Comment Re:Modern audiophiles are no different. (Score 3, Insightful) 469
that there's no difference
That's not the original claim. It was:
There are people who insist that they can hear the difference
that there's no difference
That's not the original claim. It was:
There are people who insist that they can hear the difference
This assumes Satan did not have free will, but scripture points out that he did. He will be held responsible.
Likewise, people who lead other people away from God will be held responsible, since they have free will.
if someone loses their religion because of the wealth of information on the internet that refutes their belief system then they were clearly lacking in the faith department.
Indeed. Or perhaps faith existed, but was not in God but in traditions, customs, or assumptions that substitute and detract from real faith in God.
Tomayto, tomahto.
F# was originally designed to be somewhat compatible. That goal has obviously faded but the point remains: it has its roots in OCaml and its current syntax draws from it.
But I agree that F# is better in many ways
Also, I don't know that list comprehension is the "selling feature". It's a feature, no doubt, but F# has quite a few tricks up its sleeves that are much more impressive than that.
It's essentially a port of OCaml. It is intended to be somewhat compatible with OCaml, hence the "let".
F# adds features like
Microsoft is closed source. Slashdot hates.
Microsoft goes open source. Slashdot hates.
Don't they check bathrooms?
If they don't... maybe they should.
You aren't paying attention. The flashing green does NOTHING related to tickets. It enhances a double-length yellow by providing more information. That's it.
And keep in mind, such accidents typically involve 2 vehicles. Just remember that when, as a responsible adult, you get t-boned by someone who isn't.
Also, if you think about it (statistics aside), it just makes sense that right-angle collisions are much more rare and aren't going to be impacted by RLCs very much. People who run red lights fall into two categories:
1. Those who are in the intersection when it turns red
2. Those who drive into the intersection when it is already red
Case #1 rarely results in right-angle collisions, and even if it does it is really the fault of the other driver who enters the intersection before it is clear. (And notice that a RLC wouldn't catch the other driver who is the real danger in this case.)
Case #2 typically means the driver was not paying attention or didn't notice it was red, a form of negligence which the presence of RLCs would make little if any difference. So that leaves drivers who run the red light knowingly; if such a driver is not deterred by the obvious potential for injury, they probably won't be deterred because of the presence of a RLC.
If cities wanted to reduce both fatal and non-fatal accidents without the cost of implementing a RLC system, they would simply increase yellow light timings and be done with it.
Also a rear end crash blocks one lane, a right angle blocks several lanes in both directions. if you don't see how this alone is more costly, you are not smart enough to talk about economic damage.
So you are claiming that an average increase of $17,000 (according to the study I quoted before) per incident is offset by the difference in the time it takes to clear the road in a right-angle vs. read end collision? Unlikely.
And that study has been found to be flawed by at least one subsequent study.
Council et al. (2005, p. 68) report the percent of fatal angle crashes increased in the after-camera period, as 0.5 percent of angle injury crashes were fatal before camera use and 0.8 percent were fatal after camera use.
the number of fatal angle crashes for the 370 RLC site years was expected to be 4.5 based on before camera data. However, the actual number of fatal angle crashes was 5.0 in the after-camera period, which is more than 10% higher than expected.
for every 100 definite injuries from angle crashes in the before-camera period, 1.28 was fatal, which increased to 1.71 in the after-camera period, a 33.6% increase.
the cost of fatal crashes was omitted from the Council et al. economic analysis.
their estimated annual crash cost savings of $38,845 per RLC site is overestimated since the cost of fatal crashes was excluded.
the actual estimated cost of an angle injury crash was $82,816 before RLCs and $100,176 after RLCs were implemented . . . Instead of using these actual costs, the FHWA study used $64,468 for all angle injury crashes.
because rear-end crashes are more frequent than angle crashes, the total number of crashes (angle plus rear-end) was unchanged following RLC use.
fatal angle crashes increased following RLC use, as did the estimated cost of angle injury crashes.
It's not in my mind. People get into accidents, sometimes serious and at least financially costly, because they are forced to make decisions in too short a time frame. This happens all the time with a standard yellow length. (And some of the fault is on the engineers or the city; there are plenty of cases reported of yellow timings being less than legally required.)
A double-length yellow light would reduce these accidents tremendously. But the problem here is that a driver who looks up and suddenly notices a yellow light may still not know whether it has been yellow for 1 second or for 6 seconds. So there's no difference, at least in their mind; they have to quickly decide whether to hit the brakes hard or to speed up.
The flashing green enhances the idea of the double-length yellow, but providing the driver with more context so they know roughly how much time they have before the light is red. It provides roughly the same benefit as a countdown timer, but without additional display hardware.
I totally hate red light cameras. I used to work at a public safety/traffic research center and knew people who did studies on RLCs that basically said they do nothing good and tend to cause quite a bit of economic damage.
That said... the police departments are almost never the direct beneficiaries of RLCs. And once the vendor gets their cut, and after court costs in cases that didn't hold up, etc., the city usually winds up in the red. Which in turn leads to taking down RLCs after the contract expires.
Fun fact: most vendors require, in their contracts, that the city cannot reengineer those yellow lights to be longer, even when justified by safety.
I'm not completely sold on the Michigan Left. Not completely discounting it either, but it tends to cause potentially deadly confusion in areas that aren't used to it.
A nearby city recently added a few in an area with heavy traffic, and the day after (even with plenty of signage) an elderly couple got trapped taking a left at an intersection they had taken daily for years and were killed when an 18-wheeler hit their vehicle.
This would be great if all or most of traffic signals had countdown timers or even the Walk/Don't Walk signal. But they don't.
I like a system I saw in Mexico and I've heard exists elsewhere, where the green light flashes for a few seconds before turning yellow. Requires no extra signage, still gets the point across and makes for safer intersections.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne
