If they were following the highway code and got hurt, then it's either the fault of the driver who hit them, or their own fault for getting in somebody's blind spot / passing a lorry on the inside while turning left / doing any manner of stupid things that I regularly see cyclists do that aren't illegal, but are stupid.
So - no, I won't apologise.
And 'if a bike hits a car guess who suffers most' sums up exactly why cyclists should be more aware of the world around them, and not expect everyone else to cater for their ignorant behaviour on the road.
Yes, and I have cycled in Cambridge - admittedly it was in the 80's, but a CBT is, I think, essential.
I gather they still do the Cycling Proficiency tests, but see no evidence of their effectiveness when I'm out and about - the attitude of most cyclists seems to be "I'll ride wherever I want - it's your job to avoid me".
Motorcyclists, on the other hand, get a free ride from me (pulling to the left to allow overtaking in tight spots, early signals, plenty of gap, etc.), as I have been a biker in my youth - now I'm old and prefer 4 wheels:o)
I totally agree - everyone should be responsible for their own actions.
Personally, I practice 'defensive driving', but that should not be interpreted as 'meek' - in a lot of situations, being assertive actually prevents other road users from entering a potentially dangerous situation.
I do still wish that cyclists were taught to ride as I was in the '70s - the roads would be much safer for all.
Seriously, though - cycling is safe if you follow the Highway Code and take sensible precautions, like: not running red lights, looking behind you before passing parked cars, remembering that people in cars aren't that bothered about your safety, etc., etc.
As a car driver, I can't see that it's my responsibility to anticipate that a cyclist will pull out to pass a parked car without looking to see if I'm approaching at 18 mph faster than him - it's your life, and your safety.
Since you had the decency to reply, I'll do you the courtesy of addressing your points.
Firstly, 'holocaust denial' is illegal in many countries - that, to me, is sufficient to suggest that this is a 'thought crime'.
Secondly, I would never deny the existence of the mass graves, but would dispute that they were filled with the bodies of the gassed. There is ample evidence to support the proposition that the ill-treatment of the prisoners combined with poor sanitation and malnutrition caused the vast majority of the deaths, and that the cruelty and inhuman behaviour of some of the guards account for the rest.
Yeah, there's a war in Iraq, and I'm very glad I'm not there, and sincerely hope you come home safely.
My 'no convincing evidence' does not mean 'I haven't seen it with my own eyes' - it means 'I don't support the conclusion that there were death camps just because lots of people died'.
Show me Nazi documentation that states that people were gassed, or accept that I will never believe in the 'holocaust'.
The problem with Leninism, though, is that it is by definition bourgeois - the 'vanguard of the revolution' will come from the educated population in each and every revolution, and will form its own self-perpetuating oligarchy.
I spent my schooldays with the descendants of European Jews - I have taken this into the realm of the personal.
Nothing I heard convinced me that their parents were survivors of death camps - concentration camps, sure, but no first hand evidence of death camps ever came my way.
And as for opening up my filter - I read avidly, but skeptically. Point me to a source that confirms 6 million, or even 1 million deliberate murders, and I'll assess it on its merits. The problem is that the Holocaust is taught as truth, despite the lack of evidence.
Email all the customers on the list, telling them that the competitor has exposed their email address by their actions, and proposing that you supply their travel needs while guaranteeing that every email communication will be sent individually.
Ethical (you're exposing bad practice on the part of your competitor) and good business.
While I agree with you on the sexual orientation / gender identity area, there is one area that is categorised as 'hate crime' where it really is not, and that is revisionist history.
Am I really a hate criminal for questioning whether there were death camps in WWII?
I prefer to categorise myself as a skeptic - I have seen no convincing evidence for gas chambers, and suspect that the whole thing was Soviet propaganda.
Am I now a hate criminal for not following the groupthink on this important point?
Think on, before you support this sort of legislation - you may yourself differ with the politically correct interpretation of the world some day, and find yourself guilty of thought crime.
It can also be argued that philosophy is more basic than math. Some might say that we need our ontologies and epistemologies before we can do calculations involving them.
Some might, but I wouldn't.
