> My first thought was where they would place the ads.
6901 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
> My first thought was where they would place the ads.
Get a grip...!
As has already been stated, it's clear that you don't ride a motorcycle...
> the traction engine should have been able to see me
And then, when you're lying on the ground, someone would no doubt have uttered the phrase "Sorry, Mate, I Didn't See You".
> to all intents and purposes waiting for me to go past
You assumed this. Doesn't make it a fact. If you ride a bike, you soon learn never to assume anything like that, because it doesn't make the ground hurt any less thinking "I was in the right" as you're flying through the air.
> you've suggested sounding the horn but I can hardly do that every time I approach a junction when a vehicle is waiting or I might end up being fined for excessive use
Really? "Sound your horn whenever you think another road user could hear and benefit from it" - Motorcycle Roadcraft - The Police RIder's handbook to better motorcycling.
And the Highway Code now just says not to use your horn "in an aggressive manner".
> what are you going to do here if the Range Rover starts reversing out of the drive?
Let's go back to IPSGA:
Information: There's a vehicle on the left which may reverse out. I don't know whether it's coming or going, so treat it as a potential hazard and plan accordingly. There are no on-coming vehicles. It's a National Limit, so I'll probably be doing around that limit. Check the mirrors for traffic coming up behind.
Position: As there are no oncoming vehicles, I'm most likely already positioned in "track two" (ie the line of four wheeled vehicle tyres closest to the centre line), but, absent any other vehicles, I may well consider moving across the centre line to give myself as much clearance as possible.
Speed: If that vehicle decides to start reversing out, I want to give myself as much time as possible to react and sufficient braking room, so start to slow down.
Gear: As I'm slowing down, I'd drop down the gears so I'm in one that will give good power response if needed.
Acceleration: When I get to the point that I'd have to reduce my speed much further, I'd consider accelerating and using the opposite lane in an "overtake" style manoeuvre to get past the vehicle as quickly as possible. Or, if I'm still unsure, slow right down.
All the time, I'd be updating my Information (which, of course, runs throughout the entire IPSGA system) and using the principle of TUG (Take, Use, Give) to Take information (look around, watch for the vehicles wheels starting to move, look for people getting into or out of the vehicle etc), Use (plan what I'm going to do) and finally Give: Consider sounding my horn to make them aware of my presence (and giving a friendly wave as I pass to let them know that I wasn't being aggressive).
> Are you suggesting that I should drive along wide open country roads at 30mph on the off-chance that some bell-end pulls out in front of me?
No, I'm not. And (since you're a long-time Commenter on El Reg's Forums) you should be familiar with the fact that I am not impressed by Straw Man arguments.
> to suggest that there is always a way to avoid a vehicle pulling out of a side junction in front of you is silly.
I agree, that is why I did *NOT* suggest that. But you can make a Driving Plan which takes such possibilities into consideration to reduce the chances of you needing to "slam on the anchors".
Did you consider using your horn as an "audible warning of approach"?
> Ultimately there's not much it can teach you about vehicles who - despite having great visibility of you - choose to pull out at the last possible minute.
Perhaps you should try joining your local IAM group, you might learn differently.
It teaches you to make Driving or Riding Plans which start with three simple questions:
1) What can be seen?
2) What cannot be seen?
3) What might reasonably be expected to happen?
The answer to Question 3 in this case is "that vehicle might pull out".
As Pete65 points out, try riding a motorbike. You soon learn to assume that *every* vehicle in a side-turning is going to pull out in front of you because "Sorry, Mate, I Didn't See You".
IAM use "The System" or IPSGA which stands for Information, Position, Speed, Gear and Acceleration which is based on the Police's Roadcraft book.
Information: There's a Rally. There may have been signs pointing to it. Presumably there's a side turning, possibly also with signs, bunting, or other clues that something's happening up ahead, so vehicles may be entering or leaving it. More information: Perhaps you can see over hedges, so you may well be able to see the Traction Engine as it's about to pull out. Yet more information: Check mirrors for traffic coming up behind you (possibly even intending to overtake). Look for vehicles coming the other way.
Position: If possible, move towards the centre of the road, provided that there's nothing intending to overtake and you won't cause any on-coming vehicle to have to adjust their speed or position, giving yourself more room to manoeuvre and moving yourself away from the hazard.
Speed: You're approaching a potential hazard, so SLOW DOWN! That gives you more time to respond or brake as necessary.
