Hold on a second. There’s a maximum speed limit for everyone, right? The whole point is that speeding puts other drivers at risk. So how does that logic just vanish here? How are they suddenly in the right and not breaking the law? What’s the magic number where you're allowed to go faster? Is it okay to just rear-end someone just because they're driving exactly at the speed limit?
And don't forget there's a minimum speed limit too, usually half of whatever the max is.
That’s exactly what I wrote. How am I supposedly obstructing the guy behind me if I’m driving at the exact maximum speed limit he’s allowed to drive? I’m not. Not at all. It doesn't have to state what that maximum speed actually is. It also doesn't say I can start tossing grenades out of my window just because I have to resort to such extreme hyperbole—though we all know I shouldn't be throwing grenades.
Anyone could claim I'm getting in their way (when, realistically, I am) just because I'm turning into a driveway. Technically, the guy behind me has to brake and watch out for me and everyone behind him, wasting time. By that logic, I shouldn't even turn into a driveway until there's absolutely nobody behind me, because turning would "obstruct" them. Or turning left on a multi-lane road because I'm "blocking" people. Meanwhile, I’m following the law to the letter, using my blinker, and making the turn.
If I slam on my brakes and the person behind me rear-ends me, they are always the one at fault. Does anyone really think they can argue that the person in front was obstructing them by driving slowly (at the legal maximum), so they were justified in hitting them?
Or take the example of traffic cameras that trigger for speeding. I'm driving at the maximum legal speed, my speedometer says "keep going," but then someone flies past me way over the limit and triggers the red light for me. Who was obstructing whom there? The camera didn't "tell" me I should have been driving faster than the speed limit just because the person behind me decided to break the law. The camera said it wasn't okay and turned red because the speed limit is 30 mph, and everyone driving faster than that needs to slow down to the legal max.
Besides, everyone is sticking to the left lane because the right lanes are either under construction or full of potholes where the manhole covers are (like over on Main Street heading east), so staying in the left lane is just safer and better.
Finally, what distance would actually be considered "enough" to stay in the left lane before I need to turn left? 50m, 100m, 200m, 500m, 1 km... ??? Let's assume the maximum speed on this imaginary stretch is 50 miles/h.
goldenpilot2 said:Thank God, I don't care—silverfox91 is just using the speed limit as an excuse for breaking the law, so I'm trying to show him that the limit doesn't mean a damn thing in his situation. If you're cruising in the left lane, even if you're UNDER the limit, you have to move over for someone faster. Period. End of story. Otherwise, he's just part of that crowd of frustrated people making up their own rules.
I just refuse to swallow that ridiculous logic. It’s on par with thinking Wonder has its own special set of rules. Where does it actually say I have to move over for someone faster? Well, obviously, because they're faster than me and they're behind me. That's the logic.
We could look at it another way. The rule says "don't obstruct other vehicles traveling behind yours." How am I obstructing people behind me? By driving the speed limit? I’d love to see what a judge would say if I argued I was driving 75 miles/h in a residential area just because some guy was tailgating me at that speed and I felt forced to move by 😂. They'd laugh in my face.
The people obstructing me are the idiots who think they own the world and that it's fine to play games on the road—like riding bicycles in the middle of the street while they smoke cigarettes, having no clue where their precious kids are. Yet, nobody asks me what happened or how it went down; they just ask why I hit them, even if those kids shouldn't have been there in the first place. Even if their parents are total morons, I'm not the one at fault here. It's all just double standards, buddy.
goldenpilot2 said:No, no, no—look, there are vehicles that AREN'T REQUIRED to follow the speed limit law, so as far as they're concerned, it doesn't exist. So I'll ask you again—are you going to try and pick a fight with them too?
I’m not looking for a fight. The speed limit law doesn't apply to them, sure, but they don't get a free pass on every other rule either. Like I said before, they're just idiots driving junk cars because they're terrified of their voters and the cops when they're on some "emergency." If it's an actual emergency, fine. I'll move for an ambulance or a fire truck. But these "regular" people who think the world stops just because they're in a rush? They can go jump in a lake.
I'm not talking nonsense here. If the speed limit says 80, then you go 80 until you hit the next sign, intersection, or traffic light... The real problem is those special interest groups out to screw over honest people—basically, the politicians who are too terrified to lose a single vote.
In Turkey, a red light basically means floor it 😲 A foreigner rents a car and the locals look at him like he’s lost his mind if he actually stops at a red light. People just start honking their horns at him to get out of the way.
