Yes, if you are driving responsibly then using the brakes is always an option. All cars have brakes; they're required to by law. If using the brakes is not an option then you already fucked up (e.g. you were going too fast on a slippery road.)
I've lived in deer country for five years. It's quite literally impossible to brake every time a deer hits the road in front of you because they have the ability to teleport into and out of the space in front of you with a speed that is frankly unbelievable until you have it happen to you. I managed to avoid all but one of these encounters and I chalk it up to luck rather than reaction speed or driving skill and that was at fairly low (< 40 mph) speeds.
Deer standing safely by the road side will happily panic and jump in front of your car at the last possible moment. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Agreed. The deer I hit lept out of a ditch that I couldn't see into, on an unfamiliar highway, and landed less than a car-length in front of my car. About 10 miles later, I drove my blood/hair/shit-encrusted car past a "deer area" sign. Thanks...
> I've never driven into one, though once one slammed into the side of my car.
Clearly you weren't using your brakes timely.
Seriously, I don't get the 'holier than thou' attitude here and in other comments when it's clear that even you did not manage to avoid all close encounters with deer. The deer that hit your car in the side could have just as easily ended up in front and you'd have been unable to avoid it. This stuff simply happens and it is obvious that in some cases the driver isn't at fault but the deer is, unfortunately they aren't quite smart enough to understand the situation enough to keep themselves safe. So we humans will do what we can, but accidents can and will happen.
No!? You're supposed to not swerve, but you sure as shit are supposed to brake! If you can't safetly slam on the brakes because somebody was tailgating you or because the road surface is too slippery, then you already fucked up before the deer appeared!
Thats only part of the problem. If you swerve and don't hit it straight on, you are likely to hit someplace where the engine block doesn't give you as much padding. You car will be totaled and have a bad day if you hit a large buck head on. You and/or your passenger will be dead if it comes through the windshield or side window glass.
As I understand it, the purpose of ABS is to let you slam on your brakes and NOT swerve. If your wheels lock up then you lose all steering authority. ABS lets you slam your brake to the floor and still be able to keep your car on the road using the steering wheel. If your car doesn't have ABS, then you should know that and know to "pump your brakes" instead, to maintain control of the car.
If a child jumped in front of my car, I'd swerve even if that meant risking a tree. If I ran over a child I don't know that I'd be able to live with myself anyway, so the choice is clear: I risk myself to improve the odds of the child making it away unscathed. But a deer? No way in hell. I'll slam on the brakes, since my car has ABS, but I would not take my chances with swerving.
In my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe solemn obligations.
As an engineer, I, (full name), pledge to practice Integrity and Fair Dealing, Tolerance, and Respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making best use of the Earth's precious wealth.
As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good.
In the performance of duty, and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost.
---
I get the impression this ring is not for "software engineers". I really dislike that term, I call myself a computer programmer to anybody who asks, regardless of the title my employer flatters me with. I think "software engineer" is leaching off the social prestige real engineers have earned for their professions. Prestige the software industry in general does not yet deserve. Programmers take jobs making shitty socially harmful products then deflect all blame to their employers, denying their own responsibility to society that oath describes.
I am sure there are some programmers who deserve it, but by in large, the term is used by companies to flatter code monkeys making gambling apps, spyware, social media skinner boxes, etc. I am not without sin here, so I refuse to call myself an engineer.
Those other engineering professions some harmful things too. Didn't engineers design prisons, casinos, nuclear weapons, land mines, plants that manufacture harmful chemicals, etc..? The only way to believe that these oaths make a difference is to ignore all those things.
Anyway, at my university (CS/computer eng. major) everyone in the engineering school goes through the same induction ceremony that I think had a similar oath. I still have the Wash. U. Engineer's Creed card in my wallet. I vaguely remember that Tau Beta Pi had a similar thing. Honestly, I appreciate the ideals, but I don't think the oath made folks from my program any more ethical than those from other schools.
All of the things you've listed aren't universally bad. Prisons keep bad people out of society (and yes, I'm aware that some folks shouldn't be in prison, and I wish that'd change, but majority are in the clink for violent crime). Nuclear weapons ensure superpowers can't attack each other - that's why we haven't had a world war in the past 76 years in spite of some pretty crazy tensions. Land mines make land invasions difficult and protect those who installed them. Harmful chemicals usually are not made just for the harm - they have their own useful functions. So I'd draw the line much further than that: somewhere near biological and chemical weapons which have no useful function at all, and do not help with maintaining peace.
Yes, soldiers on the battlefield are very thankful for the land mines, assuming they're the ones who installed them. With any luck a dude from the other side might not be able to cross the field and slit their throats in the dead of the night. Just as pilots are thankful for fighter jets not crapping out in mid-air, and nuclear submarine sailors are thankful for the engineering that went into the hull, and a gunner is thankful for the shells which don't explode in the barrel of a howitzer. War is hell, but if you're going to win it (or even deter it), you'll need engineers who know how to design weapons. And this is not the kind of game that you can just decline to participate in unless you'd like to learn a foreign language in a concentration camp.
