Hold your #$@#! horses!

I just got back from meeting my wife for lunch. As we were leaving, I had to go to her car to grab something. We both got to the car, and another car followed us and was waiting for the spot.

I went into the glove compartment, grabbed what I needed, and went to give my wife a goodbye kiss. Before I could, the car that was waiting started honking at us, telling us to hurry up.

I gave my wife a kiss (The whole time I was in the car was about 20 seconds) got out of the car and yelled "Hold your $%#! horses" at the other car.

I say that the other driver being in a hurry is not my problem, I needed to be in the car for 20 seconds. Some might say that I should be more courteous and tried to go faster.

What say you?

Quote: FinsRule

What say you?

Do what you need to do, as best you can do it, but be nice. You might have instead told him: "We'll be finished here in just a second, I apologize for the delay."

"Living well is the best revenge" ... (George Herbert)

--Ms. D.

You're both at fault.

The other guy for being too impatient, and you for cussing him out (unless you recognized mkl or JL). You could have instead just taken your sweet time getting out, the better to infuriate the jerk. There are many ways to get back at someone, the best don't involve swearing or physical violence.

Quote: Nareed

You could have instead just taken your sweet time getting out, the better to infuriate the jerk.

We don't know who others are. I would never make an assumption that taking direct action to infuriate someone would not lead to violence.

If someone shows such a clear sign of anger, either have a bigger gun, or be nice.

Nareed, you usually are so sensical (which isn't a word, but should be).

--Ms. D.

Quote: DorothyGale

We don't know who others are. I would never make an assumption that taking direct action to infuriate someone would not lead to violence.

Very unlikely in a parking lot with both participants in their car. Getting out and swearing at the other driver makes violence more likely.

Quote:

Nareed, you usually are so sensical (which isn't a word, but should be).

It does sound like a word. Are you sure it isn't?

In the OP's place I'd have just ignored the other driver and left as if he wasn't leaning on the horn.

But if I wanted to get back at him, I'd pull out veeeeeeeeeeeery sloooooooooowwwwwwwllllllly. If he made me really mad, I'd get out of the car, close the door and say "Oh, sorry. I wasn't leaving just yet."

I usually just ignore them. If they're in such a hurry, they can look for another spot.

Sensical enough? :)

Quote: Nareed

It does sound like a word. Are you sure it isn't?

Yes, "sensical" is not a word. Some will argue that sensical makes sense as a neologism.

As per your misguided revenge advice, it appears that you have never drawn a weapon... nor does it appear that you have encountered someone in a public place who threatened real and imminent violence against your person... it's not a fun time... let me just say that if I could have screamed louder, I would have...

--Ms. D.

Quote: DorothyGale

Yes, "sensical" is not a word. Some will argue that sensical makes sense as a neologism.

Hmm. There's some work to do, then.

Quote:

As per your misguided revenge advice, it appears that you have never drawn a weapon... nor does it appear that you have encountered someone in a public place who threatened real and imminent violence against your person... it's not a fun time... let me just say that if I could have screamed louder, I would have...

I was once robbed at gunpoint. I think the gun was either a prop or not loaded, but I acted on that only so far as to deny I had any money hidden on me (which I did).

I see you live in the St. Louis area. Maybe your recent nasty weather has made everyone a little on edge.

Nareed has it right.

Quote: Nareed

You're both at fault.

The other guy for being too impatient, and you for cussing him out (unless you recognized mkl or JL). You could have instead just taken your sweet time getting out, the better to infuriate the jerk. There are many ways to get back at someone, the best don't involve swearing or physical violence.

I would have deliberately given my Wife the longest kiss possible;), stayed in the car while she backed out very carefully and then have her drive me back to my car or back to the office.

Quote: ten2win

Nareed has it right.

I'm always right, except on those occasions when I'm not :P

Quote: Nareed

I'm always right, except on those occasions when I'm not :P

What a nasty society we live in here in America, where people actually discuss ways of being rude as somehow being "right." Here in KS, we'd just shoot you.

KS concealed weapons law ...

Danger on campus ...

Let those who cannot see shoot first ...

Yeah, good idea, just incite the driver. No doubt he's carrying in KS.

I'm out of this thread ...

--Ms. D.

Quote: DorothyGale

What a nasty society we live in here in America, where people actually discuss ways of being rude as somehow being "right." Here in KS, we'd just shoot you.

As a rule I respond to rudeness in like manner. If someone honks once while I'm pulling out, that's fine. If he leans on the horn, that's rude.

Shooting people for a breach in manners is beyond rude. I think it's criminal.

Quote:

Yeah, good idea, just incite the driver. No doubt he's carrying in KS.

The driver is the one inciting to begin with.

But I'll be careful if I'm ever in Kansas.

I prefer the passive-aggresive approach. My temper is such that I try to avoid inciting others, lest they take the bait and a battle results, but I have no qualms in causing myself much work to piss someone off. Maybe feigning your battery had just died. Even if the car was already on, turn it off, pop the hood and look exasperated when you do it. Or do like they do in the livery business, turn on the blinkers and make your way around to ensure they're all operable, check the tires and clearance, check that the horn and wipers work. Or sheepishly apologize to the honker and make like you'll be with them just as fast as you possibly can, then take a ridiculously long time getting ready to leave, and then act like you've forgotten something and run back inside, leaving your car in the spot.