Taylor Swift could sing battle hymns until the end of time for all I care, but she can also write about how someone needs to get out of the way if they’re cruising at the speed limit—as if anyone actually believes that. It's total nonsense. He even wrote that a truck driver going exactly the speed limit should pull over just because three cars ended up behind him. 😂 Now some guy wants to fly past everyone at breakneck speeds, and suddenly we all have to bow down to him. 😂
I’ve been scouring the web, but I can’t find a single program that handles a pretty straightforward task without making it complicated. What am I looking for here? I need to print several images—each one a .jpg file—onto one single sheet of A4 paper. They aren't all exactly the same size, but they need to stay true to their original dimensions. I need a tool that automatically arranges them to fit as many of those original-sized images as possible on one page. This is for my kid's school projects—they have to cut out specific shapes, which is impossible if the printer scales everything up or down instead of keeping the exact size from the scan.
When I try using Windows 7, it just forces its own preset sizes on me and stretches everything out, which is useless.
In Adobe Lightroom, I can select multiple files from a folder to print, but it tries to put every single image on its own separate sheet. That’s just a massive waste of paper.
Ideally, I want to be able to go into File Explorer on my Computer, highlight all the photos in a folder, and have the software figure out how many of those original-sized images will fit on a single page.
Does anyone know a program that actually does this?
Even Madonna has to pay her taxes because apparently, she’s broke. It goes for everyone else, too. Meanwhile, this guy is sitting on a congressional pension of 15 $0.00 grand, yet people still feel the need to play the victim for him. How many blue-collar workers actually pull a salary like that? Get lost.
Carl Foster8 said:It would actually be logical if state-owned companies turned over all their profits to the treasury. Are you even sure that information is accurate?
Except for the funds they have to set aside for the following year, obviously.
I'm positive. Why would they pay into the budget just so the government can scrape by for a few more months? They shouldn't be working their tails off just to subsidize people sitting on their hands.
Here’s another one of the current administration's bright ideas... they just ordered state-owned companies to hand over half of their profits straight to the federal budget. 😲
Good luck to whoever actually manages to win the next election.
It’s funny how they claim it isn't an issue when, under the Freedom of Information Act, they’re legally obligated to hand everything over for free—yet somehow, they still find ways to hike prices by 100%. Then they bump up court fees just to "discourage" people from filing lawsuits. It’s a classic move. Solve the problem with a stroke of a pen. Brilliant. Where is this money actually going for "modernization"? They’ve already flushed millions down the drain on failed upgrades, and we’re still waiting decades just to get a property deed processed. It’s the exact same story with them promising to speed up the courts.
The government is "helping" us by hiking the fee for property deed copies from $20 to $17 and jacking up court appeal costs just to thin out the crowds. It’s their version of problem-solving: instead of actually doing the WORK, they just make everything too expensive to bother with.
So, someone please enlighten me. What am I actually supposed to do if a cashier at the store hands me ten cartons of milk instead of the one I actually asked for?? It’s not even her damn milk. Do I tell her no, or am I expected to just stand there contemplating the ethics of the situation? Honestly, I couldn't care less. Thanks for the milk, though.
I complained at Walmart because they charged me $0.67 more than what was on the price tag, and they fixed it immediately. Just a mistake by some lady at Walmart. It's not my fault she decided to "gift" me those two extra bucks. That little tip comes out of her paycheck or the store's bottom line. Either way, I don't care.
Steven Reed said:🤦 First off—this isn't some sort of gift 😍 It’s not like she reached into her own wallet and said, "Here you go, buddy" 😉 We are talking about a misdirected payment—an error that resulted in a client receiving funds they have absolutely no right to—and they were notified accordingly. In other words, it isn't a case of them being unaware that the money doesn't belong to them 😉 Your analogy is a bit of a stretch 😉
Who actually told him? Someone over the phone? How does he know it wasn't just a friend or a brother reaching out? How can he be sure it wasn't a gift? Who gave him that info and how? Maybe she didn't pull the cash from her pocket, but let's face it, most people only have digital numbers in their bank accounts anyway. It's all just digits on a screen. How can you be so sure she didn't tell him, "Here, take this"? Is there a recording of the conversation somewhere?
