Your pet peeve, technical or otherwise.

[Monkeh]

Talking about cycling,  it is maddening to walk on side walks in Berlin. The cyclists have the right of way it seems.
When you park on the side and want to get down from the car, it is very dangerous.

They don't have the right of way on the sidewalk, at least not in most European countries.  They are supposed to be on the bicycle path if there is one, or on the road if there isn't.

Nobody has right of way at all. There's my pet peeve for the day.

[james_s]

They don't have the right of way on the sidewalk, at least not in most European countries.  They are supposed to be on the bicycle path if there is one, or on the road if there isn't.

The problem is that so many of them behave like they are above the law. They ride on the sidewalks, they blow through stop signs without slowing down, they get ride around with a chip on their shoulder and blow a gasket any time a car driver does something they don't like, go on about how cars have to share the road and all that, but they can't be bothered to follow the rules themselves. When I refer to "them" I don't mean ALL cyclists obviously but there are enough of them like that to be a problem.

[SilverSolder]

They don't have the right of way on the sidewalk, at least not in most European countries.  They are supposed to be on the bicycle path if there is one, or on the road if there isn't.

The problem is that so many of them behave like they are above the law. They ride on the sidewalks, they blow through stop signs without slowing down, they get ride around with a chip on their shoulder and blow a gasket any time a car driver does something they don't like, go on about how cars have to share the road and all that, but they can't be bothered to follow the rules themselves. When I refer to "them" I don't mean ALL cyclists obviously but there are enough of them like that to be a problem.

Nothing a little judicious law enforcement couldn't cure...   but there are so many donuts, and so much coffee, and so few hours in a day!

[PlainName]

my first time exiting the passenger side of a car I nearly caused an accident and got some very rude remarks.  The bikes absolutely do have the right of way in the bike path

It is not that the bike has right of way but that opening the door has responsibilities. Had the person been walking and you opened the door onto the footpath right in front of him, you'd still be at fault. Another car taking out your door as you open it - yep, still your fault.

Here in the UK it is simpler: the driver is responsible for what histheir passenger does, so in your case the cyclist's ire, and a possible NIP, should have been directed at the driver.

[GlennSprigg]

When in movies like Star Wars they have all this unimaginably super duper technology but they still can’t shoot straight at each other with their laser beams or whatever. They take at least 50,000 shots to get one single hit.

That only applies to the bad guys. The good guys almost always hit what they're aiming at, usually with the first shot.

Sorry for the time delay...)...
Naa... I've been watching virtually every re-run of the old Combat! TV show. I love it, but they are all hopeless shooters!!!
6 or 8 Germans and 6 or 8 Americans maybe 50 to 70 ft apart with logs for 'protection'. They even all half stand up at times, to
take a shot!!  5-10 mins later, and nearly 1000 rounds fired, (they must carry 50 clips each!), maybe 1 is down!!   
Just ONE guy, with a set of Scopes on his rifle could get the LOT with 20 rounds Max!! Maybe even just 8 rounds! 

[Labrat101]

When in movies like Star Wars they have all this unimaginably super duper technology but they still can’t shoot straight at each other with their laser beams or whatever. They take at least 50,000 shots to get one single hit.

That only applies to the bad guys. The good guys almost always hit what they're aiming at, usually with the first shot.

Sorry for the time delay...)...
Naa... I've been watching virtually every re-run of the old Combat! TV show. I love it, but they are all hopeless shooters!!!
6 or 8 Germans and 6 or 8 Americans maybe 50 to 70 ft apart with logs for 'protection'. They even all half stand up at times, to
take a shot!!  5-10 mins later, and nearly 1000 rounds fired, (they must carry 50 clips each!), maybe 1 is down!!   
Just ONE guy, with a set of Scopes on his rifle could get the LOT with 20 rounds Max!! Maybe even just 8 rounds! 

Hollywood clips are special they have  Magic Auto refill    They don't Miss, they are shooting at the Camera Man 

[Terry Bites]

You'll love Portugal then.

[Terry Bites]

Lets face it, going forwards at the end of the day the reality is rolled out. The issue of turnkey levvvveraging  and monetization with due respect.
who makes this shit up? What is it for?

[Microdoser]

Here in the UK it is simpler: the driver is responsible for what histheir passenger does

I have been in this exact legal situation so I know that rule only applies to passengers in the front. If the front passenger has no seatbelt, for example, the driver is responsible. If a passenger in the rear has no seatbelt, the passenger is responsible.

