"Which is why I laugh when the rabid pro nucers go on about "safe, modern reactor" designs"
Ironically you have an attitude that shows exactly why we haven't built newer safe design.
nice circular logic, like most green idiots
Brilliant, simply brilliant. Despite your being magically able to determine everything about me from one post, I - dear coward - am pro nuclear, and you - dear coward - are exactly the sort of asshole that makes adopting nuclear less likely, as you trumpet the 100 percent failed drivel that has made people suspicious of any pro nuc people.
So let's pick apart your fscking stupid reply in context. I specifically wrote that in Fukushima the problems were not caused by the reactor, they were cause by stupid decisions to build a reactor in a place and in a form that made it impossible not to fail eventually. The seawalls were going to be breached - historical accounts and measurements of debris left at the high water marks of previous Tsunamis are sufficient proof of that. Second, once the seawalls were breached, the emergency power supplies were going to fail, as they were located in an area hwere the breaching sea water was going to settle.
So a prudent person is - by way of looking at the past - making a pretty good assumption that if the bean counters and planners and site selection groups are so cavalier and imprudent as to set up a situation that simply will fail, well, a prudent person kinda figures that someone has to be prudent. Any you simply end up as evidence of the type of people who shouldn't be in the decision processes, either via lack of reading ability, lack of understanding of systems, or a "some men just want to watch the world burn" mentality.
It's almost like the rich want to keep reminding the rest of us that we shouldn't complain because it could be made much, much worse for us (e.g., we could be made to 'fall off the ladder', and end up jailed, in essence, for being jobless and homeless -- so you'd better keep your 'proper' place).
Might as well post it here.......
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge. "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge. "Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.
The hatchet job does not appear to take into account the effect that plant life in the dammed water has in terms of CO2, compared to the trees and vegetation that once stood there. What do they think happens to the carbon in trees and vegetation on dry land as they constantly die and rot?
This. Oh bolshy yarblockos, this.
It isn't like living plants will never die, so it is a null situation. The impact of hydropower dams is significant, but the concept that they somehow increase CO2 and or methane is in the same camp as Ronald Reagan telling us that trees emit CO2 ( not to mention oxygen, which he didn't) so AGW proponents should demand all trees be cut down.
Any short term release of gases will be followed by a period of less release. Then a new normal state is reached.
Fukushima was a complete lack of following best practices.
That is obvious in hindsight. But before the tsunami, pro-nukes were saying Chernobyl was a fluke event with unique circumstances, and that it couldn't happen again.
Every event is a "fluke" for the rabid pro-nukers. And let's make no mistake, Fukushima was not a failure of the reactors - at least not at first. It was a failure of a seawall that was built too low for expected and easily researched historical Tsunami levels. Then it was a failure of a emergency generator system that was emplaced in an area where the easily predictable seawall breached Tsunami waters would end up, then even though by this time sort of iffy as to whether it would have helped - a power connector mismatch.
Even the basic siting of Fukushima is suspect. Given that the eastern side of Japan is a hotspot for big Tsunamis, putting a reactor that near the beach was suicidal. With basic internet research, I "found" a safer site along a river inland and above the reach of any historical level Tsunami. And it would have fresh water for emergency cooling, rather than salt water that will poison a reactor if used in an emergency situation.
Which is why I laugh when the rabid pro nucers go on about "safe, modern reactor" designs. While these designs have improved, humans haven't.
As long as bean counters, and deadline driven management can over-ride decisions regarding safety, there are so many places that non-reactor events can destroy the reactor that we have to come up with a different way of siting and building these things. And if these folks are driven by agendas that have them emplace the reactors in places where they simply will fail, then there are many more problems than reactor design.
Oh please, I get Windows systems to fix after every update.
And I just ran do-release-upgrade on a 15.05 LTS version of Ubuntu linux rendering many applications unusable and requiring quite a bit of work to get the machine back to a usable state. What's your point again?
My point is that no one has ever had any problem with upgrading Windows. Right? A 100 percent upgrade success rate. And allow me to take your approach. If you upgraded Linux and had problems...
It...
IS...
ALL
Your...
Fault,
Seriousy fellow, I have no idea how you have so many problems upgrading or using Linux, anyone who knows whether their ass is punched or bored, can make it work, so don't blame your problems on Linux. Blame it on Linux software writers, or your own personal inability.
