Seriously, what bws11 said. Get a damned mirror. You can mount it on the handlebar. You can mount some on your helmet. There are options for seeing behind you without biking the wrong way, putting yourself at more of a risk of collision than if you were riding normally.
Snide comments aside, when will humanity learn that "but I was here first" means exactly jack when it comes to land claims.
Fun quote from The Lion in Winter: Henry II: The Vexin's mine. Philip II: By what authority? Henry II: It's got my troops all over it; that makes it mine.
Remember We do these things because they are hard?
Not particularly, and that was never the case anyway. It was always a space race, an attempt to beat Cold War enemies. With that rationale gone, NASA lost much of its support.
I'd love to know which ones. In Wisconsin, where I live, I see people FREQUENTLY getting 4th through 8th DUIs, and I can't help but wonder why the cops are so fucking terrible at keeping these people off the streets(or, you know, doing their job at all). I quickly realized that they don't WANT these people off the streets, as they use it as a revenue generator.
I feel for the cops on the street, chances are they have no say whether your driver's license gets suspended/revoked or not.
Oof. I'm not sure where you live, but where I live, it's just... a common convention that left-turners creep out into the street, ready for an opening. If the light turns fully red and they're still there (which sometimes happens because sometimes jerks run yellow lights even when left-turners are in the intersection, avoid doing that), other people wait for the intersection to clear before heading through. Occasionally you'll get someone directly following that left-turner right through the red light, because apparently it's OK if you're directly following a person going through the intersection.
This is just... convention, how people treat those situations in a major metropolitan area in the US, not just the sticks. I'm sure other regions will do things differently.
So "don't wear short skirts" is a good safety tip after news of a rape?
In dangerous areas, maybe it is. Don't wear provocative clothing while walking alone through a bad neighborhood. I don't leave $100 bills on the passenger seat of my car if I park in a place with a high break-in rate (or anywhere, really). Most car stereos come with detachable face-plates so people can put them in the glove compartment and hide the fact they have a mid-high-end stereo system to discourage break-ins. Is that a statement from the stereo manufacturers saying "fuck you, you deserved to get stolen from?" No, it's an acknowledgement that sometimes it's safer when miscreants are around to avoid dangling temptation. Unless, like, you're Batman and you can totally protect yourself. Because "but I have the right to wear nice clothes" means nothing after you've been raped. If you can, avoid the rape in the first place.
This is a weird argument that comes up in so many strange circumstances. "Are you saying if he didn't lock his front door in the city, he deserved that someone walk away with his TV?" "Are you saying if she wore a short skirt she deserved to get raped?" "Are you saying if he rode a bike across traffic in black clothes and no lights he deserved to get hit by a car?" I'm saying none of those things. But it is an acknowledgement that the real world does not work on pure ideal, and that people do have to be aware of risks and adjust their behavior appropriately. What we do in a perfect world can never match the real world.
Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is both illegal and dangerous.
It depends in the situation. I've been in situations before where there was an intersection or road junction where traffic moves fast and there's no shoulder and riding on the sidewalk was the safer option. Do I slow way down? Sure, down to walking speed if walkers are around. I've learned to avoid such locations completely, but if you aren't in the area, taking a quick sidewalk detour -can- be a lot safer than the road. "Can," because some idiots ride unsafely on the sidewalk; sadly there's no hope for them.
. Even if you take precautions you can't avoid any act of negligence!
Dammit, sometimes I wish you could edit your own posts. Preview all you want, sometimes you won't catch typos until minutes later. That SHOULD read "Even if you take precautions you can't avoid EVERY act of negligence."
And as a followup, this is why I hate biking at night and avoid it when I can, or choose quiet streets with little to no traffic where any cars coming to, from, or across can be seen with plenty of time.
I did once run into a car about a year ago when a car in the lane left of me made a right turn across a bike lane into a driveway. His excuse? "But I had my right blinker on!" As if that excuses cutting across a lane of oncoming traffic. Even if you take precautions you can't avoid any act of negligence! But hopefully you can avoid most of them.
