not to put too fine a point on it but the dependence of the current generation on their technology may finally put an end to the scourge known as man. The technology will break down eventually and if there's that much dependence on it then don't bother holding out any hope for a next generation.
Sorry, but most cyclists in my town do not believe that traffic control signs or indicators have any bearing on bicycles. As far as they are concerned, the stop sign, the red light, etc. were only created after the number of cars hit a critical mass so they do not apply to bicycles. Now, of course the laws are written to include the bicycle but there's a movement to have the laws changed so that bicycles will be explicitly exempted from requiring to follow traffic rules, signs and indicators.
Myself, I've decided I'm all for it. Give them what they want since the police have stated they haven't the resources or inclination to enforce the laws against cyclists anyway and, maybe, just maybe, after a few have been killed by saying traffic laws don't apply to me they'll find out that traffic laws are really just a coding of a combination of common sense and physical laws.
Well, again, in Vancouver, I live on a bike route, held up by our local city council ans one of the busiest bike routes in the city as it provides the main path from the downtown core to the suburb to the south of us. The city has very carefully defined these side streets as bike routes they've re-arranged the stop signs so that cars who's path crosses them must stop before crossing the bike route EXCEPT where they've replace the stop signs with a traffic calming circle. I live near one of those. Those intersections are supposed to be handled as an unmarked 4 way stop. They've also posted a 30 Kmph speed limit on the bike routes where the rest of the city is 50 Kmph. So what do I see at this intersection where there's a posted speed limit and it should be treated as an unmarked 4 way stop?
The bicycles ignore the speed limit, easy to do near my house since there's a downhill grade. In fact, the cyclists are pedalling for all their worth to see how fas they can go. Then they hit the traffic calming circle. Since every other cross street has a stop sign they just carry on as if there was a stop sign there so the cyclists pay no attention to the proper right of way rules. Saw a lovely pile up last year when there was a bit of frost on the road. There was no way for the cyclists to control their bicycles as they went around the traffic calming circle and they ended up in a tangled mass at the base of a street tree. They probably wouldn't have crashed if they'd kept to the speed limit.
My point is that the majority of cyclists do not respect the rules of the road because they have no requirement to learn them in order to use a bicycle. Even if they do know them because they also have a real drivers license they know that the police department has been told not to enforce traffic laws against bicycles (confirmed by polling the local community police offices who have stated that the bike route speed limits are not meant to apply to bicycles).
In other words , why is anyone questioning whether something that a cyclist does is smart or not, or right or not. In most communities they've been given carte blanche to do as they will, when they will, where they will simply on the belief that they'll be saving us from the ravages of green house gases produce by cars. The roadie scholar's attitude about responsibility in bicycle accidents is just another expression of that contempt that the typical cyclist seems to have not only for cars but pedestrians as well.
(@admins: there you go an obviously negative comment with my name on it. Its all the truth, it's how I feel and if you still feel the need to ban me from responding as a AC because I haven't the time or inclination to read all the attempts to defend the counter to these positions than I might still read the site but I'll never bother to respond. If you don't like to see bad news printed in your comments then I hope you'll be happy in your mutual appreciation society but real discourse needs two sides to be meaningful.)
Canonical has already shown it's stripes as the Microsoft of the Linux world, ignoring the voices of their users, covertly collecting data about them and bullying others into accepting their standards.
No, there's no way to undo the damage, Mark Shuttleworth. Your hand 's been played and you cannot take the cards back.
All of those requirements are easily gotten around just by riding on the sidewalk. That's what they do here.
More interesting are some towns in Europe that are eliminating sidewalks and all the extraneous traffic control signs and pavement markers. Apparently with all the distractions gone and everyone on feet and wheels sharing the same space there's a lot more paying of attention and a lot fewer accidents.
Who are you? What do you think you're doing stealing my complaints? Are you my evil twin, Skippy?
No, you can't be because you didn't mention the fact that the cyclists also use people's front yards as impromptu BMX tracks. Or, that they'll run over your dog and just ride away without a care.
I think we might as well repeal the traffic code sections that refer to bicycles. Such a move would solve part of my blood pressure problem. Having no rules to follow would remove my expectation that they follow the rules or that someone might be called to enforce such laws.
Thats' correct, SCOTUS decided that the ACA was not a fee driven system but a tax driven system so it was within the government's domain to impose such a system. The only thing that everyone should remember was Obama's no new taxes rallying cry that got him elected. Turns out it wasn't true. Oh wait, he's a politician, so we don't have to be surprised. do we?