Seriously, I could go on forever as there is nothing I enjoy more than pissing off those who feel entitled to something they have no claim to. Point is, no need to get hyped, cause yourself stress, and end up looking bad. Or encouraging a possible physical altercation. Play dumb, pretend to be simple of mind, and watch the hilarity ensue. It'll feel good when that jackass finally peels away in frustration, just losing his effing mind, and with any luck, he'll be so distraught he'll plow into a parked car or a bus. It's just like gambling; he gets pissed, you get pissed, the pissed ratio is 1:1, its like winning a banker wager in Bac. Or, he gets pissed, you play dumb, he losses his mind and rams a bus. The pissed level is now like 1000:1, akin to hitting a royal flush in Let It Ride. Which is better? ;)

I do have to say that my first instinct was to then pay back the honking guy by purposely sitting in my car longer than I wanted, just to try to piss him off (my passive-aggressive approach, I guess). But...

I voted that the guy was a jerk. It is your spot until you give it up, if he's waiting then he's choosing to wait, and that's on him. I'm on your side, but I do have to say that you yelling at him was not justified. Even though I am not perfect by any means, I try to think about what would be the right thing to do. We're all brothers and sisters in this world if you think about it. If he was a family member of yours you probably wouldn't have been so harsh. They say that human beings are all 99.99% alike. We're all just puttin' around in this crazy place we call earth together.

Quote: HotBlonde

They say that human beings are all 99.99% alike.

Trivia Time: What ratio of genes would you have in common with a first cousin?

Quote: Wizard

Trivia Time: What ratio of genes would you have in common with a first cousin?

Given what you've quoted, I'd guess more than 99.99%

Quote: Wizard

Trivia Time: What ratio of genes would you have in common with a first cousin?

Ratio = (1/2)^N

where N = distance along ancestry tree, with only parent/child relationships in the tree ...

For self, it's 1/1 (N = 0)

For a parent/child, it's 1/2 (N = 1) [child -> parent]

For siblings it's 1/4 (N = 2) [child1 -> parent -> child2]

For Aunt/Uncle, it's 1/8 (N = 3) [child -> parent -> parent -> child]

For cousin, it's 1/16 (N = 4) [child -> parent -> parent -> child -> child]

That seems about right for a Saturday ...

I once knew a man with seven wives ... damn cats ...

--Ms. D.

Quote: DorothyGale

Ratio = (1/2)^N

where N = distance along ancestry tree, with only parent/child relationships in the tree ...

For self, it's 1/1 (N = 0)

For a parent/child, it's 1/2 (N = 1) [child -> parent]

For siblings it's 1/4 (N = 2) [child1 -> parent -> child2]

For Aunt/Uncle, it's 1/8 (N = 3) [child -> parent -> parent -> child]

For cousin, it's 1/16 (N = 4) [child -> parent -> parent -> child -> child]

That seems about right for a Saturday ...

I once knew a man with seven wives ... damn cats ...

--Ms. D.

I believe you are wrong, for the same reason you are wrong about siblings. The answer should be 1/2 for full siblings because they share a bond through both parents. A child will get a random half of his father's genes, and a random half from his mother. Same as a sibling. There will be a 50% overlap from each parent. So 50%*50% + 50%*50% = 50%.

So I claim for cousin it is child -> parent -> sibling -> child = (1/2)^3 = 1/8.

Why wouldn't you have exactly the same genes as your sibling? My brother and I come from the same parents. Why do you say we only get a random half?

Quote: HotBlonde

Why wouldn't you have exactly the same genes as your sibling? My brother and I come from the same parents. Why do you say we only get a random half?

Your genes are a mix of your parent's. You get half of your mother's genes and half of your father's to make one whole set.

Quote: HotBlonde

Why wouldn't you have exactly the same genes as your sibling? My brother and I come from the same parents. Why do you say we only get a random half?

Genes come in pairs. When gametes form, the pairs split up. A sperm cell or an ovum has only half the genes that the other cells in a person's body do. So when your embryo formed, it didn't have the same mix as your brother's. I'd even say there's a better than 99.9% certainty your brother has a specific gene you don't.

Also genes don't recombine the same way each time. That's why there's no limit to how many different children a single set of parents can have.

Then there's the matter of recessive vs dominant genes, mutations and other complicating factors. That we know of. Most of what the genes do we don't really know yet.

Here is a way to think of it. Suppose 40 numbers, instead of the usual 20, are drawn in keno. For those who don't know, a keno hopper has 80 balls. The keno hopper represents the combined gene pool of both parents.

The draw of 40 balls are the genes given to any one child.

So in two draws the number of balls drawn common to both draws would be 20. So two children would have 20 genes in common, or half of them.