The big problem with landmines is they are not generally cleaned up after the war, leaving them around for innocents to trigger and get hurt, maimed, or killed.
Believe me, things would be _a lot_ worse if there were no nukes and superpowers could go at one another. We're talking 100x the casualties. Most of the violent deaths in the 20th century were the fault of the governments, one way or another. The only reason they don't do that anymore is it'd be self-destructive.
Nothing inherently wrong with prisons. They're necessary. Even the most egalitarian societies will have at least one person who is relentlessly violent and needs to be forcefully confined.
Machine translated to English (FI MUNI is heavy into NLP anyway ;-) ) it looks like this:
a) at the bachelor's degree: “I solemnly promise to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;
I will keep Masaryk University, where I obtained a bachelor's degree, and its teacher
in the memory and respect that belong to them; I will be faithful to my profession and I will be fair and accommodating
to his colleagues; I will develop the projects I participate in to the best of my ability
so as to serve man; I will not tolerate evil, bad practices or bribery; I will not allow that
issues of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social status
my professional decisions; I will not abuse my professional knowledge and skills even under duress. So
I promise to my honor, freely and of my own free will. "
b) at the master's degree: “I solemnly promise to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;
I will maintain my love and gratitude for Masaryk University, where I obtained a master's degree;
I will responsibly perform all my professional duties and consider the ethical implications of my
professional activity; I will not allow my activity to be in conflict with the rights of individuals, groups
or organizations to respect their privacy and integrity and will not allow their knowledge to be misused
and the ability to enable their violation; I will not abuse the properties of the processing systems
information or knowledge of them for their personal benefit; I will be in my professional career
to act with awareness of the limits of my professional competence and the field in which I work; I will help
deepening awareness of the nature and possibilities of their discipline in society. So I promise myself
honor, freely and of one's own free will. "
c) at the doctoral degree “I solemnly promise to dedicate my life to the service of humanity; I will preserve
love and gratitude to Masaryk University, where I obtained a doctorate; I will
carry out all their professional duties responsibly and consider the ethical implications of their actions in their
profession and scientific field; I will expand and develop knowledge in my discipline; I will
work in this direction to deepen / deepen the awareness of ethical responsibility for the consequences
application and use of procedures and knowledge of informatics in society; I will respect protection
intellectual property rights and to weigh it responsibly in relation to the free flow of the open
scientific knowledge in international public ownership. So I promise to my honor, freely
and of their own free will. "
I strive to respect this oath but I'm not sure if all the other absolvents do or even remember taking it. :P
They might claim they do, on their paperwork, website, etc. But what is the reality when they're actually in the air? Do you think stewardesses on these private jets are really in the habit of making demands of their multimillionaire customers? Somehow I doubt it.
Don't know why you're being downvoted- in my experience you are 100% correct. Also, having a flight attendant on a private jet is pretty rare. It's usually 2 pilots and drinks are self-serve. Depends on the size of the jet and whether you request one, though.
Your 'Reality: [...] End of story' claim does not contradict the title. They may automatically have a truck license, but also have never driven a truck.
If I got a truck license more than 20 years ago (before 1999) but never drove a truck in my life, I would definitely feel uncomfortable driving a truck. Shit, I feel a bit uncomfortable driving my car after a two or three month break. For 20 years to elapse between licensing and putting that activity into practice seems justifiably eyebrow raising to me. The headline doesn't even mention the 20 elapsed years part of it.
In the rural Pennsylvanian I grew up in, the multimillionaire family that owned the town plant went to the same church as most of the rest of the town (excepting catholics), sent their kids to the same public school, and generally socialized freely with the rest of the town. One of their daughters was the same age as me and, although not a friend, was a close acquaintance for as long as I can remember up until the end of highschool when I moved away. That family was as you describe, 'nearly indistinguishable' from the rest of the town. Nearly indistinguishable, except there was no mistaking who they were because the plant was named after them, as was the highschool's football field (which they apparently paid for.) Also, the nearest "shopping mall" was about half an hour away. Shopping as a hobby was alien to me, nobody I knew did that until I went to college.
Point is, America is a big place. If you think you understand America after watching a bunch of American movies and TV shows, you probably don't.
Interesting that a "33 percent increase" is the same thing as 0.105% to 0.14%. Those latter two figures are both a lot lower than I would have guessed.
Yeah it’s only high percentages because the numbers are already pretty low for suicide. It would be a 200% increase in shooting if there was only one shooting before.
Potassium nitrate (the main ingredient of gunpowder) has historically been used as a preservative, particularly for curing meat. Some people might still use it, but these days sodium nitrite is more common.
It's just occurred to me that humans likely found out that KNO3 acted as a preservative/curing agent when gunpowder got accidentally mixed with food provisions. I can imagine on board some old war galleon or with army materiel that gunpowder accidentally spilt on foodstuffs and someone discovered its preserving properties.
Does anyone know if this happened (it seems a plausible idea to me)?
