I saw it happen once. Idiot swerved a bit too hard, started understeering, and the ABS module thought they had come to a stop. It stopped doing it's thing. They were still going 35.
It was hilarious to watch them panic and skid right into a ditch.
Being an avid RCer with several high-dollar RC cars I can 100% assure you this is a bad idea. The only similarity between my NTC3 and a 1978 Chevy El-Camino is that it's roughly el-camino shaped and has an engine. That's it. It might confer a boost in reaction times given how nimble hobby-grade RC is, but honestly, you can get that same reaction time boost by playing Quake or something.
I think you're taking my simile a bit too literally. I liken automatics to rc cars or bumper cars because all you have to worry about is throttle, brakes and steering. If you pull it further than that, the simile falls apart.
My point was just that if you get into a stressful, possibly dangerous, situation as a greenhorn, it's rather easy to mess up the clutch and, for example, suddenly jump into traffic.
And you don't have to deal with the multitasking. It took me a while before I got the hang of roundabouts, because I got so stressed out by having to break, gear down, position myself, etc.
I remember going around one at something like 35 mph once because it was at the bottom of a decline.
It's practical not to have to worry about that when all you're trying to do is learn traffic rules and how to position the car in traffic.
1700 is actually considered pretty damn cheap over here.
You need to understand that the economy is different here though. The average salary is >$50,000 a year, and if you earn less than $40,000 you're considered eligible for a welfare check I believe. Can't remember the specifics of this stuff.
I agree with these fines.
The kind of environments that are marked 40 mph are narrow roads with little sight around corners where you're expected to meet pedestrians walking on the (non-existant) shoulder, and bicyclists riding in your lane.
Considering the amount those 12 mph add to your stopping distance, I'd consider someone driving on these kinds of roads at 50 a major safety hazard.
Stealing a car will earn you up to 3 years in prison.
They might give you a fine if there are special circumstances in your favour, but I assure you the fine will be greater than $1000.
Fines that excessive strike me as a "No Fun Allowed" approach to speed limit enforcement.
That's exactly what it is.
You're allowed to have fun, but not in places where you're endangering other people's lives.
Please: Have fun. Just not on public roads if you don't mind. I like my body in one piece.
It's possible to buy really nice two seat RWD sports cars that handle like a dream for very little,
Then again the main hazard here is hitting a deer, and nobody gives half a fuck if you flatten Bambi besides the guy that's gonna be putting a new nose on the car.
Moose is the main hazard over here.
People who will care if you hit a moose include the relatives of the recently deceased people in the front seats, and the people in the back seats who no doubt have some injuries of their own.
In response, I was told that I'm the Anti-Christ. Well, not exactly in those terms, what he actually said was that I'm proof that it's the End of Days. However, that's close enough for me. It's official. I'm the Anti-Christ.
I was informed by a man in the parking lot of my office building that if I voted to Obama I would be in league with Satan. So I said "Hail Satan" and kept walking. So I do sell you my soul now or in November?
Leviticus 18:1-5 'The Lord said to Moses, ?Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ?I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.'
Seems pretty clearly said that these laws laid out in Leviticus 18 are for all Israelites, not only the Levites.
Matthew 5:18 'For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.'
How is anyone supposed to interpret this statement as "enact the spirit of the law as it was always meant, rather than the stringent letter of law"?
This is where everything gets a little bit hinkey. See, we don't have the originally written Leviticus. It's generally accepted that the version of Leviticus we have now wasn't written until 532 B.C., and earlier texts suggest a few massive differences. Originally, Leviticus was a strictly Levite only affair, with the law being based more off of Exodus and Deuteronomy. If I recall, it was earlier texts that placed the verse about man-on-man action off on its own in the list of things priests must do to keep themselves holy, while the verse on sexual impurities did not exist at all yet. It was a piece-meal affair in the first place, and there really isn't much proof that the whole "lay not with a man as with a woman" bit was even in the original text. I include it simply to leave some ground to stand on, but I interpret it through its most likely context, that being a dodge for celibacy among priests.
As for Matthew 5:18, that's quite simple: Everything being accomplished is Christ's death and resurrection. That's what hundreds of verses from the Abrahamic prophets were leading up to, and preparing for it was essentially THE point of the Old Testament.
Dominus Nox said:
DocBalance said:
Dominus Nox said:
I was referred to as Jesus all night at a comedy night.
Does that mean we're meant to fight or something? Or have an earth shattering game of Scrabble?
Maybe? I'll be honest, I used to be big into Revelation theory, but I kind of can't be arsed to bother with predicting the future anymore. I think I get to stomp around the Earth for awhile with Satan, and then you show up and back-hand us into a fiery lake.
I say we play it by ear. Give me a bit of time to have some fun, and I'll make sure to hang about plenty of fiery lakes so you can pop it off whenever you feel it is most thematically appropriate. Give the people a good show, you know?
I got into a beef with a guy at a bar and had him thrown out. Then I found Rx meds lying around where he was sitting for people undergoing chemo... felt a tad bad after that.