But, something to consider, even without lights and a reflector, a cyclist is not invisible. Hard to see, yeah, not invisible
As a regular driver and a regular biker, I can see both sides. First, I know a lot of bicylists do some truly stupid things, like not stopping at stop signs even when cross-traffic is approaching. When biking I tend not to stop completely at stop lights (though I slow down) when I don't see cars coming, because I hate starting from a cold stop. And as a driver, I know how difficult it can be to see a bicyclist dressed all in black at night in the rain when my car's headlights aren't on high-beams. Sure, I won't hit them when they're biking on the side of the road out of direct traffic. Even if they were in the middle of a lane I wouldn't hit them. But I have almost hit bicyclists with my car (hell, sometimes with my bike!) when they crossed a road at night while wearing dark clothes and said intersection had no lights. Even if you have a cross-walk, if you have no lights, there's no guarantee. You don't see someone like that, even when you look, until they pass before your headlights! Once they're in front of me? Oh sure, of course I can see them. But they might pass right in front of me and it would be too late. Has it ever happened that a cyclist passes before me and I haven't been able to stop? Thank heavens, no. But there have been close calls when someone naively road across the street right in front of me.
Remember, as a cyclist, protect yourself. Rules of the road? Right of way? All of that is bullshit that doesn't matter if the driver doesn't notice you, because a car/truck will beat a bike every time. Who will come out the worse in such a collision? Being in a full-body cast in the hospital and saying "but I had the right of way" will be no comfort. Be defensive and bike defensively yielding the right of way to anyone that you're not sure can see you.
To brag to the world he holds no controversial opinions, does no activism, thinks nothing more about fitting into his sister's jeans, foodie obsessions, and the latest pop culture trends and celebrities he worships. Of course the implication is that everyone else is doing bad things, and he's naturually better.
I don't think it's quite that, that's setting himself apart from most others. It's not that everyone else is doing bad things, the belief is that almost nobody else is doing bad things, so why would they care?
The people who usually chime in about "what do I care if the government sees X, Y, and Z?" have the attitude that what they do is normal, what they do is what everyone else does, and if you have different leanings or fears then you're the weird one and probably deserve greater scrutiny.
Snowden did that for them. The idiot really didn't know when to shut up. I think most people thought the initial revelation was good, as in, it was good we know about it. Everything since that point has been reprehensible though.
Afghanistan was hardly some innocent party to invasion. The Taliban were in full control at the time, and they directly aided and abetted terrorists who attacked the United States, then continue to harbor them after warnings.
Iraq as far as I could tell was a combination of the biggest "wishful thinking" mistake in history and war profiteering.
Probably more accurate to call them "the first to settle here." These days, "native Americans" and "european settlers" are equally as native to the area as the other.
Have you considered the long term consequence of making teaching a non-viable economic option?
Becoming a teacher is fine. Blowing 90k on a student loan to become a teacher** is not.
The only time you should spend that sort of money on loans is when you have a high likelihood of getting a very high salary afterwards.
**"Teacher" is a vague word here... are we talking elementary? High school? College PHD? The latter is a bit different, as PHDs are usually expected to do more than teach. It might not even by their primary role.
The internet is becoming "app-ified" because users want their websites to do more, to load faster, to not have "flicker" whenever the page has to change something... The "old way" of websites is as dead as Geocities, because if we web developers actually designed them that way, our users/clients would never be happy.
Load faster? In either case your internet connection is going to be the bottleneck as you're waiting for data to load...
I think he meant "load faster" as in "when I change something, it only has to download the 20k of changes rather than the whole 200k of javascript webpage." Not load faster as in "there's not a huge amount of code, it's a clean static page that is only 20k large in the first place.
You're right. It was meant for everyone. The ultimate expression of democracy, and freedom of information... not parasites like you who are only interested in money and your own selfish desires.
And who is going to PAY for it? Who is going to pony up the cash that it takes? Things take money and/or time, which is also money.