Gear: Select a lower gear to give better power response if needed.
Acceleration: As you clear the hazard, accelerate back to the limit or, if you need to decelerate, do so.
Note also, of course, that that "60 zone" is a 60 speed *limit*. That's a limit, not a target. It's not obligatory.
(PS there's more than the above, before someone start's saying "but what about...", however that's a quick run-down of the guidelines).
There are a lot of road users out there on four wheels or two, who would benefit from Advanced Training, whether it's IAM, Rospa, Bikesafe or whatever. Too many drivers think their skills are better than those of others on the roads. Oddly, those other road users also think the same.
They should try it, they might even find that they learn something new...!
... a piece in El Reg attacking both The Guardian and the BBC,
I wonder who could have written it...?
"... perhaps gaining their first experience of coding in the process"
That was exactly how I started to learn 6502 Assembler and Machine Code 30 years ago!
A9 03 - Load Accumulator with 03 (Try changing 03 to FF or 7F for 255 or 127 lives)
E9 01 - Subtract 1 from Accumulator (Try changing the 01 to 00 for infinite lives)
> a hell of a lot more
Ok, ok, I meant *less*...
Again, I have to ask the question in response to one of TW's articles.
Our (yes, *our*, because our parents and grandparents paid for them) public services and utilities are flogged off, generally in a completely inept way and often for a hell of a lot more than they're actually worth.
That money is then used by governments for short-term
bribes tax cuts which eventually and almost inevitably end up in the pockets of the wealthiest who, despite what some may claim, *do not* spend most of it (which is how it's supposed to "trickle down") , but, instead, stash it away in foreign institutions and in tax avoidance schemes.
Meanwhile the companies that now own said services and utilities think, hang on, the government got away with under-investing and skim off the profits, bet we can do that too! And when the government says "hang on, you're supposed to be fixing the problems caused by our under-investing and profit skimming", the companies go "gissa subsidy. Go on, you know you want to..."
Of course, that subsidy comes out of *our* pockets again and goes into *their* pockets and tax havens.
So we're left with what's still a crappy service and/ or expensive utilities but being told that "you should be happy, we did this for *your* benefit!"
Cui bono? Still not us...
> WARN: THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
> SIRI to CORTANA: 1 + 1 = 2
The point is that Google are behaving like a stroppy teenager, using passive-aggressive behaviour to try to subvert what they're *supposed* to be doing and claiming "it's *SO UNFAIR* I'm doing exactly what you *told* me to do!"
Of course, as the article says, they're really doing this deliberately simply to try to "turn the public against European privacy law" by abusing the letter of the law to combat the spirit of it.
Don't be evil? Yeah, right...
"...that allow them to take over driving if needed"
Why does this sound like, if you feel the vehicle is about to crash, all you need to do is re-install the steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals and you can then take over?
You'd need *very* fast reactions...
> It is a Toaster for crying out loud!
Howdy doodly doo!
Yes, Companies and other organisations need to be accountable, but *until* such a point as that accountability becomes an issue, those behind them should still be entitled to their privacy.
Imagine if you're operating a Gay Rights organisation in one of the many countries where homosexuality is criminalised?
Or what about parts of the world where one schism of the religion you follow deems your particular schism to be apostasy and punishable by death?
There are plenty of other examples like this, would you want your real name to be easily accessible if you were in such a situation and wanted to set up a website for like-minded people?
Try holding down Alt and f4 on your PC keyboard, you'll be amazed at what happens...
> They still wanted a number that would be easy to dial on a rotary dial phone in the dark, so picked a number at the other end of the dial where it could easily be found by touch.
Yep, there were instruction sheets on how to dial 999 in the dark by feeling for the bottom edge of the rotary dial, finding the Zero hole (next to the stop) and putting your right hand middle finger into it.
Then you'd put your right index finger into the next hole (ie the 9) and just rotate the dial three times.
Simple and effective.
No, but I can do you a very good deal on this bridge...
PS of course, to be serious, thank fuck there's no way of speculating on house prices like this, otherwise things would get even more ridiculous than they are at the moment!
.. only 20 years behind the times!!!
" - let alone intellectual property rights - in the term 'Amazon'"
Or, at least, not any rights which *we* are prepared to acknowlege...
Who wrote those rules? Who agreed to those rules? Who benefits from those rules?