This is where everything gets a little bit hinkey. See, we don't have the originally written Leviticus. It's generally accepted that the version of Leviticus we have now wasn't written until 532 B.C., and earlier texts suggest a few massive differences. Originally, Leviticus was a strictly Levite only affair, with the law being based more off of Exodus and Deuteronomy. If I recall, it was earlier texts that placed the verse about man-on-man action off on its own in the list of things priests must do to keep themselves holy, while the verse on sexual impurities did not exist at all yet. It was a piece-meal affair in the first place, and there really isn't much proof that the whole "lay not with a man as with a woman" bit was even in the original text. I include it simply to leave some ground to stand on, but I interpret it through its most likely context, that being a dodge for celibacy among priests.
As for Matthew 5:18, that's quite simple: Everything being accomplished is Christ's death and resurrection. That's what hundreds of verses from the Abrahamic prophets were leading up to, and preparing for it was essentially THE point of the Old Testament.
It doesn't matter that we don't have the original Levitcus. The Law that Jesus would have known of is the Leviticus we have today.
So Jesus' death is the "everything" to be accomplished, but what of heaven and earth disappearing? Let me just check something ... yep, the Earth still exists. I guess that debunks your theory about the Law being changed. Even if you were correct though since there's no post-death teachings from Jesus then you're really just using this verse as justification to change whatever you please about the Old Testament.
Well, an automatic being easier to drive without fucking up is certainly true in my experience.
As for it being as easy to jump the throttle as derping the clutch?
I doubt it. Not in my experience at least. It's fairly easy to be absent minded while attempting to multitask and ending up being dragged along involuntarily by a manual car when you're fresh.
Bullshit. You don't 'share' it. It goes to the government. The government then decides what happens to it. For all you know your bills got turned into toilet paper for a pissed off lawmaker who just had taco bell.
What the tax system in the government basically is, is a money redistribution program.
The government is the people. Of course, there's the occasional scandal, but it's certainly preferrable to having private owners spending all the money on themselves.
Lawmakers generally aren't payed all that large wages over here. Certainly smaller than in the states.
The fact that you have a tax ON TOP OF A TAX is proof enough. If it were truly shared, if it were truly banked for the common good, they wouldn't need to take a tax on a tax they've already collected.
Stealing a car will earn you up to 3 years in prison.
Not always. A simple joyride, or perhaps if the vehicle isn't worth it's weight in scrap metal, and it's usually downgraded to petty theft, which carries a minimal sentence.
I don't know if you're talking about stealing a car in Norway or the states here.
In any case, taking a car for a joyride isn't necessarily considered stealing over here.
I was talking about Norway at least.
Also, plea deals. It's not at all uncommon for teenagers who steal a car for a joyride to get off with a fine of about $750 and a few hours of community service, far less than Norway smacks people with if they have the audacity to have a bit of fun on an empty country road.
Problem is, you don't know that the road is empty. If the road is clear enough for you to see that much, you're probably safe against police controls as well.
You generally needn't worry about the police in places where speeding a bit is fairly safe.
The country is very large compared to the population, and the population is very spread, so speed controls are rare.
And that's wrong. 100% wrong. Levying speeding fines that excessive doesn't do anything but annoy people and foster resentment among anyone who even dares think about enjoying their drive to work.
Please don't enjoy your drive to work if you have to drive at speeds that endanger others to enjoy yourself.
Personally, I don't notice a difference in enjoyment going from 40 to 55. I'd have to be doing racing speeds and cutting corners to enjoy myself significantly more than what I do just driving normally.
Enjoy your car on a track. Public roads are for transport, not for enjoyment.
I guess this explains why Norway has never won anything in motor racing...or even tried.
I'm pretty sure Petter Solberg has won a good deal of stuff. But yeah, we don't have much of a racing culture, unlike for example Finland.
Not winning any races is a price I'm willing to pay to reduce the traffic death toll though.
How aren't you? There's one place where it's possible to have fun with a car where you're not allowed to have fun with it: Public roads.
It's a bit like how you're allowed to have fun with guns, but not in the city centre.
You don't have to enjoy your car every time you go sit in it.
Nobody is going to die because someone in a Miata was doing 55 around a few turns on a desolate country road twenty miles from civilization.
Yes they are, and they do regularly.
Most lethal traffic accidents over here happen on the aforementioned landevei. Going around a typical 40 mph corner at 55 over here carries a decent risk of not only hitting one of the many things constantly hiding behind corners, but also of plain ending up in the ditch.
I can somewhat understand your concern in downtown, in a schoolzone, somewhere like that...even if I'd still say the fines are cruel and unusual punishment. But really? 1100 bucks for 12 over on a road where you're the only mobile car for six miles in any direction?! That is, to put it succinctly, bullshit.
First of all, there's no way to know you're the only car in a six mile radius. You can barely see 200 meters in front of you if you're on a particularly straight section of road.
Second: Even if you had a magic car-detection radar, every corner or hilltop you pass carries with it a moderate risk of meeting this:
Or a jogger.
