The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

If following the always in the middle rule, this should follow, but if you don't want to be a perfect driver, at least when merging, follow what is called the "zipper rule".

The zipper rule looks like it sounds: Allow one person to merge in front of you and one person behind you, like a zipper. If you're merging with one car in front of you and one car behind, allow one car already on the freeway to pass between you and the car merging in front of you. The person behind you should do the same for you and any car behind them.

This is something both cars on the freeway and cars merging onto it have to agree to though, as one asshole spoils it. Of course, if someone is tooooo slow (another problem) the zipper rule doesn't work perfectly either.

But the spirit of the zipper rule remains, despite how it is modified. If someone hogs the road, tailgating the car I should be merging behind, I simply follow the zipper rule after that asshat driver. If I were to fight over my true zipper position, I'd cause an even bigger problem than was already present -- and I gain.. what? One car's distance. That's nothing.

Not even 30 cars distance means a damn (a couple seconds?), so there's zero reasons to constantly weave in and out of a congested road, because you risk your vehicle for mere seconds. A terrible bet to make given the odds, no matter how skilled you are, because the lanes slow down at random intervals based on the random number of idiots weaving through traffic causing phantom intersections. Meanwhile, the lane you weaved out of has cleared and the guy being patient passes you by. Just fucking stay in your goddamn lane until you don't need to be there.

I learned this over time, after deciding to be patient and observe the distance traveled by impatient drivers compared to myself staying in one lane. I find that I will often pass the impatient driver by because they're making so many choices and fewer lane choices are ever more optimal than simply waiting for your lane to clear up, so rather than slowly gaining ground, they make a couple gains and then lane change into a briefly cleared lane that then halt once they zoom up to tailgate the person who has no more distance to travel. If I don't end up passing these impatient lane changers, the minimal distance they gained is only seconds, as when they reach their off ramp, they will be waiting idly by, as I catch up and pass them. If they had simply stayed in the same lane the entire way, they often would have arrived at the same time as if they hadn't changed lanes at all.

I loved Firefly, truly I did. Sure, The Wire and I had longer together but with Firefly...Firefly always felt like we left something unfinished. But, you know, I'm beginning to feel like I can let Firefly go now. I've accepted that in this life some truly beautiful things will be cut short - and that stings like a mother, but its _O.K_ because we were privileged to share those fleeting moments, and we still have our memories and the DVD box set.

ps. True Story, my current employer revealed to me that I became his first choice for the job after I correctly identified an idly muttered Firefly quotation. (two by two, hands of blue).

pps. Did anybody else watch Castle purely because it was easy to imagine Castle was Mal in an alternate universe. Well, maybe not purely - Stana Katic is very easy on the eye, but it was like, maybe 75% of the reason.

In first world countries....yes, or close to that much. Agreed. Not world wide.

Mechanized harvest is accepted in "natural" old school farming. Agreed, it would fall under the "industrial farming" methods, but is one of the least damaging.
>1000 acre farms do not count as "family farms" in my eyes, even if they are owned by a single family. So is Walmart, but it's not a mom and pop or family store.

Again, mechanization is not the same as industrialization, but does still do damage by over plowing, etc. I'm talking about monoculture crops, over application of man made fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Grain was farmed "by hand" since farming existed with few problems, but more work involved. The work it takes to rehab a river system because industrial farming runoff contaminated and killed it is FAR more work than the extra work involved in farming using old school methods (which does not mean everything is done with hands, tools and machines have been in use for eons).

Roundup doesn't "break down" completely, and doesn't break down at all if it's washed into river systems and out of the UV light.

Once again, machines aren't all of "industrial farming", they are one of the least damaging facets, and they are not unknown in old school, smaller farming techniques. BUT....overuse of heavy equipment either over packs the soil, making it produce far less, or over plows the soil, making it run off and blow away (see the dust bowl). If it was ONLY about machinery, and ONLY industrial farming used machines, you would have a point, but neither is true.

No, actually overproducing on a piece of land like that makes it unusable quickly and new farm land is needed to replace it while it recuperates (if it ever can). Chemical fertilizers add salts that kill beneficial bacteria, "killing" the soil, sometimes permanently. producing double or triple the amount of food on the same land is beneficial in the extreme short term, and disastrous in the barely long term. (See 'dust bowl')

Man power is far less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels for the same amount of energy. Also, the people would use no more resources because they're in the field than they would anywhere else, so there's NO net gain to the energy used or demand on the environment if they farm instead of sit at a desk, but machines don't use energy when idle, so there is a net loss to the energy required if you replace them with pre-existing people.

Yes, you quoted it directly, buy your characterization of what that meant was insane. You claim they said Monsanto worked on the project (and other things) because they're evil and want to do evil and harm. The video actually said they do these things without much care for the negative consequences to others, and that makes them evil. I hope you can comprehend the distinct difference in those statements, and that your portrayal of what they said is not honest.

