|
15 days in jail? That seems... *barely evades incoming car* ...a little extreme 
|
|
|
|
|
Shorter than 6 weeks in hospital. And cheaper.
And probably a little less painful.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
But how many people have been injured whilst crossing a street at a legal time (i.e. when the little man made of lights says it's OK) because of this?
If you cross at a legal time and someone hits you with his ridiculously dangerous mode of transport, it's his fault, not yours (and there are existing laws that cover that).
The only instances of injuries quoted in the article were:
1. An idjit who was walking on the pavement, and fell into a hole which should have been barricaded for precisely this reason -- nothing to do with the new law, but plenty to do with road workers' Health & Safety regulations.
2. A worse idjit who walked around a railway-crossing barrier -- nothing to do with the new law, but plenty to do with existing ones.
Damned if that's good reason for victimising people who are doing nothing wrong.
What next?
Laws against thinking whilst walking? How much of our taxes are earmarked for the Thought Police budget?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Laws against thinking whilst walking?
Not unless your thoughts offend someone, then you must be punished. You musn't have thoughts that offend someone, while walking. Shirley there is a Monty Python skit in there somewhere. 
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: walking
I hope that wasn't a typo.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The idea is to break the morons of the habit - and if they actually enforce this thing - it will not result in arrests for very long.
Who know - those who are now saved because of this law (yeah, I know keeping them alive flies in the face of natural selection) may even develop enough wit to get a life outside the domain of that little box they worship.
Expectations: as no one enforces the law with respect to drivers doing the same thing, it's likely empty legislation.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Expectations: as no one enforces the law with respect to drivers doing the same thing, it's likely empty legislation.
Depends on the country. The UK is fairly hot on it for drivers, with it now being £100 and 3 (of 12) points on your licence. That's if the Police spot you, and whole months go by without me seeing a cop car ...
I don't text or even touch my phone while driving - I used to ride motorcycles all the time and am well aware how much a situation can change very, very quickly. Even a moment's inattention can result in an avoidable accident, so texting or phoning while driving is just stupid...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Each US State can (and does) have its own laws with respect to driving, highways speeds, and laws.
NY State has been, allegedly, hot on this for years. In reality, however, the cops never do anything about it and in warm weather you can see half the people driving with their hand on their ear (maybe they just have an earache?). To show you that the Albert Einstein tagline I use, below, is ever true, they had to pass a separate law to make it illegal to text while driving. It seems, the phone-monkeys figure that if there was a need to get your attention away from the phone conversations, what was really intended was that you must also stop looking at the road whilst not paying attention.
Problem #2: there are a lot of people affluent enough to not care about the fine and will, if necessary, to pay a lawyer to get them off for the times they might actually get caught. A risk, in their income bracket, they're willing to take as part of the cost of self-indulgence. My solution/version of the law would include impounding their phone as evidence, as well. Losing use of the phone would have a much greater impact than taking away their money.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
In the UK it adds "points" to your licence. 12 points in (I think) 3 years, and you lose your licence for a while (and your mandatory car insurance skyrockets as a result). Still doesn't stop idiots...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
In the UK you need a license to walk? That's f****** retarded
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: texting or phoning while driving is just stupid
Meanwhile I hear no one about the radio, or heater, that have been in cars for 10's of years and can be equally distracting!
|
|
|
|
|
Heater isn't that distracting, and it serves two very useful purposes:
i) it helps to demist the windows so drivers can see where they are going...
1) it keeps the extremities warm - which means clearer thinking, better reactions, less distraction, and faster physical movement. I used to ride motorcycles all year round, and heated gloves/grips made a HUGE difference! My left heated gloves failed in a blizzard one night, and by the time I got home I couldn't pull the clutch in! 
And boy did it hurt getting the feeling back... 