Best pay attention to that "affordable housing" philosophy happening in Oakland. We're suffering the same process here in Vancouver, Canada. Whole neighbourhoods of single family homes are planned to be demolished to make room for 8 story and higher apartment towers. The main problem is that when you're planning to rebuild whole neighbourhoods, it's not sufficient to just build as lots become available by buying out the owners or as the older owners die or move into seniors care. We've already had some properties expropriated from their owners to make their land available to the developers building the new apartments. Make sure this is clear, this is not expropriation for projects for the common good but expropriation to help a developer make money under the guise of "sustainable and affordable" development.
Look up ICLEI, and how it's directing the community planning policies in your area. If you're in one of the brighter areas that have withdrawn from ICLEI, make sure your by-laws and zoning policies have been cleared of the ICLEI influence.
Most Canadian cars have such dual reading speedometers. There's not a full gauge for the miles per hour but a set of dots and the miles number for each tens of miles. It's quite easy to manage with these when travelling in the States and reading the speed limits signs in mph.
I agree that it was illegal (that was in the original article and many others I read associated with this) but, like the people who clear cut a lot in contradiction of the law to save trees in the city, it depends on what the cost of breaking the law is compared to the value of the cleared lot.
Follow the money and you'll find out why this was done and by who.
Judging from the picture of the remnant, the maintenance of this particular pyramid had been left to the jungle for some time but when you're talking about a large stone or stone covered gravel structure a good thick covering of dirt and vegetation will preserve it nicely against everything except, it seems, large excavators and such.
Many archaeological digs are simply covered back over with sand or dirt to preserve them form the simple elements. In this case, though, something other than the simple elements came along and did the damage.
Now, if you're going to uncover them and try to keep them in a pristine state while tourists climb all over them (which others have commented was not happening here.) then I can see where there would be a taxpayer burden.
I still expect that the full truth will be that the landowner saw a good opportunity to make some money selling some easily accessed gravel and fill and told someone to have at it. No one has mentioned yet who paid whom for the gravel and the equipment to move it.
Yah, that's what the temple looks like now that most of it has been excavated. There are enough other citations that you can find using Google to see the pyramid before the excavation.
Ah, you're from the Agenda 21 camp seeking to abolish the right to own property, or are you just a run of the mill communist that doesn't believe in private property and that the state owns it all?
Even if the state owns all the property you're not going to be able to live anywhere you want for free. You're still going to have to pay the state in the form of money or labour in order to have access to a roof over your head.
That other alternative is that you might be an anarchist that also doesn't believe in private property. In that case, the stronger of the individuals in a group will have their choice of the best places to live and the rest will have to fair as best they can.
The alternative to a money compensation was mentioned as a swap for land of equal value. Since someone is going to make an issue of that then swap them for some land in the city where smaller parcels are valued higher and, hopefully, all the excavation for relics has already been done.
See the article, such preservation laws already exist in Belize but since the land was still privately owned the landowner must have made a decision to dispose of the relic.
I'll admit that I live in Canada and have only visited the States. IN both of these places insurance liabiltiy plays a great role in how people make decisions.
When I was a boy parks had the shallow pools that were filled in the summer. Barley up to your knees if you were 6 years old. Due to liability concerns these are not used any longer. They are unused except as a place for teens to sit at night, drink and break the glass bottle in.
According to the article such laws are already in place but it didn't stop this from happening. It was on private land and the landowner for want of cash sold the gravel or for want of another use of the land had it cleared.
It's going to be very interesting to follow as everyone points to someone else and says I just did what he told me to do.
Okay, the pyramid was on privately owned land. Time to check and see what the land owner wanted to do with the land that the pyramid was getting in the way of. Or, perhaps he was just concerned that all these tourists were coming to this pyramid and he wasn't getting anything out of it. And the insurance liability, Suppose someone were climbing around on this thing and fell, even if they were illegal trespassers would he be responsible? There are a number of very good legal reasons why he's want to have this hazard removed. On top of that, I understand the price of gravel is very high these days.
As much as I hate the idea of expropriating land from private owners, if you want to really preserve these sorts of things you've got to remove them from private ownership and recompense the land owner either with money or a swap of some new land of equal value. As long as these sorts of things are in private ownership, this will continue.
That was the Canadian Conservative party's stand on their internet surveillance bill. If you didn't support their attempt to pass unwarranted internet surveillance in Canada then you must be a child pornographer. That didn't go well at all for poor old Vic Toews.
Of course, I do wonder sometimes if these guys trying to pass these laws now realize what a tyranny they are setting up for their own children or grandchildren in the future. I imagine that they think that their families will be exempt from any such surveillance. If they somehow are then everyone else is well justified in their vigourous protests of such laws.
Slashdot Mirror
not to put too fine a point on it but the dependence of the current generation on their technology may finally put an end to the scourge known as man. The technology will break down eventually and if there's that much dependence on it then don't bother holding out any hope for a next generation.