Oh, you mean the small area between Poland and Lithuania? The one that Russia is pouring troops and weapons, -- including missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, into at such a rate that the region is now one of Europe's most militarized places?

Moscow is stationing "thousands of troops, including mechanized and naval infantry brigades, military aircraft, modern long-range air defense units and hundreds of armored vehicles in the territory."

I mean, it's only scaring the piss out of two of our friendly countries in the region. Well, more if you consider that Russia's military buildup in the region allows them direct coverage of Sweden, Germany, and other nations that really don't trust the former USSR.

So, to use your example, I would absolutely expect Russia to get antsy and not sit by idly if we suddenly moved a LARGE portion of our active military forces to the Florida Keys. All of this is more posturing and sword rattling by Putin, a direct throwback to the USSR leaders of old. If he thought he could get away with it without open warfare, he would be rolling tanks into all the old USSR satellite states.

It isn't just this incident alone, either, as Russia has been steadily stepping up calculated shows of force and close encounters with our forces well away from anything close to their territory. Primarily, if you ask me, because the world outcry over the Ukraine situation stifled their little miniature coup attempt from taking over the entire country.

***Edit***

I just wanted to add, I don't want to go to war with Russia. I agree that many of the things that we are doing, such as considering adding former Soviet states to NATO, are antagonizing them. But I feel that in some cases our hands are tied by the fact that Putin, directly or indirectly, is making a lot of those former states think that he is planning on re-absorbing them under the umbrella of a new USSR. If he would keep his nose out of their internal affairs, I am pretty sure we wouldn't be building up in response.

This was off the coast of Kaliningrad. If a Russian or a Chinese guided missile destroyer conducted excercises with the Cuban military (say two years ago) off the coast of Florida, the US military would not sit by idly.

It is a provocation, I agree. But so are military excercises on another nation's doorstep.

As far as I am concerned, I'd very much appreciate if every nation would stop taking their toys out for a spin in Eastern Europe. I'd prefer the Russians not to set up a brand sparkling new tank corps on their western border, and I'd prefer fucking NATO not to deploy hundreds of MBTs all over former Soviet territory.

That said, the sailors aboard the Cook seem to have the proper reaction: a laugh. For politicians (looking at you, Kerry!) to use this incident as an excuse to funnel more money towards the MIC was as predictable as it is despicable.

Edit: if they absolutely need to play war, Paradox is going to release HoI4 on D-Day -- you get to fight Russians for a mere 40€.

@RedSky

First, if it were up to me, you could take over as Minister of Finance in this country tomorrow. Our differences seem miniscule compared to what horrendous policies our last three MoF have pushed. The one prior, ironically, was dubbed the most dangerous man in Europe by The Sun.

We're in agreement on almost everything you mentioned in your last comment, so I'll focus on what I perceive differently.

First, I'd differentiate between fiscal stimulus and fiscal spending, the former being a situational application of the latter. As you said, fiscal stimulus during an economic crisis tends to be inadequate with regards to our macroeconomic objectives. You can neither whip out plans for major investments at a whim nor can you mobilize the neccessary resources quickly enough to make a difference and still be reasonable efficient. Not to mention that it only affects certain parts of the economy (construction, mostly), leaving others completely in the wind. So I'm with you on that one, it's a terribly inefficient and ineffective approach.

Automatic stabilizers work magnificently in this regard, but they barely take any pressure from the lower wage groups, especially if unemployment benefits come with a metric ton of strings attached, as is the case in Germany. A basic income guarantee might work, but that's an entirely different discussion.

The problem I see with merely relying on reasonable automatic stabilizers in the form of payments is that they do put a floor into demand, but do very little to tackle the problem of persistent unemployment due to a lack of jobs. As useful as training and education are, the mere number of highly educated people forced to work mundane jobs tells me that, at best, it doesn't work, and at worst pushes a systemic problem onto the individual, leading to immense pressure. Not to mention the psychological effects of being unemployed when employment is tauted as a defining attribute of a proper person -- aka the demonization of the unemployed.

It's still somewhat decent in Australia, but in Europe... it's quite a horrible experience.

Anyway, my point is that I'd rather see a lot more fiscal spending (permanent!) in the shape of public sector jobs. A lot of work cannot be valued properly by the market; should be done without the expectation of a return of investment (hospitals, anyone?); occurs in sectors of natural monopolies -- all of that should be publicly run. A job guarantee, like your fellow countryman Bill Mitchell advocates quite clearly, might be an approach worth trying out. Economy in the shit? More people on the public payroll, at rather low (but living wage!) wages. Do it at the county/city level and you can create almost any kind of job. If the private sector wants those people instead, they'd have to offer better working conditions. No more blackmail through the fear of unemployment -- you can always take a public job, even if it is at a meagre pay.

