- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
Because mean-of-means curves are so much better distributed than a mean curve.
Addendum (2010-11-30 12:49): This is what I mean:
http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A13660.html
See the curve on the above page? The flat curve shows an even (random) distribution. That's the Rand() function. See the tall, skinny curve where the numbers are almost all the same? That's SuperRand.
Admin
Admin
Admin
[quote user="Jerry"][quote user="TimG"][quote user="Jerry"]Hey I have an idea. When you're walking down the hall in my office, just stop every 10 feet and touch your nose to the floor. So what if it is completely unnecessary and only serves to slow you down -- it will allow you to avoid the mandatory $500 fine I impose on everyone else. So, you have total freedom of choice here. No reason to complain.[/quote] Hey I have an idea. Let's make up an analogous situation, except with all the dangerous parts removed. That way all the safety measures look ridiculous.[/quote]Driving 70 in a 55 zone is not dangerous. If it were, the millions of people that do it every day would be dead. quote]
Of course it is dangerous. That's why you are strapped into a steel vehicle, surrounded by airbags. And people still get killed all the time.
Admin
Admin
Admin
NO! You will continue commenting on over-analyzed and stale WTF, and like it damnit!
:)
We want new WTF! We want new WTF!
Admin
Stop getting hysterical. Tim is not using the safety argument as an excuse to steal, he's arguing that the safety arguments are legitimate, and that you're trivializing them. As you do above - the fact that immediate death doesn't result doesn't mean it's reasonable behavior. If it did, smoking would be perfectly safe.
Admin
TRWTF are criminals who are the scum of humanity
Admin
Well that was splendid, my comment wasn't added. So I'll do it again: According to many retired law enforcement officers issuing speeding tickets is not about safety but rather revenue.
Speed doesn't kill, being an idiot or distracted driving kills. Highway - Safe..... School zone with soccer mom texting... deathzone..
Admin
Admin
Admin
Admin
I'll go along with that. I've always figured that driving while using a mobile phone or texting is a little like the old tradition of firing your weapons into the air on occasions of celebration. It's pretty good odds that you won't kill anyone - but you'll feel really dumb when you do. It may be less than charitable, but every time I see someone driving around while paying attention to their mobile, I can't help hoping the only person they kill will be themselves. And that that will happen soon, so everyone around them will be a little safer.
Admin
Why do you want a random number in any of it?
A rotating schedule is more fair in the short-term and people tend to think short-term anyway. A true random selection will be fair in the long-run, but the guy that gets stuck with the crappy shift three days in a row isn't going to care.
Admin
That’s an excellent analogy. BTW, you did know that bullets returning to earth from a vertically fired weapon do have a terminal velocity, right; that normal bullets won't kill you and likely wouldn't even cause serious injury? So, it's really not as dangerous as you make it sound. Just like the speed thing.
Admin
On second thought, there seems to be too many variables that make lethal returns possible, so your remark stands; better than mine anyway.
Admin
Captcha: genitus: a condition with symptoms similar to carpal tunnel syndrome, found in US TSA agents who have been performing enhanced pat-downs for extended periods of time.
Admin
I like the Fun Lovin' Criminals.
(not really)
Admin
Nice! An intertubes fight! But both of you seem so tough, and both of you have 6th deg. black-belts in karate... Hmm, should be a close one.
Lighten up guys... Can't we just say that both are correct? Speed limits exist to save lives, but that in some situations, speed limits are lower to allow for easier speed traps...
Admin
Don't worry. I suppose by the time you're old enough to drive you'll realize that stamping your feet about your so-called freedoms isn't worth much.
Admin
Integer Affairs?
Admin
Admin
Admin
I miss basement cat.
Admin
Bullets Fired Up
Myth statement Bullets fired into the air maintain their lethal capability when they eventually fall back down.
Status Busted , Plausible, and Confirmed
Notes In the case of a bullet fired at sufficiently close to a vertical angle to result in a non-ballistic trajectory, the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact (the Busted rating). However, if a bullet is fired at a lower angle allowing for a ballistic trajectory (a far more likely case), it will maintain its spin and will retain enough energy to be lethal on impact (the Plausible rating). Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most U.S. states, and even in the states where it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets (fired from approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) away, and hence at a lower angle), one of them fatally (the Confirmed rating). To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time.
Admin
"So let's force everyone to drive as fast as they possibly can, for perfect traffic efficiency!"
Wow, reconstructing your opponent's argument to such an extreme that it becomes absurd and thus easier to refute is fun!
Admin
Everyone knows that within the first five minutes all comments on the article cease, and all remaining comments are either bickering about off-topic subjects, or one of roughly four ongoing memes.
Admin
Only morans argue about this kind of shit on the internet.
Admin
I don't think anyone would argue that, for any given driving situation, there is a speed beyond which driving would be unsafe. What can be argued is merely what that speed is. I recently got a ticket in Arizona, one of those fully-automated traffic camera ones, informing me that I was driving over the safe speed limit of 35mph, on a wide, 3 lane major street with only occasional traffic lights, about a block from a major freeway onramp. It was extremely obvious that the entire purpose of the 35mph speed limit there was, "because that's where we put the camera, and we need money".
Also, yeah, new article coming sometime, hopefully?
Admin
Man. I love eating coffee. Brewing is for suckers.
Admin
Admin
I can't quite remember that episode. Did they test the falling terminal velocity of a bullet while spinning?