After all, what is good for the Windows Goose, is likewise applicable to the Linux Gander.
And for what it is worth, I conosider what I wrote as equally ridiculous as what you wrote.P
the difference? I don't believe what I wrote in sarcasm. However you are as convinced as a person could be.
It must be quite a feat of mental gymnastics to demand that everything somehow change for the better while everything remains the same. A three year old might find this idea reasonable, but grown men and women?
And Bulletproof and Windows never belong in the same sentence.
What OS does bullet proof belong in a sentence with? Name an OS that can prevent a client application from crashing due to being poorly coded?
Windows doesn't crash itself. At least I haven't heard of a case of windows spontaneously stopping for shits and giggles since the 49.7 day bug of Windows 95/98. Windows is only typically brought down by poorly coded drivers, poorly coded software, or failing hardware, all of which should be under tight control on medical equipment anyway.
Oh please, I get Windows systems to fix after every update. It doesn't take a BSOD to render an application unusable.
If you aren't the absolute proof of the ultimate Windows shill, there is none. Jesus dude, Let us just hope that you never go for a medical procedure, the Windows based computer fucks up, you suffer and die.
With your last breath, and on your tombstone, you'll want everyone to know "This was NOT Window's fault!!
For you see, my dear chachalaca, you go apeshit nuts, fearing that I disparage your precious Operating system, when I'm saying that not one, not any, not in a million years, should a life critical ever be connected in any way, any form, any remote chance of connecting to the internet.
Windows or otherwise. And as Windows based systems are compromised in hospitals all over the country, rest easy that it is never their fault. Perhaps its time that Hospitals shift to Operating systems that accept some accountability.
Windows OS is not designed for hard realtime constraints or other life-critical systems and says as much. So, no. Windows is not at fault because it is being given responsibilities it was not intended to have.
From that standpoint, yes. That becomes a decision making process. Who decided to make Hospital networks and life critical applications so Windows centric?
And what does Microsoft know about them using it that way?
That might be the most liability exposure decision ever made, as we see that Hospitals, which have made their networked systems the forerunners of the Internet of things - are being held for ransom quite often these days.
Why can't we use bulletproof and Windows in the same sentence? According to the report it was the AV scanner that caused the application to crash. The PC was then required to be rebooted for the application to start working correctly.
It's time to throw all of the software vendors under the bus now.
Seriously, without trying to be a smartass, whether the operating system is at fault, or the people who write software for it are at fault, it makes for a whole system that simply is going to fail.
Because people have been sold on the concept that everything has to be on the internet. So the system better have AV software on it. So we end up with little "Oopsies" that may occur at any time.
And because it's a whole lot easier to figure out the inevitable failures after they happen than to test every possible situation before they do.
Of course you are 100 percent correct. Unfortunately, reality does not agree with you. A lot of places are using life critical applications with an operating system not ever supposed to be used that way. Since Windows can never fail, and all failures are anyone eles's fault but Windows, I have no idea why Microsoft didn't make them sign a document absolving them of any responsibility when it did fail.
Because like it or not, Windows systems which have the not Microsoft's fault - ever - failures all of the time. So is it that Micorsoft is so awesome, so perfect, or are the fanbois throwing all of h e Windows software writers iunder the bus?
It should never be used fo rlife critical applications - ever.
Troll I may be, but sometimes the truth is a Poe Troll.
Based upon the available information, the cause for the reported event was due to the customer not following instructions concerning the installation of anti-virus software; therefore, there is no indication that the reported event was related to product malfunction or defect.
Fact is, this is exactly what you are going to get when using a Windows based system. You assume at the beginning that all problems are your fault, and that you must anticipate everything.
Based upon experience, they were also at fault because they were using Windows. Never at fault is the Windows operating system.
For what? This was an antivirus scan and the report itself doesn't mention an OS. Furthermore, this crash brought down the whole system. If developers are writing their software to utilize drivers, they ought to make sure those drivers aren't so buggy that the mere stopping of data will tank the entire system...especially a system that should be as close to "bulletproof" as bulletproof can be in the technological sense of the word.
Windows can never fail - only we can fail Windows.
And Bulletproof and Windows never belong in the same sentence.
Sex - It's like ethanol and cannabis consumption except with a biological imperative. People are going to engage in sex, even have a drive to do it, and not many want to end up like the Duggars. Suppressing it leads to all kinds of whacky stuff.