The logic is that the driver can observe and correct a front seat passenger but it would not be reasonable to expect them to be aware of the actions of someone directly behind them.

So, not as simple as it appears.

[PlainName]

I sit slightly corrected

[Monkeh]

Here in the UK it is simpler: the driver is responsible for what histheir passenger does

I have been in this exact legal situation so I know that rule only applies to passengers in the front. If the front passenger has no seatbelt, for example, the driver is responsible. If a passenger in the rear has no seatbelt, the passenger is responsible.

The logic is that the driver can observe and correct a front seat passenger but it would not be reasonable to expect them to be aware of the actions of someone directly behind them.

So, not as simple as it appears.

My mum's car specifically tells you which seatbelt in the back isn't in use. Now how does it work?

[SilverSolder]

Here in the UK it is simpler: the driver is responsible for what histheir passenger does

I have been in this exact legal situation so I know that rule only applies to passengers in the front. If the front passenger has no seatbelt, for example, the driver is responsible. If a passenger in the rear has no seatbelt, the passenger is responsible.

The logic is that the driver can observe and correct a front seat passenger but it would not be reasonable to expect them to be aware of the actions of someone directly behind them.

So, not as simple as it appears.

My mum's car specifically tells you which seatbelt in the back isn't in use. Now how does it work?

Anyone have the guts to disobey your mum??? 

[Cubdriver]

When in movies like Star Wars they have all this unimaginably super duper technology but they still can’t shoot straight at each other with their laser beams or whatever. They take at least 50,000 shots to get one single hit.

That only applies to the bad guys. The good guys almost always hit what they're aiming at, usually with the first shot.

You've obviously never watched 'The A Team'!

-Pat

[Sal Ammoniac]

When in movies like Star Wars they have all this unimaginably super duper technology but they still can’t shoot straight at each other with their laser beams or whatever. They take at least 50,000 shots to get one single hit.

That only applies to the bad guys. The good guys almost always hit what they're aiming at, usually with the first shot.

You've obviously never watched 'The A Team'!

You're right, I haven't.

[Cubdriver]

When in movies like Star Wars they have all this unimaginably super duper technology but they still can’t shoot straight at each other with their laser beams or whatever. They take at least 50,000 shots to get one single hit.

That only applies to the bad guys. The good guys almost always hit what they're aiming at, usually with the first shot.

You've obviously never watched 'The A Team'!

You're right, I haven't.

You haven't missed anything.  (though they did, plenty...)

-Pat

[eugenenine]

I think they intended to miss though, don't want kids watching prime time tv shows to see death so the A-team would miss intentionally to just scare the bad guys.

[james_s]

I think they intended to miss though, don't want kids watching prime time tv shows to see death so the A-team would miss intentionally to just scare the bad guys.

I read something about it at some point, having grown up in the 80s it was virtually impossible to be unfamiliar with the A Team. Apparently a significant factor was that Mr T did not like violence, and the result was that much of the violence was cartoonish without people actually getting shot up.

[DrG]

I think they intended to miss though, don't want kids watching prime time tv shows to see death so the A-team would miss intentionally to just scare the bad guys.

I read something about it at some point, having grown up in the 80s it was virtually impossible to be unfamiliar with the A Team. Apparently a significant factor was that Mr T did not like violence, and the result was that much of the violence was cartoonish without people actually getting shot up.

In the 60s, there was a popular show called The Rifleman. It was about a peaceful loving man in the old West, just trying to raise his son after his wife died of small pox. Good wholesome family values. Nevertheless, he figured out a way to shoot 2-3 people an episode. The popularity of the show persists today and, of course, someone counted all the carnage....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrOPVo5GFY4&feature=youtu.be

More seriously, when I was young I thought that the way to deal with so much violence on TV, was to show realistic violence...show the horror of what it really looks like as opposed to the TV violence of those days (all that shooting but no blood to speak of). As I got older, I realized how naive I was. People can habituate to anything....I guess that can be a peeve sometimes, but not so much a pet peeve.

[CatalinaWOW]

I think they intended to miss though, don't want kids watching prime time tv shows to see death so the A-team would miss intentionally to just scare the bad guys.

