The Glade 4.0

From the second link:


It works well for 3 -> 1 merging, yes. In extremely dense truck distributions, it also works well for other closure models.

The first link is probably easily explained by the stress put on instructing drivers to utilize a 1:1 merge pattern. At the very least, that's a factor that is not replicated in the "control" group, so it's not very good data for or against late merging in and of itself.

Likewise, from the third link:

Zipper merges are only useful when there's already congestion. This is because the extra lane space serves as a buffer that can keep traffic flowing more smoothly behind it for longer, meaning it will clear up more quickly when the density of incoming traffic slows sufficiently to let it do so. If the choke point isn't so narrow that the current amount of traffic won't make it through safely at normal speeds, late merging is actually more dangerous and/or likely to *create* congestion, as you end up with a scenario where you're either playing chicken at high speed with the end of the lane, or you're moving much more slowly than the lane you're trying to merge into.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I don't make claims on subjects of which I have no information.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Ooo, thats a good one. I can' completely agree though. If tipping was actually TIPPING (giving a little something for service above and beyond what is required for the job) and not what they call tipping (making us pay for their staff, basically) I'd be ok with its existence.

Also, restaurants that say they add a gratuity to a large party. Its not a gratuity.

Gratuity - a gift of money, over and above payment due for service, as to a waiter or bellhop; tip.

Call it something else. Call it a service fee, a pain-in-the-ass fee, something. I don't care. Use the proper words


Also, another pet peeve - a Reuben sandwich is corned beef, sauerkraut, thousand island (or Russian, since they're basically the same) dressing, swiss cheese on rye bread. If it is not that, do NOT call it a Reuben.

_________________

Drivers who hurry up to try and beat pedestrians to crossing the street, and when they don't make it and have to slow or stop, honk to show their displeasure at having to follow the law.

There is the occasional traffic trap about a block from where I work. I've enjoyed watching the jerks not stopping for pedestrians stopped and ticketed.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I'm reminded of a conversation that a friend of mine had when he was a teaching assistant on the East Coast. They were talking about something, maybe pet peeves, in the class, when my friend mentioned that his pissed him off - people who try to nudge in. He pointed out that he never let those people in ... and some guy from Jersey says, "Oh, I always do." My friend asks why, and the guy says, "'Cause I do it all the time, too."

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

People who chew with their mouth open.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Salespeople.

I take offense to that one. That's too broad a brush stroke, unless you truly do dislike every person who has a product they are trying to get someone else to purchase.

Now, if you mean door-to-door/telephone solicitors, high pressure sales, obviously fake-friendly silver tongued devils, or pushy sales people that hover like hawks, then sure. I'll go in with you on that one.

In my business (high tech targeted at large businesses/school districts), a salesperson is absolutely necessary for not just my end but it benefits the customer far more as well to have someone along for the ride.

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

That sounds more like a Sales Rep, as opposed to a 'Salesman', which justifiably has a negative connotation to it.

Took me a day to think of it, but ...
My pet peeve? People who get peeved at bicycles on roads. Sure, get peeved at douchbag cyclists, but don't get peeved at me, or at a cyclist just because he or she is on the road. Wait until they do the douchbaggery.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

My other pet peeve, people who get all defensive and pretend bicycles belong on the road. You cannot do the speed limit, get your butt on the sidewalk.

_________________

Given that this discussion is taking place on the internet, the likelihood that the participants reside in different municipalities is extremely high. Add in those who are observing but not participating (or not yet, at least) and it becomes a damn-near guarantee.

With that thought in mind, I will acknowledge that it's possible bicycles are not treated by law as vehicles where you live and by the same token, you should be aware that they are treated as such in other places. It's even possible that you do in fact live in a place like this and just don't know it.

For example, Denver bike laws actually prohibit sidewalk use except in specific circumstances. Here, bicyclists can get ticketed for "getting their butt on the sidewalk".

Whatever inconvenience you perceive bicyclists to present to you by being on the road, try for just a moment to imagine you're riding a bicycle on the sidewalk and dealing with all the pedestrians who have the nerve to ... how shall I put this? ... walk on the sidewalk, thereby impeding your more high-speed mode of travel.
From the perspective of both the cyclists and pedestrians, the sidewalk is no place for bikes - and you want to deny them the roads as well?