Normal first cousins share 1/8 of their genes inherited from a common ancestor. By "normal" I mean they are not "half first cousins" or "double first cousins".

Should these first cousins produce a child that child will have a coefficient of inbreeding (F) of F = 0.0625 or 1/2 *1/8 = 1/16.
That is, the progeny are predicted to have inherited identical gene copies from each parent at 6.25% of all gene loci, over and above the baseline level of homozygosity in the general population.

Typical inbreeding percentages are as follows, assuming no previous inbreeding between any other ancestors :
Father/daughter, mother/son or brother/sister → 25%
Half-brother/half-sister → 12.5%
Uncle/niece or aunt/nephew → 12.5%
Half-uncle/niece or half-aunt/nephew → 6.25%
First cousins → 6.25%
First cousins once removed or half-first cousins → 3.125%
Second cousins or first cousins twice removed → 1.5625%
Second cousins once removed or half-second cousins → 0.78125%
Third cousins → 0.39063%



For instance Prince Charles parents are both (a) 2nd cousins once removed by descent from the King of Denmark who died in 1906, and (b)3rd cousins by descent from Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. That would imply his consanquinity index is 0.78125%+0.39063%. However Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were also first cousins. Adding up all the relationships in his family Prince Charles has a Consanguinity Index=2.07%. His great great grandfather Edward VII, King of the United, Kingdom who was the child of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert had a Consanguinity Index=8.03%.

British citizens of Pakistani descent have 55% of all marriages between first cousins. Being a child of a first cousin marriage results in F=6.25%, but if you add in previous generations the number keep going up. Pakistani children in UK have high percentage of genetic diseases . Around 50% of children born in Bradford are to Pakistani parents. Since 1997 there have been 902 British children born with neurodegenerative conditions and 8% of those were in Bradford which only has 1% of the population. If your parents are first cousins, and both your grandparents and great grandparents are first cousin marriages your F=9.375% which is starting to get into the range of being a child of an uncle/niece marriage.

The most famous of the inbred royals in Europe was, Charles II, "The Hexed" the last of Spanish Hapsburg royals. He had an almost endless list of disgusting problems because of his genetic inbreeding. Modern geneticists going back 14 generations have calculated his F=25% (the same as if he had been to full blooded brother and sister). The coefficient was so high because of numerous cousin marriages and several uncle/niece marriages in his ancestry. His death in 1700 started the War of the Spanish Succession (the first global conflict), followed by the Napoleanic Wars and WWI and WWII.



Once you get to 4th cousins and beyond there is no way to genetically detect the relationship. So while Prince Charles and Lady Diana were 7th cousins once removed (and dozens of other more remote relationships), Prince William has a very low consanguinity index as he must trace his family tree back at least 6 generations until the same people begin to appear more than once.

I'm coming a little late to this discussion and haven't re-read the thread, so maybe I missed something....

Quote: Wizard

Here is a way to think of it. Suppose 40 numbers, instead of the usual 20, are drawn in keno. For those who don't know, a keno hopper has 80 balls. The keno hopper represents the combined gene pool of both parents.

The draw of 40 balls are the genes given to any one child.

So in two draws the number of balls drawn common to both draws would be 20. So two children would have 20 genes in common, or half of them.

Wizard, I'm a bit confused about your analogy of selecting 40 of the 80 keno balls representing "the combined gene pool of both parents." Are you suggesting that one child (or both) might possibly have the exact same 40 "genes" as one parent and none of the "genes" of the other parent? That sounds more like cloning than the usual genetics. Seems to me the analogy would need to involve draws from two different keno hoppers, like a modified PowerBall.

Mike, I think you are quite wrong on this one. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, one from the mother and one from the father. Imagine TWO Keno hoppers. Each one has 46 balls, two each for #1-23. One hopper normally has a complete set (#1-23) of blue balls and a complete set of red balls. The other has a set of teal balls and a set of pink balls.

When a sperm or an egg is made, one member of each set, either a blue or a red or either a teal or a pink, is RANDOMLY put into the sperm or egg. So, the odds of any two sperms or any two eggs having the same chromosomes is 1/2 x 1/2.... twenty three times. Or really, really big odds. Now, the odds two sperms that are the same fertilize two eggs that are the same is one really, really big number squared. Basically, it is next to impossible that any two offspring of the same two human parents have the same genetic make-up. And it is likewise next to impossible to answer HotBlonde's question.

And all of the above completely ignores the phenomenon of crossing-over which guarantees that the genes on any pair of chromosomes are randomly mixed up every time a sperm or egg is made. This guarantees human uniqueness. And it means you can't even come up with a true average to answer HotBlonde.

But, this all being said, as a retired biology professor, I would suggest that HotBlonde should still probably avoid sexual relations with the sibling. It just seems a bit icky, though there really is no biological reason to do so as long as it has not been done by HotBlonde's previous generations.

I am most definitely not a retired biology professor -- I have only taken one biology course in my life, in high school, and I didn't pay much attention then. That's my excuse for describing my suggested two-keno-hopper analogy as "modified PowerBall". I didn't know any better, so I defer to those who know what they are talking about.