The problem are the internet designers who insist users "experience" things how they intend, and so accessibility has to go. Users are treated either as customers or as viewers of their artistic creations, and thus they are not allowed to modify how the site is presented. I'd much rather that web do less "useful stuff" and more presenting content.
A very big problem is that the web is much less presentation of information now, and more like cable TV and radio -- there is a veneer of site information surrounded by and supported by advertising that actually keeps the site operational. Everything is about assisting advertising, and there's just enough usefulness in the site to keep people there rather than going to a competitor.
If you don't like what HTML, CSS, etc model and want your stuff to behave like an application... then write a fucking application instead!... and get the hell off my lawn, too.
Using what? The days of a random site writing native apps are gone. Many people have rightfully been conditioned to not download executables from web sites. Most people have Java plugins installed but wouldn't know how to run a standalone Java app. Developers don't want to write applications for Windows/Mac/Linux(if you're lucky), nor should they, when they have this easy, cross-platform framework that works on every machine with a new-ish web browser.
The requirements are that the user shouldn't have to download or install anything and the developers shouldn't have to write more than one version of it. These two are very important and go far to explain why the web has become what it is. It also explains why Flash has become so dominant in the field of video presentation. HTML/CSS/Javascript becoming an app platform fulfills a real NEED on the part of developers and users. Maybe there should be something better, maybe it would be far better to have a system like Java that was designed from the ground up for this. But it's what we have now.
Well if the JS is just manipulating the DOM (as is the most common case) it should be as good or bad as the average web page
Depends. A lot of sites seem to get built these days that assume the user has a way to trigger onmouseover events. This isn't necessarily true.
This is true but is fortunately less and less common now. Tablets and smart phones are taking over web browsing, and sites often need either a dedicated mobile version or to make their regular version not mouse-dependent. So it's a problem that is annoying now, but I can't see it getting any worse.
Slashdot Mirror
People die all the time in all sectors.
What???
Seriously, what bws11 said. Get a damned mirror. You can mount it on the handlebar. You can mount some on your helmet. There are options for seeing behind you without biking the wrong way, putting yourself at more of a risk of collision than if you were riding normally.
Snide comments aside, when will humanity learn that "but I was here first" means exactly jack when it comes to land claims.
Fun quote from The Lion in Winter:
Henry II: The Vexin's mine.
Philip II: By what authority?
Henry II: It's got my troops all over it; that makes it mine.
Remember We do these things because they are hard?
Not particularly, and that was never the case anyway. It was always a space race, an attempt to beat Cold War enemies. With that rationale gone, NASA lost much of its support.
I'd love to know which ones. In Wisconsin, where I live, I see people FREQUENTLY getting 4th through 8th DUIs, and I can't help but wonder why the cops are so fucking terrible at keeping these people off the streets(or, you know, doing their job at all). I quickly realized that they don't WANT these people off the streets, as they use it as a revenue generator.
I feel for the cops on the street, chances are they have no say whether your driver's license gets suspended/revoked or not.
KKK hoods are stylish, but they really reduce your peripheral vision which can be a real problem when riding a bike.
Oof. I'm not sure where you live, but where I live, it's just... a common convention that left-turners creep out into the street, ready for an opening. If the light turns fully red and they're still there (which sometimes happens because sometimes jerks run yellow lights even when left-turners are in the intersection, avoid doing that), other people wait for the intersection to clear before heading through. Occasionally you'll get someone directly following that left-turner right through the red light, because apparently it's OK if you're directly following a person going through the intersection.
This is just... convention, how people treat those situations in a major metropolitan area in the US, not just the sticks. I'm sure other regions will do things differently.
So "don't wear short skirts" is a good safety tip after news of a rape?