It's just stating a fact. Speed riding on a two-wheeled vehicle with no crumple zone is stupid, dangerous and exciting, so it's exactly something an adolescent would do. The other major source of healthy young corpses is suicides, but these usually make sure they won't be found while they're fresh.
Looks like the agoraphobia crown has chimed in. If motorcycles make you shit your pants, then don't ride them.
My stupidity or yours is just an opinion, I shar it - you are stupid. I only have the added opinion that you and all the other safety culturists are pretty pathetic. So many people today, live longer lives assisted by medicine, and safety culture, but not many of htem are terribly happy that they are hitting the 90's. And if I had to make a choice between getting obliterated in a "murdercycle" accident, or speding the last 15 years of my life rotting away in a nursing home, I'll take the former any day. Save your money - the nursing home needs it.
Stay safe - It's the most important thing in life!
You missed the cause of all of this: no nationalized healthcare
There is that - I agree wholeheartedly. There is also some incompetency involved. Some years back my mother in law had a TIA - a mini stroke. At the hospital she noted that she was peeing a lot. While talking with the doctor, the doctor expressed concern that my MIL's potassium level was low. I noted that they probably administered a powerful diuretic, because she was urinating a lot, and that was likely the cause of the low potassium level. The number of expressions that flew across the doctor's face were amazing, from the "Who are you to decide that?", to "Oh, shit, he's right!" to finally recomposing herself and agreeing.
My wife then and there decided to post herself and verify everything they did, and found a couple life altering mistakes that almost happened.
And at any rate, among motorcyclists, regarding the topic of accidents, everyone agrees that it is a matter of "when", not "if".
As for expiring, the same goes for everyone else as well.
But just like the school I drove past last summer that had an inspirational sign that read "Have a safe summer!", safety culture has permeated most of us so completely that many people's main goal in life is to not have an accident.
I've already had a motorcycle accident - several if you count the off-road motocross type accidents of my youth. I also twisted my ankle during a hike on Monday. I have no intention of giving up either hiking or motorcycling.
someone once said:
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body,but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW-- What a Ride!"
Slashdot Mirror
It directly answers the question that was asked! A question that was quite personal towards me, I'm sure.
No.
Anyhow, I'm just funning with ya.
"Which is why I laugh when the rabid pro nucers go on about "safe, modern reactor" designs"
Ironically you have an attitude that shows exactly why we haven't built newer safe design.
nice circular logic, like most green idiots
Brilliant, simply brilliant. Despite your being magically able to determine everything about me from one post, I - dear coward - am pro nuclear, and you - dear coward - are exactly the sort of asshole that makes adopting nuclear less likely, as you trumpet the 100 percent failed drivel that has made people suspicious of any pro nuc people.
So let's pick apart your fscking stupid reply in context. I specifically wrote that in Fukushima the problems were not caused by the reactor, they were cause by stupid decisions to build a reactor in a place and in a form that made it impossible not to fail eventually. The seawalls were going to be breached - historical accounts and measurements of debris left at the high water marks of previous Tsunamis are sufficient proof of that. Second, once the seawalls were breached, the emergency power supplies were going to fail, as they were located in an area hwere the breaching sea water was going to settle.
So a prudent person is - by way of looking at the past - making a pretty good assumption that if the bean counters and planners and site selection groups are so cavalier and imprudent as to set up a situation that simply will fail, well, a prudent person kinda figures that someone has to be prudent. Any you simply end up as evidence of the type of people who shouldn't be in the decision processes, either via lack of reading ability, lack of understanding of systems, or a "some men just want to watch the world burn" mentality.
have you noticed that such things need to be a 'top-down' solution
No.
Well, that settles that!
It's almost like the rich want to keep reminding the rest of us that we shouldn't complain because it could be made much, much worse for us (e.g., we could be made to 'fall off the ladder', and end up jailed, in essence, for being jobless and homeless -- so you'd better keep your 'proper' place).
Might as well post it here.......
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge. "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge. "Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.
The hatchet job does not appear to take into account the effect that plant life in the dammed water has in terms of CO2, compared to the trees and vegetation that once stood there. What do they think happens to the carbon in trees and vegetation on dry land as they constantly die and rot?
This. Oh bolshy yarblockos, this.