Radio can help too - it prevents white line fever, where the driver gets focused on the road and effectively falls into a trance, where they don't even notice other vehicles. It's a good idea to listen to something you don't like took much...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but I always set the heater on HIGH (which is max) and low fan until the car is warmed up. I then put the fan on maximum blowing capacity (which always requires me to look up the correct button, but then I can just bash it a few times and it'll be max). After a while I warm up and then I want to put the fan on a low position, which DOES require me to look at it as I don't want to turn it off either! After that I need to find the temperature switch and switch it a couple of times (usually to 21 or 22 degrees, can't have it on x.5, as that's not a nice round number). All this time I'm dividing my attention between heater and road! This requires so much cognitive ability on my part that I can't really do this while in urban areas, it's just too dangerous! The alternative for me is to be cold or way too hot.
I have a likewise problem with my radio, the song needs to be good (I really very much hate commercials, news, traffic reports, and weather, which are on at least once an hour (but mostly twice)...) and the alternatives must be explored. For long trips I really don't listen to the radio and I put up something from my iPod. I only put on the radio on short trips (about 15 minutes or less), at night, and on Fridays as at those times I can be pretty sure of 50 minutes non-stop good music.
Yeah, and I don't like driving a car as it is without (very much first world) heating and radio problems 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure this will be applied in a completely fair and not abusive manor, and not used as an excuse to stop and search people of groups the police view as more likely to be violating some other laws.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see anything that even resembles mention of statistical analysis of the causes of accidents -- i.e. if people doing this has not caused any harm to anyone, then why are they wasting time with it, instead of debating/voting on issues that genuinely affect people's safety?
Is there a guillotine on a more important bill that someone is trying to sabotage?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
So you'd prefer to wait for someone to actually cause a pile up with multiple deaths and injuries before doing anything to prevent it occurring? As it is there had been an estimated 4000 deaths in the USA directly attributable to attention deficit caused by walking while texting by 2013. It is reasonable to assume that the trend has continued.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
9082365 wrote: there had been an estimated 4000 deaths in the USA directly attributable to attention deficit caused by walking while texting by 2013
Source, please.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Report by lead researcher Dr. Beth Ebel, director of the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center at the University of Washington in Seattle published in the journal Injury Prevention, December 2012.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid she said nothing of the kind.
She merely said that her "study" (watching a paltry 1,000 people cross the road at rush hour, on the way to work, when people are most distracted, anyway) concluded that only one in four people "followed the green cross code" to the letter.
There are lots of "might"s and "may"s in her report, but no evidence that accidents have been caused by people texting whilst crossing at a legal time.
The whole thing is utter bollocks.
Who's making money from it? That's the question to ask.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Strikes me as ineffective.
Change it 15 days paid vacation and $50 award for running over a moron texting while crossing the street.
Now that will solve your problem!
|
|
|
|
|
Now what? We lost an hour this morning and yet this seems like the longest of long days. How does that work? Can't even take the dog for a walk .. it's bucketing down! And tomorrow's no better with everything shut for the day. Whose stupid idea was Bank Holidays anyway?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have 3 years experience in .NET.
I have one month of onsite project work experience at Indonesia,So can i mention it in resume? I'm just thinking its very small period ,so ? Is that okay? or recruiter will feel silly? 
நெஞ்சு பொறுக்கு திலையே-இந்த
நிலைகெட்ட மனிதரை நினைந்துவிட்டால்
|
|
|
|
|
Well, would you rather they saw a one month unexplained gap in your timeline and no experience at all? Never let a potential employer speculate on anything!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Make sure your resume reflects the job you want to get (i.e. applicable experience and education/training). On-site work should probably always be included because it shows you can work with and deal with directly with customers. That's actually a really good skill, a lot of people don't have the right temperament for that type of position.
Of course, it would be better if you had more experience but not every job opening is for someone with 20 years of experience, in fact... at some point it starts to become a detriment (people think... "probably not up to date with tech", "makes too much money", "they're going to want to run the show", etc).
|
|
|
|
|
If you can positively explain your experience and why it only lasted a month, then it should be added. I used to use the month/year instead of absolute dates to make short projects look a bit longer and eliminate any down time.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