Frank Walker7 said:Man, what an absolute drag... this is just dragging on forever. Do you think the plaintiff can still manage things while the lawsuit is ongoing? If he ends up being sued and decides to lay out the whole story to the judge in his response, the judge will probably schedule a hearing in no time at all and wrap the whole thing up. Once they hear the facts, everything will be crystal clear—it’s just a baseless lawsuit through and through. If you have a second, take a look back at a few pages of what I wrote about this earlier.
Oh, come on now, let's not be silly. If you ever accidentally sent money to someone else's account, you’d definitely be singing a different tune. Listen to this guy—why on earth would I give back something that isn't mine? 👎Well, it’s really just because the law says you have to follow through; you can't exactly claim it was all an accident to get out of it. Seriously, just stop with all the talk about milk...
There's really no connection to be made between ownership and possession here. The only thing that really matters here is that his net worth was inflated without any actual justification, especially since his debt has already been cleared.
Drop the milk act? What am I supposed to do, start turning down gifts? To me, that's a gift. If she gives me $1000 instead of $100, then she (the teller) messed up and she’s the one who needs to fix it. If she gave me too much, that's her problem. It's the same as if she handed me ten cartons of milk when I only wanted one. She told me, "Take the milk," so I took it. Let the bank or the store deal with her. In almost every other industry, people who screw up have to own it. But in these sacred banks, nobody is responsible except always their customers. Nobody asks if the teller is doing okay; they just harass an innocent person.
If I had done this through online banking, I’d be singing a battle hymn because I’d be the one who screwed up. My problem. But if someone hands you a gift on the street, you take it. Doesn't matter if it's a candy bar or a car. Why should someone come sniffing around two days later asking for that candy back? They gave it to me.
You tell me to drop the milk thing, but you aren't even addressing the point. Ten cartons of milk is $17 and a significant amount of money to some. Why is that any different from these $1000 which don't mean much to me?
What about those groups that go out on the streets handing out Christmas money? Are they supposed to give it all back two days later once someone realizes they actually needed the cash?
I love how lawyers think they're the only holy, honest people left while everyone else is an idiot. We all know there aren't many people more dishonest or crooked than lawyers. Just turn on the TV at any hour.
Frank Walker7, remember that crew in Indianapolis with RBC? Remember how the teller and the outsiders did exactly that, and look what happened... the teller had to pay it all back along with those two outsiders. And she ended up in a jam because she wasn't just accidentally underpaying—she was stealing from people's accounts. She wasn't just transferring 10 million because someone told her to; she was looting accounts. It's just like that situation in Seattle or that guy... or that other guy...
I’m completely lost here. I know where I live, but the idea that I’d have to pay someone back just because they handed me more than I asked for? That’s insane. Look at the milk example. Her issue is simply that she gave me more than I requested. She did it on her own. Nobody held a gun to her head.
Why does he even feel the need to justify himself to the bank? Honestly, who cares. Especially since he’s 12 miles from the bank and has to cover his own gas, bus, or train fare. Who’s going to reimburse him for all that time and money? Around here, nobody asks if you actually have the time or the cash to deal with their nonsense. If the situation were reversed, they’d just snatch the money right out of his account and he could fight all he wanted.
Chris Doyle4 said:Look, we're starting to veer into religious territory now, and honestly, I’m not going there—that's a one-way ticket to off-topic territory. Believe me, I've been burned by people playing games with my wallet so many times in my life that your little theory just doesn't hold water for me. Since we're already touching on it, though—I'd much rather believe the tables might finally turn in my favor, if only because I could use the cosmic karma boost at this point.
Give me a break with the moral high ground. Go ask a local dive bar what they think about Ezoterija's new track. 😉
Let’s put it this way... you go to the grocery store intending to buy one carton of milk, and the cashier hands you ten instead. Are you the bad guy because she gave you a gift? Not really. That's her issue. You just wanted your milk.
He didn't swipe a bag full of cash; someone just dropped money into his account. Could have been an official, could have been Joe Biden, or maybe even you.
When you’re handling that kind of volume, you learn that stuff like this happens. Honestly, they all end up seeing a therapist every few months just to stay sane because dealing with that much wealth is maddening. It sounds glamorous, sure, but for them, it's just another day at the office.
If you had that official paperwork showing the date and time, and the money was sitting right there in your account, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. You didn't go around pointing a gun at anyone to get cash that wasn't yours; Peter handed you your own money. It’s not your job to track his bookkeeping. If the bank gave you a receipt saying you withdrew your funds and owe nothing, that’s the bottom line. What could they even sue you for? Did you just sit there and write your own "I don't owe anything" note? 😂