It isn't like living plants will never die, so it is a null situation. The impact of hydropower dams is significant, but the concept that they somehow increase CO2 and or methane is in the same camp as Ronald Reagan telling us that trees emit CO2 ( not to mention oxygen, which he didn't) so AGW proponents should demand all trees be cut down.
Any short term release of gases will be followed by a period of less release. Then a new normal state is reached.
Fukushima was a complete lack of following best practices.
That is obvious in hindsight. But before the tsunami, pro-nukes were saying Chernobyl was a fluke event with unique circumstances, and that it couldn't happen again.
Every event is a "fluke" for the rabid pro-nukers. And let's make no mistake, Fukushima was not a failure of the reactors - at least not at first. It was a failure of a seawall that was built too low for expected and easily researched historical Tsunami levels. Then it was a failure of a emergency generator system that was emplaced in an area where the easily predictable seawall breached Tsunami waters would end up, then even though by this time sort of iffy as to whether it would have helped - a power connector mismatch.
Even the basic siting of Fukushima is suspect. Given that the eastern side of Japan is a hotspot for big Tsunamis, putting a reactor that near the beach was suicidal. With basic internet research, I "found" a safer site along a river inland and above the reach of any historical level Tsunami. And it would have fresh water for emergency cooling, rather than salt water that will poison a reactor if used in an emergency situation. Which is why I laugh when the rabid pro nucers go on about "safe, modern reactor" designs. While these designs have improved, humans haven't.
As long as bean counters, and deadline driven management can over-ride decisions regarding safety, there are so many places that non-reactor events can destroy the reactor that we have to come up with a different way of siting and building these things. And if these folks are driven by agendas that have them emplace the reactors in places where they simply will fail, then there are many more problems than reactor design.
Oh please, I get Windows systems to fix after every update.
And I just ran do-release-upgrade on a 15.05 LTS version of Ubuntu linux rendering many applications unusable and requiring quite a bit of work to get the machine back to a usable state. What's your point again?
My point is that no one has ever had any problem with upgrading Windows. Right? A 100 percent upgrade success rate. And allow me to take your approach. If you upgraded Linux and had problems...
It...
IS...
ALL
Your ...
Fault,
Seriousy fellow, I have no idea how you have so many problems upgrading or using Linux, anyone who knows whether their ass is punched or bored, can make it work, so don't blame your problems on Linux. Blame it on Linux software writers, or your own personal inability.
After all, what is good for the Windows Goose, is likewise applicable to the Linux Gander.
And for what it is worth, I conosider what I wrote as equally ridiculous as what you wrote.P the difference? I don't believe what I wrote in sarcasm. However you are as convinced as a person could be.
It must be quite a feat of mental gymnastics to demand that everything somehow change for the better while everything remains the same. A three year old might find this idea reasonable, but grown men and women?
And for both a Bill Maher reference and a car analogy, here he is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And it makes good sense.
"Armored cars may have bulletproof windows"
Cymbal crash!
And Bulletproof and Windows never belong in the same sentence.
What OS does bullet proof belong in a sentence with? Name an OS that can prevent a client application from crashing due to being poorly coded? Windows doesn't crash itself. At least I haven't heard of a case of windows spontaneously stopping for shits and giggles since the 49.7 day bug of Windows 95/98. Windows is only typically brought down by poorly coded drivers, poorly coded software, or failing hardware, all of which should be under tight control on medical equipment anyway.
Oh please, I get Windows systems to fix after every update. It doesn't take a BSOD to render an application unusable.
If you aren't the absolute proof of the ultimate Windows shill, there is none. Jesus dude, Let us just hope that you never go for a medical procedure, the Windows based computer fucks up, you suffer and die.
With your last breath, and on your tombstone, you'll want everyone to know "This was NOT Window's fault!!
For you see, my dear chachalaca, you go apeshit nuts, fearing that I disparage your precious Operating system, when I'm saying that not one, not any, not in a million years, should a life critical ever be connected in any way, any form, any remote chance of connecting to the internet.
Windows or otherwise. And as Windows based systems are compromised in hospitals all over the country, rest easy that it is never their fault. Perhaps its time that Hospitals shift to Operating systems that accept some accountability.
Kodos' human suit runs out of power:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And the hands malfunctioned...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Chewbacca defense will be used to get out of having to pay out in any lawsuit from this.
You are pretty good at this stuff!
What about systemd?
Or Pikachu.
I can't believe I'm defending MS, but ...