Sorry, but most cyclists in my town do not believe that traffic control signs or indicators have any bearing on bicycles. As far as they are concerned, the stop sign, the red light, etc. were only created after the number of cars hit a critical mass so they do not apply to bicycles. Now, of course the laws are written to include the bicycle but there's a movement to have the laws changed so that bicycles will be explicitly exempted from requiring to follow traffic rules, signs and indicators.
Myself, I've decided I'm all for it. Give them what they want since the police have stated they haven't the resources or inclination to enforce the laws against cyclists anyway and, maybe, just maybe, after a few have been killed by saying traffic laws don't apply to me they'll find out that traffic laws are really just a coding of a combination of common sense and physical laws.
Well, again, in Vancouver, I live on a bike route, held up by our local city council ans one of the busiest bike routes in the city as it provides the main path from the downtown core to the suburb to the south of us. The city has very carefully defined these side streets as bike routes they've re-arranged the stop signs so that cars who's path crosses them must stop before crossing the bike route EXCEPT where they've replace the stop signs with a traffic calming circle. I live near one of those. Those intersections are supposed to be handled as an unmarked 4 way stop. They've also posted a 30 Kmph speed limit on the bike routes where the rest of the city is 50 Kmph. So what do I see at this intersection where there's a posted speed limit and it should be treated as an unmarked 4 way stop?
The bicycles ignore the speed limit, easy to do near my house since there's a downhill grade. In fact, the cyclists are pedalling for all their worth to see how fas they can go. Then they hit the traffic calming circle. Since every other cross street has a stop sign they just carry on as if there was a stop sign there so the cyclists pay no attention to the proper right of way rules. Saw a lovely pile up last year when there was a bit of frost on the road. There was no way for the cyclists to control their bicycles as they went around the traffic calming circle and they ended up in a tangled mass at the base of a street tree. They probably wouldn't have crashed if they'd kept to the speed limit.
My point is that the majority of cyclists do not respect the rules of the road because they have no requirement to learn them in order to use a bicycle. Even if they do know them because they also have a real drivers license they know that the police department has been told not to enforce traffic laws against bicycles (confirmed by polling the local community police offices who have stated that the bike route speed limits are not meant to apply to bicycles).
In other words , why is anyone questioning whether something that a cyclist does is smart or not, or right or not. In most communities they've been given carte blanche to do as they will, when they will, where they will simply on the belief that they'll be saving us from the ravages of green house gases produce by cars. The roadie scholar's attitude about responsibility in bicycle accidents is just another expression of that contempt that the typical cyclist seems to have not only for cars but pedestrians as well.
(@admins: there you go an obviously negative comment with my name on it. Its all the truth, it's how I feel and if you still feel the need to ban me from responding as a AC because I haven't the time or inclination to read all the attempts to defend the counter to these positions than I might still read the site but I'll never bother to respond. If you don't like to see bad news printed in your comments then I hope you'll be happy in your mutual appreciation society but real discourse needs two sides to be meaningful.)
Canonical has already shown it's stripes as the Microsoft of the Linux world, ignoring the voices of their users, covertly collecting data about them and bullying others into accepting their standards.
No, there's no way to undo the damage, Mark Shuttleworth. Your hand 's been played and you cannot take the cards back.
All of those requirements are easily gotten around just by riding on the sidewalk. That's what they do here.
More interesting are some towns in Europe that are eliminating sidewalks and all the extraneous traffic control signs and pavement markers. Apparently with all the distractions gone and everyone on feet and wheels sharing the same space there's a lot more paying of attention and a lot fewer accidents.
Who are you? What do you think you're doing stealing my complaints? Are you my evil twin, Skippy?
No, you can't be because you didn't mention the fact that the cyclists also use people's front yards as impromptu BMX tracks. Or, that they'll run over your dog and just ride away without a care.
I think we might as well repeal the traffic code sections that refer to bicycles. Such a move would solve part of my blood pressure problem. Having no rules to follow would remove my expectation that they follow the rules or that someone might be called to enforce such laws.
There are cyclists that aren't bad apples? Where?
Sorry, just thought you'd like to hear it from his own mouth. Saves time and suspicion that a transcript might have been tweaked.
Tale care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
Thats' correct, SCOTUS decided that the ACA was not a fee driven system but a tax driven system so it was within the government's domain to impose such a system. The only thing that everyone should remember was Obama's no new taxes rallying cry that got him elected. Turns out it wasn't true. Oh wait, he's a politician, so we don't have to be surprised. do we?
Best pay attention to that "affordable housing" philosophy happening in Oakland. We're suffering the same process here in Vancouver, Canada. Whole neighbourhoods of single family homes are planned to be demolished to make room for 8 story and higher apartment towers. The main problem is that when you're planning to rebuild whole neighbourhoods, it's not sufficient to just build as lots become available by buying out the owners or as the older owners die or move into seniors care. We've already had some properties expropriated from their owners to make their land available to the developers building the new apartments. Make sure this is clear, this is not expropriation for projects for the common good but expropriation to help a developer make money under the guise of "sustainable and affordable" development.