Mathematics has its own ontology - namely the axioms that it is based upon.
It has no need for a separate epistemology - it is what it is, and that's that.
Propositional calculus, on which Russell, Frege and Wittgenstein based their mathematical philosophy (which I see as applicable to all rational thought) is itself the root of mathematics - thus mathematics (or logic, however you wish to phrase it) is fundamental to philosophy, rather than philosophy being fundamental to mathematics.
You can't have an ontology without maths - epistemologies are more equal, but essentialy the whole of philosophy is based on the propositional calculus, which is only one of many possible formulations of mathematics.
So did I - shall we tell them all to get off our lawns?
Slightly off-topic - David Davis' stand against the Brown/Bliar junta hasn't had the coverage I'd expect on/. - is it because he's a Tory?
I'm a libertarian/anarchist (after reading Homage to Catalunya and The Road to Wigan Pier in my youth) myself, but I really appreciate a politician who's prepared to stand up against the creeping advance of the surveillance society.
I don't see this as an attack on ODF - since ODF is a standard, and is XML, standard tools (even MSXML) can be used to process ODF documents - there is no need for an API.
I don't think that that argument flies - the response would be that since the ISP's logs haven't changed, the same people are certain to be identified as a result of discovery, which amounts to vexatious litigation IMHO.
All that can be determined is that an IP address was, at a certain point in time, assigned to a device that connected using the account of a natural person, not which natural person (or indeed which device) was 'making available'.
The future computers/robots better keep on functioning when 40% of their brain is destroyed
I don't know what the record is for the longest uptime of a computer system, but it's surely less than a normal human lifetime - hardware wears out, and without infrastructure to support it, the 'singularity' will die through disk/memory/processor/whatever failure in fairly short order.
I think Hofstadter's spot on when he refers to it as 'the nerds rapture' - it's bollocks on the scale of Drexler's imaginary nanorevolution, and should be treated as such.
AI in itself is a noble field of research, but pointless speculation such as Kurzweil's makes the whole field poorer.
Slashdot Mirror
If they were following the highway code and got hurt, then it's either the fault of the driver who hit them, or their own fault for getting in somebody's blind spot / passing a lorry on the inside while turning left / doing any manner of stupid things that I regularly see cyclists do that aren't illegal, but are stupid.
So - no, I won't apologise.
And 'if a bike hits a car guess who suffers most' sums up exactly why cyclists should be more aware of the world around them, and not expect everyone else to cater for their ignorant behaviour on the road.
IOW - piss off, you sanctimonious git.
I gather they still do the Cycling Proficiency tests, but see no evidence of their effectiveness when I'm out and about - the attitude of most cyclists seems to be "I'll ride wherever I want - it's your job to avoid me".
Motorcyclists, on the other hand, get a free ride from me (pulling to the left to allow overtaking in tight spots, early signals, plenty of gap, etc.), as I have been a biker in my youth - now I'm old and prefer 4 wheels :o)
Personally, I practice 'defensive driving', but that should not be interpreted as 'meek' - in a lot of situations, being assertive actually prevents other road users from entering a potentially dangerous situation.
I do still wish that cyclists were taught to ride as I was in the '70s - the roads would be much safer for all.
They pull out in front of you, drive at <speed limit> - 5 mph, and wonder why you're driving up their sanctimonious arse honking and flashing!
Bastards, the lot of them.
And they always double park on a Sunday when they get their weekly dose of self-flagellation.
Did Jesus say 'Pick up thy bed and drive'? I think not :P
Seriously, though - cycling is safe if you follow the Highway Code and take sensible precautions, like: not running red lights, looking behind you before passing parked cars, remembering that people in cars aren't that bothered about your safety, etc., etc.
As a car driver, I can't see that it's my responsibility to anticipate that a cyclist will pull out to pass a parked car without looking to see if I'm approaching at 18 mph faster than him - it's your life, and your safety.
Oh, and if you kick my car, I'll kick you :P
Firstly, 'holocaust denial' is illegal in many countries - that, to me, is sufficient to suggest that this is a 'thought crime'.