I should probably have mentioned that I don't buy into the notion of a stable market. From where I am standing, it's inherently unstable, be it through monopolies/oligopolies, dodging of laws and regulations (Uber), impossibility to price-in externalities (environmental damage most of all) or plain, old cost-cutting leading to a system-wide depression of demand. I'm fine with interfering in the market wherever it fails to deliver on our macroeconomic objectives -- which at this point in time is almost everywhere, basically.

Healthcare is all the rage these days, thanks to the primaries. I'd take the publicly-run NHS over the privately-run abomination in the US any day of the week. And that's after all the cuts and privatizations of the last two decades that did a horrible number on the NHS. Fuck ATOS, while we're at it.

Same for the railroad: the pre-privatization Bundesbahn in Germany was something to be proud of and an immeasurable boost of both the economy and the general standard of living.

In the mid/long run, the effects of automation and climate change-induced migration will put an end to the idea of full employment, but for the time being, there's still plenty of work to be done, plenty of idle resources to be employed, and just nobody to finance it. So why not finance it through the printing press until capacity is reached?

As for the Venezuela comparison: I don't think it fits in this case. Neither does Weimar Germany, which is paraded around quite regularly. Both Venezuela and Weimar Germany had massive supply-side problems. They didn't have the production capacity nor the resources to meet the demand they created by spending money into circulation. If an economy runs at or above its capacity, any additional spending, wherever it comes from, will cause inflation. But both Europe and the US are operating faaar below capacity in any measurable metric. You mentioned LRAS yourself. I think most estimates of it, as well as most estimates of NAIRU, are off quite significantly so as to not take the pressure off the wage slaves in the lowest income sector. You need mass unemployment to keep them in line.

As you said, the participation rate is woefully low, so there's ample space. And I'd rather overshoot and cause a short spike in inflation than remain below potential and leave millions to unneccessary misery.

Given the high level of private debt, there will be no increase in spending on that front. Corporations don't feel the need to invest, since demand is down and their own vaults are filled to the brim with cash. So if the private sector intends to net save, you either have to run a current account surplus (aka leech demand from other countries) or a fiscal deficit. Doesn't work any other way, sectoral balances always sum up to zero, by definition. If we want to reduce the dangerous levels of private debt, the government needs to run a deficit. If we don't want to further increase the federal debt, the central bank has to hand the cash over directly, without the issuance of debt through the treasury.

As for the independant central bank: you can only be independant from either the government or the private sector, not both. Actually, you can't even be truly independant from either, given that people are still involved, and people have ideologies and financial ties.

Still, if an "independant" central bank is what you prefer, Adair Turner's new book "Between Debt and the Devil" might be worth a read. He's a proponent of 100% reserve banking, and argues for the occasional use of the printing press -- though controlled by an inflation-targeting central bank. According to him, QE is pointless and in order to bring nominal demand up to the level we want, we should have a fiscal stimulus financed by central bank money. The central bank controls the amount, the government decides on what to spend it on.

Not how I would do it, but given his expertise as head of the Financial Services Authority, it's quite refreshing to hear these things from someone like him.

@radx @enoch @eric3579

For one thing, give the executive or legislative power over the printing press in a crisis and they will not willingly give that power up and end up abusing it. For another, if you're simply printing money to spend then you depreciate and inflate your currency commensurately, at least in the long term. Relying heavily on this is the kind of thing that Venezuela does. There's a reason that governments instead take on their fiscal spending as debt. On that I would say, I've also become much more skeptical of fiscal stimulus in general but particularly in corrections or recessions. I'm okay with automatic stabilizers (unemployment benefits, the largely limitless kind with strings attached we have here in Australia) but not so much direct fiscal stimulus.

The fundamental issue to me is large, even extremely large fiscal spending will not affect business confidence levels of economic conditions. There is some fiscal multiplier effects (the multiple of the effect on national income over the spending injection by the government) but the worse economic conditions are, the lower this will be. Also, yes with say infrastructure spending, you're creating immediate jobs. Problem is these are in no way permanent jobs and simply pushes the can down the road on them finding new employment. Better to provide unemployment benefits and training to get them into a more permanent job faster.

Also large bouts of spending (again to use infrastructure as an example) tends to be hugely wasteful. Good projects require appraisals, consultation and careful planning. The notion of handfuls of 'shovel ready' projects is a political myth. You can instead span it out but then you don't get the mooted fiscal boost. In fact I would argue infrastructure spending is never appropriate as fiscal stimulus. It should be in a constant, planned process of improvement irrespective of business cycles or downturns. The US stimulus under Obama was largely long term spending projects like this as giveaways to the states. There is little evidence it eased the recovery or altered behaviour though. Many states simply enacted the same civic projects they would have otherwise and used this money instead of issuing debt like they would have otherwise - effectively they saved on interest.