In dangerous areas, maybe it is. Don't wear provocative clothing while walking alone through a bad neighborhood. I don't leave $100 bills on the passenger seat of my car if I park in a place with a high break-in rate (or anywhere, really). Most car stereos come with detachable face-plates so people can put them in the glove compartment and hide the fact they have a mid-high-end stereo system to discourage break-ins. Is that a statement from the stereo manufacturers saying "fuck you, you deserved to get stolen from?" No, it's an acknowledgement that sometimes it's safer when miscreants are around to avoid dangling temptation. Unless, like, you're Batman and you can totally protect yourself. Because "but I have the right to wear nice clothes" means nothing after you've been raped. If you can, avoid the rape in the first place.
This is a weird argument that comes up in so many strange circumstances. "Are you saying if he didn't lock his front door in the city, he deserved that someone walk away with his TV?" "Are you saying if she wore a short skirt she deserved to get raped?" "Are you saying if he rode a bike across traffic in black clothes and no lights he deserved to get hit by a car?" I'm saying none of those things. But it is an acknowledgement that the real world does not work on pure ideal, and that people do have to be aware of risks and adjust their behavior appropriately. What we do in a perfect world can never match the real world.
Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is both illegal and dangerous.
It depends in the situation. I've been in situations before where there was an intersection or road junction where traffic moves fast and there's no shoulder and riding on the sidewalk was the safer option. Do I slow way down? Sure, down to walking speed if walkers are around. I've learned to avoid such locations completely, but if you aren't in the area, taking a quick sidewalk detour -can- be a lot safer than the road. "Can," because some idiots ride unsafely on the sidewalk; sadly there's no hope for them.
. Even if you take precautions you can't avoid any act of negligence!
Dammit, sometimes I wish you could edit your own posts. Preview all you want, sometimes you won't catch typos until minutes later. That SHOULD read "Even if you take precautions you can't avoid EVERY act of negligence."
And as a followup, this is why I hate biking at night and avoid it when I can, or choose quiet streets with little to no traffic where any cars coming to, from, or across can be seen with plenty of time.
I did once run into a car about a year ago when a car in the lane left of me made a right turn across a bike lane into a driveway. His excuse? "But I had my right blinker on!" As if that excuses cutting across a lane of oncoming traffic. Even if you take precautions you can't avoid any act of negligence! But hopefully you can avoid most of them.
But, something to consider, even without lights and a reflector, a cyclist is not invisible. Hard to see, yeah, not invisible
As a regular driver and a regular biker, I can see both sides. First, I know a lot of bicylists do some truly stupid things, like not stopping at stop signs even when cross-traffic is approaching. When biking I tend not to stop completely at stop lights (though I slow down) when I don't see cars coming, because I hate starting from a cold stop. And as a driver, I know how difficult it can be to see a bicyclist dressed all in black at night in the rain when my car's headlights aren't on high-beams. Sure, I won't hit them when they're biking on the side of the road out of direct traffic. Even if they were in the middle of a lane I wouldn't hit them. But I have almost hit bicyclists with my car (hell, sometimes with my bike!) when they crossed a road at night while wearing dark clothes and said intersection had no lights. Even if you have a cross-walk, if you have no lights, there's no guarantee. You don't see someone like that, even when you look, until they pass before your headlights! Once they're in front of me? Oh sure, of course I can see them. But they might pass right in front of me and it would be too late. Has it ever happened that a cyclist passes before me and I haven't been able to stop? Thank heavens, no. But there have been close calls when someone naively road across the street right in front of me.
Remember, as a cyclist, protect yourself. Rules of the road? Right of way? All of that is bullshit that doesn't matter if the driver doesn't notice you, because a car/truck will beat a bike every time. Who will come out the worse in such a collision? Being in a full-body cast in the hospital and saying "but I had the right of way" will be no comfort. Be defensive and bike defensively yielding the right of way to anyone that you're not sure can see you.
To brag to the world he holds no controversial opinions, does no activism, thinks nothing more about fitting into his sister's jeans, foodie obsessions, and the latest pop culture trends and celebrities he worships. Of course the implication is that everyone else is doing bad things, and he's naturually better.
I don't think it's quite that, that's setting himself apart from most others. It's not that everyone else is doing bad things, the belief is that almost nobody else is doing bad things, so why would they care?