I read something about it at some point, having grown up in the 80s it was virtually impossible to be unfamiliar with the A Team. Apparently a significant factor was that Mr T did not like violence, and the result was that much of the violence was cartoonish without people actually getting shot up.

In the 60s, there was a popular show called The Rifleman. It was about a peaceful loving man in the old West, just trying to raise his son after his wife died of small pox. Good wholesome family values. Nevertheless, he figured out a way to shoot 2-3 people an episode. The popularity of the show persists today and, of course, someone counted all the carnage....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrOPVo5GFY4&feature=youtu.be

More seriously, when I was young I thought that the way to deal with so much violence on TV, was to show realistic violence...show the horror of what it really looks like as opposed to the TV violence of those days (all that shooting but no blood to speak of). As I got older, I realized how naive I was. People can habituate to anything....I guess that can be a peeve sometimes, but not so much a pet peeve.

This was common to almost all post WWII movies and television in the US.  Strong good guy vs bad guy themes.  Might makes right.  Then after Vietnam war there was almost a complete 180.  Existing power structures were almost always portrayed as evil.  No good guys.  Power always corrupts. 

I guess cartoonish views of morality are what sells.  Not sure if a more nuanced approach would actually change anything in real life.

[SilverSolder]

I think they intended to miss though, don't want kids watching prime time tv shows to see death so the A-team would miss intentionally to just scare the bad guys.

I read something about it at some point, having grown up in the 80s it was virtually impossible to be unfamiliar with the A Team. Apparently a significant factor was that Mr T did not like violence, and the result was that much of the violence was cartoonish without people actually getting shot up.

In the 60s, there was a popular show called The Rifleman. It was about a peaceful loving man in the old West, just trying to raise his son after his wife died of small pox. Good wholesome family values. Nevertheless, he figured out a way to shoot 2-3 people an episode. The popularity of the show persists today and, of course, someone counted all the carnage....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrOPVo5GFY4&feature=youtu.be

More seriously, when I was young I thought that the way to deal with so much violence on TV, was to show realistic violence...show the horror of what it really looks like as opposed to the TV violence of those days (all that shooting but no blood to speak of). As I got older, I realized how naive I was. People can habituate to anything....I guess that can be a peeve sometimes, but not so much a pet peeve.

This was common to almost all post WWII movies and television in the US.  Strong good guy vs bad guy themes.  Might makes right.  Then after Vietnam war there was almost a complete 180.  Existing power structures were almost always portrayed as evil.  No good guys.  Power always corrupts. 

I guess cartoonish views of morality are what sells.  Not sure if a more nuanced approach would actually change anything in real life.

I think it probably would change things, on the "monkey see, monkey do" principle.  But this cat is well and truly out of the bag now.  Just another way to fail in life if you're not careful.

[james_s]

I dunno, I've seen a lot of violent TV shows and movies, played a lot of violent video games when I was younger, never went into a life of crime, never murdered anyone. Maybe some people have a harder time separating reality from fiction.

[Ed.Kloonk]

I dunno, I've seen a lot of violent TV shows and movies, played a lot of violent video games when I was younger, never went into a life of crime, never murdered anyone. Maybe some people have a harder time separating reality from fiction.

Who knows what you get up to when you're sleeping.

[Circlotron]

I dunno, I've seen a lot of violent TV shows and movies, played a lot of violent video games when I was younger, never went into a life of crime, never murdered anyone. Maybe some people have a harder time separating reality from fiction.

I don’t for one minute think violent tv shows, movies and video games *make* people do violent things in real life, but I do think they reduce the reluctance to do such things. So a person that might not have done such a thing in given circumstances might now be maybe more likely to. That doesn’t mean they actually will of course.

[AlfBaz]

I dunno, I've seen a lot of violent TV shows and movies, played a lot of violent video games when I was younger, never went into a life of crime, never murdered anyone. Maybe some people have a harder time separating reality from fiction.

I don’t for one minute think violent tv shows, movies and video games *make* people do violent things in real life, but I do think they reduce the reluctance to do such things. So a person that might not have done such a thing in given circumstances might now be maybe more likely to. That doesn’t mean they actually will of course.

Some people hold back from being evil for fear of being bashed or shot so all in all it balances itself out

[Terry Bites]

 "Amperage" and "Ampacity", words that tell me you need to be institutionalized or arrested for misuse of electricity.
I have attached a document describing the correct way to specify conductors.