Secondly, I would never deny the existence of the mass graves, but would dispute that they were filled with the bodies of the gassed. There is ample evidence to support the proposition that the ill-treatment of the prisoners combined with poor sanitation and malnutrition caused the vast majority of the deaths, and that the cruelty and inhuman behaviour of some of the guards account for the rest.
Yeah, there's a war in Iraq, and I'm very glad I'm not there, and sincerely hope you come home safely.
My 'no convincing evidence' does not mean 'I haven't seen it with my own eyes' - it means 'I don't support the conclusion that there were death camps just because lots of people died'.
Show me Nazi documentation that states that people were gassed, or accept that I will never believe in the 'holocaust'.
There really is no practical route to true Communism - selfishness, greed and the will to power (© Friedrich Nietzsche) will always get in the way.
Nothing I heard convinced me that their parents were survivors of death camps - concentration camps, sure, but no first hand evidence of death camps ever came my way.
And as for opening up my filter - I read avidly, but skeptically. Point me to a source that confirms 6 million, or even 1 million deliberate murders, and I'll assess it on its merits. The problem is that the Holocaust is taught as truth, despite the lack of evidence.
Email all the customers on the list, telling them that the competitor has exposed their email address by their actions, and proposing that you supply their travel needs while guaranteeing that every email communication will be sent individually.
Ethical (you're exposing bad practice on the part of your competitor) and good business.
Am I really a hate criminal for questioning whether there were death camps in WWII?
I prefer to categorise myself as a skeptic - I have seen no convincing evidence for gas chambers, and suspect that the whole thing was Soviet propaganda.
Am I now a hate criminal for not following the groupthink on this important point?
Think on, before you support this sort of legislation - you may yourself differ with the politically correct interpretation of the world some day, and find yourself guilty of thought crime.
Some might, but I wouldn't.
Mathematics has its own ontology - namely the axioms that it is based upon.
It has no need for a separate epistemology - it is what it is, and that's that.
Propositional calculus, on which Russell, Frege and Wittgenstein based their mathematical philosophy (which I see as applicable to all rational thought) is itself the root of mathematics - thus mathematics (or logic, however you wish to phrase it) is fundamental to philosophy, rather than philosophy being fundamental to mathematics.
You can't have an ontology without maths - epistemologies are more equal, but essentialy the whole of philosophy is based on the propositional calculus, which is only one of many possible formulations of mathematics.
There's no guarantee that you can see the 'straight through' image, because the object doing the lensing might be in the way.
And for n objects lensing, the effect is multiplicative.
What's so difficult about that?
I'll raise you one String Conjecture to your Electric Univarse [sic] :P
If it's good porn, you've got a hand full :o)
But you were emphasising the 'fair use' principle, and you even went as far as quoting the source - why post anonymously?
If your post isn't the epitomy of fair use, I'll eat my dictionary :P
You, sir, are an aerosol.
:P
So did I - shall we tell them all to get off our lawns?
Slightly off-topic - David Davis' stand against the Brown/Bliar junta hasn't had the coverage I'd expect on /. - is it because he's a Tory?
I'm a libertarian/anarchist (after reading Homage to Catalunya and The Road to Wigan Pier in my youth) myself, but I really appreciate a politician who's prepared to stand up against the creeping advance of the surveillance society.
I thought that was wide carbon?
All that can be determined is that an IP address was, at a certain point in time, assigned to a device that connected using the account of a natural person, not which natural person (or indeed which device) was 'making available'.
:o)
When she comes she calls another's name
Hawkwind - Spirit of the Age
I don't know what the record is for the longest uptime of a computer system, but it's surely less than a normal human lifetime - hardware wears out, and without infrastructure to support it, the 'singularity' will die through disk/memory/processor/whatever failure in fairly short order.
I think Hofstadter's spot on when he refers to it as 'the nerds rapture' - it's bollocks on the scale of Drexler's imaginary nanorevolution, and should be treated as such.
AI in itself is a noble field of research, but pointless speculation such as Kurzweil's makes the whole field poorer.
In the English speaking world, a foetus isn't a fetus unless you're a slack-jawed Cletus.