Look up ICLEI, and how it's directing the community planning policies in your area. If you're in one of the brighter areas that have withdrawn from ICLEI, make sure your by-laws and zoning policies have been cleared of the ICLEI influence.
I thought the eternal question was "Goobers or Raisinettes?"
Some companies don't care whether it's good publicity or bad publicity as long as it brings their name into the public eye.
Most Canadian cars have such dual reading speedometers. There's not a full gauge for the miles per hour but a set of dots and the miles number for each tens of miles. It's quite easy to manage with these when travelling in the States and reading the speed limits signs in mph.
I agree that it was illegal (that was in the original article and many others I read associated with this) but, like the people who clear cut a lot in contradiction of the law to save trees in the city, it depends on what the cost of breaking the law is compared to the value of the cleared lot.
Follow the money and you'll find out why this was done and by who.
Judging from the picture of the remnant, the maintenance of this particular pyramid had been left to the jungle for some time but when you're talking about a large stone or stone covered gravel structure a good thick covering of dirt and vegetation will preserve it nicely against everything except, it seems, large excavators and such.
Many archaeological digs are simply covered back over with sand or dirt to preserve them form the simple elements. In this case, though, something other than the simple elements came along and did the damage.
Now, if you're going to uncover them and try to keep them in a pristine state while tourists climb all over them (which others have commented was not happening here.) then I can see where there would be a taxpayer burden.
I still expect that the full truth will be that the landowner saw a good opportunity to make some money selling some easily accessed gravel and fill and told someone to have at it. No one has mentioned yet who paid whom for the gravel and the equipment to move it.
I do remember a cricket match when I was high school where the field was next to a brewery, here in Vancouver. Weirdest match we ever played.
Yah, that's what the temple looks like now that most of it has been excavated. There are enough other citations that you can find using Google to see the pyramid before the excavation.
Ah, you're from the Agenda 21 camp seeking to abolish the right to own property, or are you just a run of the mill communist that doesn't believe in private property and that the state owns it all?
Even if the state owns all the property you're not going to be able to live anywhere you want for free. You're still going to have to pay the state in the form of money or labour in order to have access to a roof over your head.
That other alternative is that you might be an anarchist that also doesn't believe in private property. In that case, the stronger of the individuals in a group will have their choice of the best places to live and the rest will have to fair as best they can.
The alternative to a money compensation was mentioned as a swap for land of equal value. Since someone is going to make an issue of that then swap them for some land in the city where smaller parcels are valued higher and, hopefully, all the excavation for relics has already been done.
"Barley up to your knees"? gotta watch the spelling, should have been "Barely up to your knees".
See the article, such preservation laws already exist in Belize but since the land was still privately owned the landowner must have made a decision to dispose of the relic.
I'll admit that I live in Canada and have only visited the States. IN both of these places insurance liabiltiy plays a great role in how people make decisions.
When I was a boy parks had the shallow pools that were filled in the summer. Barley up to your knees if you were 6 years old. Due to liability concerns these are not used any longer. They are unused except as a place for teens to sit at night, drink and break the glass bottle in.
According to the article such laws are already in place but it didn't stop this from happening. It was on private land and the landowner for want of cash sold the gravel or for want of another use of the land had it cleared.
It's going to be very interesting to follow as everyone points to someone else and says I just did what he told me to do.
Okay, the pyramid was on privately owned land. Time to check and see what the land owner wanted to do with the land that the pyramid was getting in the way of. Or, perhaps he was just concerned that all these tourists were coming to this pyramid and he wasn't getting anything out of it. And the insurance liability, Suppose someone were climbing around on this thing and fell, even if they were illegal trespassers would he be responsible? There are a number of very good legal reasons why he's want to have this hazard removed. On top of that, I understand the price of gravel is very high these days.
As much as I hate the idea of expropriating land from private owners, if you want to really preserve these sorts of things you've got to remove them from private ownership and recompense the land owner either with money or a swap of some new land of equal value. As long as these sorts of things are in private ownership, this will continue.
That was the Canadian Conservative party's stand on their internet surveillance bill. If you didn't support their attempt to pass unwarranted internet surveillance in Canada then you must be a child pornographer. That didn't go well at all for poor old Vic Toews.
Of course, I do wonder sometimes if these guys trying to pass these laws now realize what a tyranny they are setting up for their own children or grandchildren in the future. I imagine that they think that their families will be exempt from any such surveillance. If they somehow are then everyone else is well justified in their vigourous protests of such laws.