This is nothing more than governments trying to say "It's our ball and it's our backyard so you play by our rules (which let us win), so ner!"
... coming over here and lusting after our women...!
See icon for details...
This is the same IPT that came up with the ruling that British Law forbids mass surveillance, but even though GCHQ is troughing every bit of data on us as they can, they're *not* performing "mass surveillance".
Matt will now explain how many angels can dance on the head of that particular pin.
(Well, actually he won't, he'll just call people by silly names and dodge the question and move the goalposts as we've all come to expect...)
Spies keeping their spying secret from our elected representatives or those elected representatives condoning the spies breaching our laws and spying on us just because they can - who would have thunk it.
Sorry, *what* prequels?
There were only three Star Wars films and one Matrix and one Highlander film...
Apparently it was a condition of attending...
"... they spotted it."
- HM Government.
But then the scammers would just put a load of products on for a penny, immediataly buy them with their sock-puppet accounts and mark them as "shipped"...
Not forgetting those products with "Genuine Leather" in the title which then say (PU Leather) somewhere at the bottom of the description.
Thank you for that very helpful review of Amazon coders. I would up vote you a thousand times if I could...
(but I can't be bothered to create 1000 sock puppet accounts)
Err, no, it would be a bounty for spotting spelling mistakes in El Reg articles...
Pity El Reg doesn't pay a spelling mistake bounty...
"Hooray, hooray for the spinster's sister's daughter!"
And a damned sight more useful!
> So its ok for the third world to live in actual poverty as long as your salary is guaranteed to keep up with mine?
No, try a different Straw Man and, please, put the Racism Card away, it just makes you look silly.
"...is worth widening in rich country inequality. Others might not agree."
See icon for details.
Why don't we try getting rid of some of those top-level CxO jobs? You know, the ones that pay big bonuses for, frankly, doing fuck all or, even worse, give massive golden parachute pay-offs for screwing up the company, causing your workers to lose their employment and leaving them scratching around for minimum wage jobs to try to feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads?
Oh no, says Tim, those workers should be *happy* that someone else, somewhere else in the world is "getting out of poverty", meanwhile the bosses and the shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank. Trebles all round!!
The point is not whether anyone *uses* this capacity, it is that the Providers sell it as if everyone *can* use that capacity.
And that's a different matter (and not exactly credible either)
Oh look, Scorchio!! is back...
I've just had a look at his posting history:
Today, 9 days ago, 1 month ago and 4 months ago, virtually all of those posts about Assange.
I wonder whose sock puppet he is?
>> Shooting misidentified civilians or friend ground forces is not.
> I honestly think you've got that the wrong way round. In the very infrequent event that compensation is paid to foreign victims it will be paltry,
It's not the cost of the compensation, it's the cost of the
cover up full enquiry that follows...
Look at Lewis' previous
rants diatribes tirades articles on the subject and it may become a little clearer...
Oh don't worry, if it finds out it has done something illegal, it will just retro-actively change the law to make it legal...!
> What about the positive human side knowing you actually helped someone and at the same time had a small detour from your work run?
What about the positive side of you've just acquired a new lap top/ 4k TV, boxed set of CDs for nothing...?
And Call-me-David Cameron is doing his utmost to get rid of even those ones.
Equal access to justice? Not now the Tories have denied many people access to Legal Aid. Now it's "how much justice can you afford?" If you're wealthy, fine, if not, you're screwed. Worse than that, they want to outsource the system to their mates in G4S and the like (the same people who are likely to end up running the privatised prisons) so obviously there's no conflict of interest there!
"No imprisonment without trial"? Well, unless you're an immigrant being held without any idea of if and when your case is going to be reviewed.
And, of course, there's Cameron's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act and bring in their hypocritical "British Bill of Rights" which really means "British Bill of the Rights we say you can have, provided you're someone we like". The only reason that's been kicked into the long grass at the moment is that he knows he can't even convince a lot of his own party to support it, but like the Snoopers Charter, it won't go away, they'll just do it slowly, chipping away at a Right here, a Protection there, a Liberty somewhere else...
Cameron, in his utterly hypocritical speech, said "We talk about the 'law of the land' and this is the very land where that law – and the rights that flow from it – took root". What he didn't say is that he's doing his utmost to uproot those laws and salt the earth so that those inconvenient rights don't get in the way of their control freak ways.
Icon: Our Rights going up in flames...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017