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote: On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:46:17 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , 123456789 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? He is already determinedly trying to change the context of the argument. It's weird. nospam makes an argument and even provides multiple URLs that he claims will support his argument. The weird thing is that none of the URLs actually support his argument, so I think we're in for a round of posts that redefine the initial claim so that the URLs can fit the situation. AKA 'moving the goalposts'. I quickly lose interest, which is what he hopes to achieve in the first place. |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wolf K wrote:
Please, DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS! Thank you. -- XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/ |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:45:42 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:35:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Mark Lloyd writes: On 2/12/19 7:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: [snip] Person A: "It was sunny yesterday!" nospam: "not last night, it wasn't!" Bang on, Char. Dammit! I at first wrote that but then thought it was unnecessarily provocative and deleted it. (-: I have deleted a post, but not before someone replied so my words weren't really deleted. Even if they hadn't, I doubt you have "deleted your post": unless the server you are using honours delete requests _and_ processed it before communicating with its peers, there is little you can do to delete a post. I deleted it before I posted. OK, but in that case, don't say "I have deleted a post." That only confuses people. If you didn't post it, it wasn't a post. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Char Jackson
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? He is already determinedly trying to change the context of the argument. It's weird. nospam makes an argument and even provides multiple URLs that he claims will support his argument. The weird thing is that none of the URLs actually support his argument, they do support it. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: ask yourself why cops are enforcing something you say doesn't exist: http://richmondsfblog.com/2010/07/20...s-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. No it doesn't. it does, and why the cops set up stings, usually at such intersections. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 22:19:49 -0500, Paul wrote:
I don't own a cellphone/smartphone either. I do use VOIP, because it's cheaper than the $55 per month they expect here for a landline. Where is "here", Paul? Non-US, I'm guessing? I've been using Consumer Cellular for a few years now, and I'm generally satisfied. It's $20 a month ($24 and change with all the fees and taxes) for unlimited talk, and $5 more gets you unlimited texts and 256 MG of data. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|