Or a bicyclist.
Or any other animal, really.
I'm starting to get the idea that Norway simply hates the motor car and everything it stands for...and that makes it equivalent to the third circle of hell as far as I'm concerned. Any country where you can't buy a secondhand Miata for a couple thousand is a country I never want to visit.
Suit yourself.
I took the time to check the prices on second hand miatas just for fun.
The cheapest I could find was a 1.8 for $3,000.
Most were priced above $20,000 though. Some up to 50.
Moose is the main hazard over here.
People who will care if you hit a moose include the relatives of the recently deceased people in the front seats, and the people in the back seats who no doubt have some injuries of their own.
Maybe if you were in a car that was more substantial than some tin foil around a baked potato you wouldn't have that problem. There's a reason you don't find very many superminis over here, and that's precisely why. They're so small and lightly built that they wad up like a paper towel if you look at them funny. They sure as shit can't take a hit from an animal the size of a moose. Deer totals them with alarming regularity, and heaven forbid you bounce one off the side of a Suburban. Nobody in America is willing to trade off safety, fun, comfort, legroom, appointments, reliability and coolness to get into something like an Aveo solely because it does 45 to a gallon on the highway. People just go for the Civic, Accord, Camry, Ford Fusion, Chevy Impala instead.
I'd like to see the car that lets the driver come away from a moose collision with minor harm.
Unless you're driving a hummer or something, moose aren't particularly good for your car, no matter how sturdy it is.
Problem with moose is: They're bloody heavy, and their legs are long. As a rule, they smash through the windshield and cave in the roof of the car.
Annoyingly, if the speeds are low enough for the people in the car to survive the impact, there's a good chance the moose's fall is broken by the windshield. What that means is that the moose is alive and kicking, literally. Not something that's particularly pleasant when it's inside the same tin can as you are.
There are several reported cases of moose surviving a crash and kicking the people inside to death.
In any case, I'll be leaving for Harstad soon.
I doubt I'll have the time to write another reply, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on taxes and road safety.
It doesn't matter that we don't have the original Levitcus. The Law that Jesus would have known of is the Leviticus we have today.
So Jesus' death is the "everything" to be accomplished, but what of heaven and earth disappearing? Let me just check something ... yep, the Earth still exists. I guess that debunks your theory about the Law being changed. Even if you were correct though since there's no post-death teachings from Jesus then you're really just using this verse as justification to change whatever you please about the Old Testament.
It doesn't matter that we don't have the original Levitcus. The Law that Jesus would have known of is the Leviticus we have today.
So Jesus' death is the "everything" to be accomplished, but what of heaven and earth disappearing? Let me just check something ... yep, the Earth still exists. I guess that debunks your theory about the Law being changed. Even if you were correct though since there's no post-death teachings from Jesus then you're really just using this verse as justification to change whatever you please about the Old Testament.
I'm just looking at the literal implications of what's actually written there and the interpretation you're providing for it. I guess that's equivalent to trolling if you have emotional investment in a more complex view of the subject matter, but the intent is more to highlight how ridiculous the entire thing is. The history and dogma surrounding the Bible is really just fluff clouding the matter in my opinion.
So, you've probably heard about this whole "Oreo supports homosexuality" controversy. An old colleague of mine certainly did. After reading several rambling rants about the sin of homosexuality, I decided I had had enough, and posted a logical deconstruction of the Biblical condemnation of the homosexuality, essentially proving that the Bible doesn't care about homosexuals as a concept but instead condemns lust in all its forms, saying nothing on the subject of homosexual love given that the three contexts in which homosexuality is mentioned Biblically are, in order: A dodge for celibacy, a group of rapists, and in the middle of an orgy of unholy debauchery ranging waaaaay beyond sexual relations. Based upon these common themes and examining the historical precedents for social movements of this nature, I was forced to remind everyone how silly general culture and particularly the more respectable bastions of our faith view such events such as racial and religious suppression, and asked how we wish to be remembered by future generations in this respect. All in all, it was slightly inflammatory, but I felt it was a logical conclusion that I was prepared to defend.
In response, I was told that I'm the Anti-Christ. Well, not exactly in those terms, what he actually said was that I'm proof that it's the End of Days. However, that's close enough for me. It's official. I'm the Anti-Christ.
If you can disagree with a the religious views of an extremist christian without being called the anti-christ, you are doing something wrong. Its basically the go-to argument for people who aren't smart enough to accept anything outside their narrow world view.
Incidentally; I am christian, but I actually manage to respect other people's views and not throw tantrums all over the place.
Not only did this moron spectacularly loose the argument against you, they also spectacularly proved they don't know a damn thing about their own religion. See, the Anti-Christ is only ever referred to in the Bible as anyone who isn't a Christian, i.e. every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Atheist etc. etc. Using the book's definition, Stephen Fry is an Anti-Christ.
As for what I did today? I hung about the house, picked my brother up from work, hung out with a mate, played some 3DS and relaxed.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