I'm thinking of a bullet fired straight down from an extreme height (lets say a high altitude weather balloon) that can be slowed sufficiently to terminal velocity while still spinning and maintaining 'proper' trajectory.
My initial guess would be that it's lethal as I can't see a bullet having a low enough terminal velocity to be removed from the lethal range without the extra drag of tumbling.
Admin
If such a die can be made??? Seriously, you are on a site for geeks and have never heard of a 12-sided die?
Admin
Best. Troll. Ever.
Congratulations!
Admin
If the bullet were to maintain its ballistic trajectory (which it would if fired at an angle or straight down), then yes, the terminal velocity would remain high and it would be lethal.
Very interesting episode. Also check out the episode about dropping a penny from the Empire State Building - similar concept.
Admin
He must be crazy. In my country, speed traps happen to be a way for officers to quickly raise significant amounts of cash. I've never ever seen a skinny, let alone proportionally built, policeman on that duty.
Of course, they don't raise that cash with speeding fines. People will gladly pay with cash straight into the officer's pocket, so that either they don't get fined after all, or that the officer doesn't require a more thorough inspection of the car and its driver (what if there are dead bodies in your boot? Or, something which can be considered as contrabanda? Oh, can you explain what is this gun doing on the passenger's seat? Or that white powder in your pocket? Would you mind wasting the rest of your day explaining that this was a great mistake and be ultimately wrong? The possibilities to raise money are so endless that Jimbo Wales would cry in envy).
Admin
The True WTF is that he was tasked with building a biased estimator when they already had a biased estimator.
Assuming that the low numbers were the most senior officers (who never pull dork work), and the high numbers were the most recent officers (who can't be trusted out alone), the mid ranking officers (experienced) were already the ones pulling extra duty.
Admin
Consider that for every hour you spend driving you have x% chance of getting into an accident, reducing the time you spend driving would reduce the chances of an accident.
So, by driving twice as fast, you cut the chances of an accident in half.
Admin
Excellent idea! Or at least encouraged to go and run about outdoors a bit every so often outside of the parameters of organized sports.
Admin
Ding!
... surely 'legal'? ...
And not at all obvious that it's there "because of all the drivers who start getting up towards freeway speed while they are still a block away from the onramp"?
Admin
So, instead of saying "studies show", you've cited a politician saying "studies show"... Well no, to be fair, he says "London Ambulance Service says..."
A citation for the impenetrable LAS report would be just the ticket.
Google brings up the London Ambulance Service policy statement on the issue. http://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/talking_with_us/freedom_of_information/classes_of_information/idoc.ashx?docid=ebf231ba-f493-4392-bc89-f4fe37b0394d&version=-1
But this policy clearly states:
"The public debate around these issues has generated a certain amount of heat but not much light. The LAS would like to see proper research carried out into the full range of benefits and costs of traffic calming schemes, and will fully participate in any such research."
So isn't the LAS in fact saying the very opposite of "studies show..."?
Admin
Erm...
That's a narrow road, with a footpath so that pedestrians are less likely to get mown down, and with a wide section so that oncoming vehicles can pass each other. It's in a zone with good visibility so that drivers can see each other coming, and can see the signposted passing zone, and can therefore approach the manoeuvre in a calm and orderly manner.
That is, of course, until Valentino Rossi, third in the convoy on his superbike, tight up behind a tractor and a transit van, sees the widening road and leaps out from behind to zip past - only to discover the other end of the wide bit. Bent fenders and worse ensue...
Admin
You are right that the sign says "Passing Place" but that is just a cute expression for "stop here or crash into the fucking great bit of concrete we stuck in the road for no reason". It may look like a pavement but trust me, it isn't. This is standard practice for "traffic calming" except normally they put metal/concrete bollards on there as well, just for an extra "fuck you":
[image]Admin
Fair enough, but even without the pavement it's not wide enough for vehicles to pass comfortably, is it?
So not totally wrong, then.
No, it's a cute expression for "this wide bit won't last forever - up ahead it goes narrow again, just like it has been up to now". And the other little round sign on the post reinforces that by saying "best go through here slowish, Ayrton". All before you've passed the fucking thing.
Or perhaps the (reflective) bollards are there to make it visible.
Admin
Admin
On the other hand, ambulance chasing lawyers don't have to drive as fast...
Admin
I remember a time where we needed to generate some trivial random test data for another team.
We wrote a script to produce a stream of scores-out-of-ten.
The first run produced something like "1, 1, 6, 2, 8".
This was immediately deemed unsatisfactory because of the two successive "1"s - apparently this was "not random enough".
Admin
My first reaction to this was that it was a joke. Like the old gag, "Officer, I was speeding because my brakes don't work, and I wanted to get home quickly before I was in an accident."
But there's an interesting idea here. Suppose you're making a long drive, one that will last many hours. The longer you drive, the more tired you get, and therefore the more likely to make mistakes. So by driving a little faster, you reduce the total length of the trip and therefore you reduce the "tiredness factor". Would this outweigh the added danger of driving faster? I think a very plausible theory would be that on a highway, a modest increase in speed would add very little to danger and might well be less then the impact of being more tired from a long drive.
And yes, yes, I'm sure someone will say that you should stop driving and take a break when you get tired. But it's not like there is a specific point where you are too tired too continue driving, that there is zero chance of an accident if you take a break at 3 hours but 100% chance if you continue driving for 3 hours and 2 seconds.
Admin