The people who usually chime in about "what do I care if the government sees X, Y, and Z?" have the attitude that what they do is normal, what they do is what everyone else does, and if you have different leanings or fears then you're the weird one and probably deserve greater scrutiny.
The media did their job to discredit snowden
Snowden did that for them. The idiot really didn't know when to shut up.
I think most people thought the initial revelation was good, as in, it was good we know about it. Everything since that point has been reprehensible though.
Afghanistan was hardly some innocent party to invasion. The Taliban were in full control at the time, and they directly aided and abetted terrorists who attacked the United States, then continue to harbor them after warnings.
Iraq as far as I could tell was a combination of the biggest "wishful thinking" mistake in history and war profiteering.
Iraq mostly. Afghanistan definitely not.
You have no fucking idea? Really?
Probably more accurate to call them "the first to settle here."
These days, "native Americans" and "european settlers" are equally as native to the area as the other.
Have you considered the long term consequence of making teaching a non-viable economic option?
Becoming a teacher is fine. Blowing 90k on a student loan to become a teacher** is not.
The only time you should spend that sort of money on loans is when you have a high likelihood of getting a very high salary afterwards.
**"Teacher" is a vague word here... are we talking elementary? High school? College PHD? The latter is a bit different, as PHDs are usually expected to do more than teach. It might not even by their primary role.
Load faster? In either case your internet connection is going to be the bottleneck as you're waiting for data to load...
I think he meant "load faster" as in "when I change something, it only has to download the 20k of changes rather than the whole 200k of javascript webpage." Not load faster as in "there's not a huge amount of code, it's a clean static page that is only 20k large in the first place.
You're right. It was meant for everyone. The ultimate expression of democracy, and freedom of information... not parasites like you who are only interested in money and your own selfish desires.
And who is going to PAY for it? Who is going to pony up the cash that it takes? Things take money and/or time, which is also money.
The problem are the internet designers who insist users "experience" things how they intend, and so accessibility has to go. Users are treated either as customers or as viewers of their artistic creations, and thus they are not allowed to modify how the site is presented. I'd much rather that web do less "useful stuff" and more presenting content.
A very big problem is that the web is much less presentation of information now, and more like cable TV and radio -- there is a veneer of site information surrounded by and supported by advertising that actually keeps the site operational. Everything is about assisting advertising, and there's just enough usefulness in the site to keep people there rather than going to a competitor.
If you don't like what HTML, CSS, etc model and want your stuff to behave like an application... then write a fucking application instead! ... and get the hell off my lawn, too.
Using what? The days of a random site writing native apps are gone. Many people have rightfully been conditioned to not download executables from web sites. Most people have Java plugins installed but wouldn't know how to run a standalone Java app. Developers don't want to write applications for Windows/Mac/Linux(if you're lucky), nor should they, when they have this easy, cross-platform framework that works on every machine with a new-ish web browser.
The requirements are that the user shouldn't have to download or install anything and the developers shouldn't have to write more than one version of it. These two are very important and go far to explain why the web has become what it is. It also explains why Flash has become so dominant in the field of video presentation.
HTML/CSS/Javascript becoming an app platform fulfills a real NEED on the part of developers and users. Maybe there should be something better, maybe it would be far better to have a system like Java that was designed from the ground up for this. But it's what we have now.
Well if the JS is just manipulating the DOM (as is the most common case) it should be as good or bad as the average web page
Depends. A lot of sites seem to get built these days that assume the user has a way to trigger onmouseover events. This isn't necessarily true.
This is true but is fortunately less and less common now. Tablets and smart phones are taking over web browsing, and sites often need either a dedicated mobile version or to make their regular version not mouse-dependent. So it's a problem that is annoying now, but I can't see it getting any worse.
I just hope TV Tropes is fixed soon. :D
Are there still security issues with having JS enabled?
Better question: Are there web sites that are usable without JavaScript? I don't think I have seen one in years.
With reduced functionality, most of them of are still usable. The UI isn't as nice, but gmail still works. Ditto for most content sites.