So what are the alternatives then? The government here in Australia also heavily spent on roads, home subsidies and schools but notably also gave all income earners a cash deposit of AUD $300-950. The latter is probably the closest you can get to a pure fiscal stimulus - immediately cash to spend, injected not into banks than might save it but given particularly to low / medium income earners most likely to spend it. Again what we saw is that it hardly altered consumer / household behaviour. Many saved it, many spent it on large one off purchases (e.g. TVs, in which case most of that value was transferred overseas). So we gave a dollop of cash as stimulus to the global economy of which Australia is a drop in the ocean. Basically my attitude is, if you maintain good infrastructure, effective education systems, adequate but efficient regulation, reasonable tax rates, and importantly competitive markets, the best way to get through a crisis is to let the market stabilize by itself. Provide assistance and retraining to workers who lose their jobs by all means, but don't expect government spending to be some kind of savior.

I agree on the inflation aspect of your post. There were certainly no shortage of self-declared monetarists buying up gold in anticipation of high inflation, but as you say dollops of cash in the economy are meaningless if they are idle and the economy under capacity. The question now with unemployment in the US at 5.5% whether capacity is finally pushing LRAS levels. Probably not, participation rate is low and falling, and the unemployment rate is woefully underrepresenting forced part timers. Also as you mention the dip in oil will temper prices on the input cost side. The Fed certainly seems to think so and has started tightening rates but as so much commentary in the investing world is saying, this may turn out to be a mistake and they may end up having to reverse course.

There was a lot of posturing from Star Wars fans (from stardestroyer.net, I think) for a long time, with exaggerations about the power of imperial starships. However, some fans have done an extensive (and pretty ridiculous) amount of work to make a lengthy comparison, that, while only as accurate as can be interpreted from the provided material, does come out in strong favor towards Star Trek technology:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/
So yes, NdGT is correct, and really, you don't need to do the extensive research the fans did to confirm that. Logistics in a post-scarcity civilization alone gives a significant advantage.
But this is to be expected. When you have a TV show as focused on science and technology as Star Trek, it will certainly excel.
Meanwhile, Star Wars isn't supposed to be about high end technology. For them the technology is only there to highlight the story. The charm of the Millenium Falcon is not that it's a god-like ship that can mop the floor with everyone else, but that it's some guy's souped up junker that's full of surprises. The Death Star isn't the ultimate weapon, but a weapon of fear. (A weapon that destroys excessive amounts of available resources is impractical for anything else, and that especially includes Starkiller Base.)
And if there really needs to be some sort of sci-fi-peen competition, you can go the complete nonsense route with Doctor Who, where one Dalek could probably conquer both the Trek and Wars universes with minimal effort.
Or the overkill route with the Culture, where wiping the rest out would be an idle task, pursued for entertainment.
Star Wars fans just need to chill and embrace their universe of junkers and quaint technology. Star Trek fans have already embraced the fact that their universe isn't about action and explosions. (No, we don't include the Abramsverse.)

I can (and do) do that in my bronco or jeep. In first gear low range, they idle along at an unstoppable 1/2-1 mph. I can walk slowly around them in circles without even walking fast. If you count low range, my cars each have 8 gears + 2 reverse (4 speed transmission + high and low range in the transfer case).
I would imagine these trucks have far more than that, and they usually have a high and low range splitter too, so if they have a 7 speed transmission, they've got 14 forward gears. I know that's not an answer, but it's something.

Haha, nice try, west islander, but nope.... Tonga and NZ are in the same timezone (right before the IDL).

http://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/

Once again*, Australia is just behind NZ!

*that was a Rugby World Cup reference, for those of you that missed it.

But those audience are like idling. Heh!

Your video, Eric Idle from Monty Python: "I like Chinese", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The world today seems absolutely crackers,
With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
It's depressing and it's senseless, and that's why...
I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're always friendly, and they're ready to please.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
There's nine hundred million of them in the world today.
You'd better learn to like them; that's what I say.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They come from a long way overseas,
But they're cute and they're cuddly, and they're ready to please.

I like Chinese food.
The waiters never are rude.
Think of the many things they've done to impress.
There's Maoism, Taoism, I Ching, and Chess.

So I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
I like their tiny little trees,
Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin, and yang-ese.

I like Chinese thought,
The wisdom that Confucious taught.
If Darwin is anything to shout about,
The Chinese will survive us all without any doubt.

So, I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're wise and they're witty, and they're ready to please

-- Eric Idle, from Monty Python's Flying Circus
Youtube so you can experience it in all its glory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH2P_pVze6s