_________________
Go back to zero, take a pill, and get well ~ Lemmy Kilmister

It doesn't. The exceptions to this are when people act like douchebags, which is frequent in traffic jams. Pretty much all douchebaggery leads to increased delays.

That said, there is one huge caveat to that. If lining up early gets excessive, it can impact intersections and thus traffic on side streets, furthering delays on the road in question.

Merging early is good, but not so early that you end up with one long lane of parked cars that block other roads.

I'm a pretty quiet person in real life. One of my pet peeves is people who try to talk for me in social situations, telling others what they think I'm thinking. This happened a lot more when I was a child, but it still happens occasionally. I'm not very good at explaining it and I can't think of a great example right now, but I'm sure some of you other introverts know what I'm talking about.

Another one is people who ask, "Why are you so quiet?" or "How come you don't talk much?" Besides being a stupid question to begin with, it's just rude. It would be extremely rude for me to say something like, "Do you ever stop talking?" I don't know why they think the opposite is somehow acceptable.

And finally, I get annoyed when I'm talking with a small group of people and there's two or three in the group who are very talkative/outgoing/whatever and for some reason they can't stand to have any pauses in the conversation or a brief moment of silence. These are also the conversations where the subject seems to change wildly every minute and they're generally just all over the place. Don't get me wrong, I can interrupt people and speak up if I need/want to, but it's just not fun. One really talkative person is great, they can keep the conversation flowing and help smooth over any awkward silences. But you get too many of them together and it's a **** chain reaction.

I should point out that this is the exact argument motorists posit against bicyclists on roads.

Maybe I'm misreading it, but I believe that was his point.

My current pet peeve? Those who can't, teach. I had my suspicions when he failed the "i = ++i + ++i;" litmus test, but it is well and truly confirmed now. Things my CS prof has tried to tell us about C++ in the last week:

• If you don't initialize a variable, it will have a value of zero.
• You can use "if (ptr) { ..." to determine whether a pointer references valid memory (i.e. allocated and mapped into the process address space).
• Passing a string literal into a function such as "void func(char *) { ..." is perfectly okay.

I'll cut him some slack on the last one, but still -- it's been deprecated behavior for a long time. It probably will not be legal in the future. Const that ****, yo.

The first two, though..... Has this dude ever actually done any C/C++ programming? Those are extremely bad and wrong and will definitely blow up in your face in the worst possible ways.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Wait...i = ++i + ++i?????

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmo:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/com ... 3_c_14_why

I know what it is trying to do but why would anyone right it that way - I mean it could reach different conclusions (or not even be able to handle it) by the way it is isntructed to work in machine code.

BTW what does it output?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Undefined.

Ok. Did your teacher say that this was valid because even if it is valid it could be different outputs depending on how the events are handled ?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The compiler should error on that statement.

_________________

I believe the particular example I posed was actually:


Then I asked what the value of 'i' would be after the last line. The "obvious" answer (which he gave) is that it would simply execute the rval expression sequentially from left to right. Thus the first "i++" would return 5, and increment i to 6. The second "i++" would return 6 and increment i to 7. The assignment would occur last, giving 'i' a final value of 5 + 6 = 11.

Unfortunately, that's necessarily true...


Yeah. Although technically it's just a warning. It's still a valid C++ statement, so it's not a hard error, but its behavior is undefined in the ISO C++ standards.

The root of the issue is that the assignment operator generates a sequence point, but neither addition nor the increment operators do. Order of operation applies, but leaf expressions may be evaluated in order whatsoever, or even simultaneously. The results are not only non-portable, but often unintuitive. MSVC++ 2010 and g++ 4.x both produce a final value of 12. I don't know what Intel's compiler does. Sane compilers will either return 10, 11, or 12, but technically 'i' could assume any value whatsoever as far as the standards are concerned.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I still don't understand who the **** ever puts a line like that into a program, let alone how it's a topic of discussion.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

You probably wouldn't ever have that exact line of code, but this condition can arise any time the same variable is both read *and* modified within an rval expression. For instance, this is also ambiguous:



For the most part, sure -- it's unlikely to occur and not very relevant to day-to-day programming. It's just the sort of thing that I expect a person to be aware of if they're going to be teaching the subject at a collegiate level.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.