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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
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. the motor vehicle code. although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only once. it's a problem that solves itself. |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 02/12/2019 10:38 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. the motor vehicle code. although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only once. it's a problem that solves itself. Show me your proof. Check this https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26 Rene |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:38:27 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Rene Lamontagne 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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:38:27 -0500, 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. the motor vehicle code. Not true here in the US, AFAIK, though it could be different in your country. If you expect to have the right of way as a pedestrian, you'd better look for a designated crosswalk. There are a few other exceptions, as well, but generally speaking if you step out wherever you feel like it, you can be ticketed for jaywalking. although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only once. it's a problem that solves itself. Not really. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 02/12/2019 10:55 AM, 123456789 wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:38:27 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Rene Lamontagne 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. Right, only makes common sense. Rene |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 2/11/19 6:33 PM, lonelydad wrote:
[snip] I don't usually comment on the validity of a post, but what we have here is an example of a response being fired off after mis/not reading the original post and not doing any kind of research on the validity of the content. As not@mail, stated, the proposed charge is if a user still running Windows 7 wants to continue to receive security updates, they will have to pay for it, since Windows 7 is about five versions back or so, if one counts the semiannual updates of Windows 10 as new versions. If Microsoft really tried to bill for the continued use of Windows 7 intself it would be violating its own Terms of Use, and would more than likely face a raft of lawsuits from corporate users still using the platform. Microsoft has fully depreciated the capital cost of Windows 7 and its term of support, and has no legal basis to start charging a user fee for continued use. But it would be interesting to see them try it. They can probably change those "terms of use" anytime they want, in any way the want. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The concept of sin divorces morality from reality." |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
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. the motor vehicle code. although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only once. it's a problem that solves itself. Show me your proof. Check this https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26 (f) Every driver will exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and will exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person. random states - california: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...tion.xhtml?sec tionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH 21950.** (a)*The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (b)*This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (c)*The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. (d)*Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. minnesota: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.21 Subd. 2. Rights in absence of signal. (a) Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision. .... Subd. 3.Crossing between intersections. (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. new york: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/ope...grams-bureau/r epository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html € When there is no traffic control signal, drivers must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (Sec. 1151). € In addition, every driver approaching an intersection or crosswalk, must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian accompanied by a guide dog or using a white or metallic cane (Sec. 1153). What if there is no crosswalk? € If there is no crosswalk, a pedestrian must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway (Sec. 1152). What about sidewalks? € The driver of a vehicle when entering or exiting from an alleyway, building, private road or driveway, must yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian on a sidewalk. (Sec. 1151-a). washington: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235 (1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Char Jackson
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. Not true here in the US, AFAIK, though it could be different in your country. see links in other post. If you expect to have the right of way as a pedestrian, you'd better look for a designated crosswalk. There are a few other exceptions, as well, but generally speaking if you step out wherever you feel like it, you can be ticketed for jaywalking. jaywalking might be illegal in some places, but it's the responsibility of the driver not to hit said pedestrian if in the path of the vehicle. and in new york city, not jaywalking marks you as a tourist. muggers like tourists. although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only once. it's a problem that solves itself. Not really. yes really. they either end up injured and can't walk, or they're dead. either way, no further occurrences. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 04:26:29 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Char Jackson 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. $55...yikes, someone must be very proud of their telco offering. As for VoIP being cheaper, I assume you mean free (after acquiring a VoIP adapter). usually, voip-voip calls are free, while calls to/from ptsn are not. By the way, thanks for backing off of the "calls to/from ptsn are not" free thing. It's PSTN, but that was probably a typo. GV calls within the US and Canada are free, but limited to 3 hours. International calls start at $0.01 per minute, depending on the called country. The called number can be PSTN, or not. It's still free. google voice is not really a voip provider and only recently offered voip support. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Voice#VoIP_services Google Voice permits Voice Over IP (VoIP) as a beta from both the web and Android clients. It formerly supported XMPP signaling but no longer does. However, it has been reported that at one time some users could receive calls with their Google Voice accounts via the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Google Voice is still free and works pretty well, although individual calls are limited to 3 hours. it's not voip, although there are ways to use it as such. I use it with an Obihai ATA and it looks like VoIP to me. I vaguely recall that it might have been SIP back when it was launched, but that's ~10 years ago so I don't remember for sure. obihai is one of the ways to use gv as a 'normal phone', originally via xmpp, which is no longer supported. i'm not sure what it uses now. I'm using a broader definition of VoIP than you are. Packetized voice using a protocol that rides on TCP or UDP, either of which in turn rides on IP. I don't really care what the upper layer protocol is. -- Char Jackson |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 2/11/19 7:15 PM, Mike wrote:
[snip] It's inevitable. The cellphone model already does that. Want data?* No problem.* Fork over $40 a line for 4 lines and get lotsa data, whether you use it or not. Somebody has to pay for that Superbowl commercial. There's a company called Karma where you bought data by the GB and it never expires, even if it takes you 30 years to use it. After a couple of years, they started taking it back, At least for new purchases. So far, you get to keep data yo bought before the change. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The concept of sin divorces morality from reality." |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 2/11/19 8:11 PM, pjp wrote:
I have always felt if Linux had games equal to Windows would do it. When using XP I got interested in playing "Spider Solitaire" (turning OFF the machine-gun dealing sound). Now, I find I prefer "Penguin Spider" in Linux. Linux does have a bunch of games (without the commercial junk of recent Windows). You may have to install them separately from the OS. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The concept of sin divorces morality from reality." |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 2/11/19 9:30 PM, Paul wrote:
[snip] Since the executables don't have access to the physical layer on disk drives, commercial software attempting to write license patterns in places they shouldn't, are blocked. 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. [snip] -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The concept of sin divorces morality from reality." |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 02/12/2019 11:46 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. the motor vehicle code. although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only once. it's a problem that solves itself. Show me your proof. Check this https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26 (f) Every driver will exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and will exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person. random states - california: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...tion.xhtml?sec tionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH 21950. (a)Â*The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (b)Â*This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (c)Â*The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. (d)Â*Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. minnesota: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.21 Subd. 2. Rights in absence of signal. (a) Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision. ... Subd. 3.Crossing between intersections. (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. new york: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/ope...grams-bureau/r epository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html € When there is no traffic control signal, drivers must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (Sec. 1151). € In addition, every driver approaching an intersection or crosswalk, must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian accompanied by a guide dog or using a white or metallic cane (Sec. 1153). What if there is no crosswalk? € If there is no crosswalk, a pedestrian must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway (Sec. 1152). What about sidewalks? € The driver of a vehicle when entering or exiting from an alleyway, building, private road or driveway, must yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian on a sidewalk. (Sec. 1151-a). washington: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235 (1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway. Your proof does not fit the situation that I saw, What I am saying is an intersection with traffic lights not just a crosswalk but regular Red, yellow and green lights and Walk and Don't walk lights for pedestrians. There, that's fairly easy to understand. Rene |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 2/11/19 10:29 PM, nospam wrote:
[snip] just because a few people are oblivious to their surroundings doesn't mean everyone is. One of the things I don't like is when one person (probably using a cellphone) yells at another t the other end of the aisle, apparently not caring that I am much closer to the yeller. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The concept of sin divorces morality from reality." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|