Windows OS is not designed for hard realtime constraints or other life-critical systems and says as much. So, no. Windows is not at fault because it is being given responsibilities it was not intended to have.
From that standpoint, yes. That becomes a decision making process. Who decided to make Hospital networks and life critical applications so Windows centric?
And what does Microsoft know about them using it that way?
That might be the most liability exposure decision ever made, as we see that Hospitals, which have made their networked systems the forerunners of the Internet of things - are being held for ransom quite often these days.
Why can't we use bulletproof and Windows in the same sentence? According to the report it was the AV scanner that caused the application to crash. The PC was then required to be rebooted for the application to start working correctly.
It's time to throw all of the software vendors under the bus now.
Seriously, without trying to be a smartass, whether the operating system is at fault, or the people who write software for it are at fault, it makes for a whole system that simply is going to fail.
Because people have been sold on the concept that everything has to be on the internet. So the system better have AV software on it. So we end up with little "Oopsies" that may occur at any time.
And because it's a whole lot easier to figure out the inevitable failures after they happen than to test every possible situation before they do.
You're trolling uncontrollably.
Of course you are 100 percent correct. Unfortunately, reality does not agree with you. A lot of places are using life critical applications with an operating system not ever supposed to be used that way. Since Windows can never fail, and all failures are anyone eles's fault but Windows, I have no idea why Microsoft didn't make them sign a document absolving them of any responsibility when it did fail.
Because like it or not, Windows systems which have the not Microsoft's fault - ever - failures all of the time. So is it that Micorsoft is so awesome, so perfect, or are the fanbois throwing all of h e Windows software writers iunder the bus?
It should never be used fo rlife critical applications - ever.
Troll I may be, but sometimes the truth is a Poe Troll.
What about the sentence you typed?
Pork Rinds? That or a Chewbacca coffee mug!
Based upon the available information, the cause for the reported event was due to the customer not following instructions concerning the installation of anti-virus software; therefore, there is no indication that the reported event was related to product malfunction or defect.
Fact is, this is exactly what you are going to get when using a Windows based system. You assume at the beginning that all problems are your fault, and that you must anticipate everything.
Based upon experience, they were also at fault because they were using Windows. Never at fault is the Windows operating system.
For what? This was an antivirus scan and the report itself doesn't mention an OS. Furthermore, this crash brought down the whole system. If developers are writing their software to utilize drivers, they ought to make sure those drivers aren't so buggy that the mere stopping of data will tank the entire system...especially a system that should be as close to "bulletproof" as bulletproof can be in the technological sense of the word.
Windows can never fail - only we can fail Windows.
And Bulletproof and Windows never belong in the same sentence.
Conception has occurred in the laboratory too.
On top of the Van de Graaff generator.
I'm shocked, I tell you!
You might be too young to remember the outcry that surrounded artificial insemination. Unnatural, against god's will and all that shit.
Or birth control: http://www.motherjones.com/med...
Freaky shit.
Sex - It's like ethanol and cannabis consumption except with a biological imperative. People are going to engage in sex, even have a drive to do it, and not many want to end up like the Duggars. Suppressing it leads to all kinds of whacky stuff.
It's just stating a fact. Speed riding on a two-wheeled vehicle with no crumple zone is stupid, dangerous and exciting, so it's exactly something an adolescent would do. The other major source of healthy young corpses is suicides, but these usually make sure they won't be found while they're fresh.
Looks like the agoraphobia crown has chimed in. If motorcycles make you shit your pants, then don't ride them.
My stupidity or yours is just an opinion, I shar it - you are stupid. I only have the added opinion that you and all the other safety culturists are pretty pathetic. So many people today, live longer lives assisted by medicine, and safety culture, but not many of htem are terribly happy that they are hitting the 90's. And if I had to make a choice between getting obliterated in a "murdercycle" accident, or speding the last 15 years of my life rotting away in a nursing home, I'll take the former any day. Save your money - the nursing home needs it.
Stay safe - It's the most important thing in life!
You missed the cause of all of this: no nationalized healthcare
There is that - I agree wholeheartedly. There is also some incompetency involved. Some years back my mother in law had a TIA - a mini stroke. At the hospital she noted that she was peeing a lot. While talking with the doctor, the doctor expressed concern that my MIL's potassium level was low. I noted that they probably administered a powerful diuretic, because she was urinating a lot, and that was likely the cause of the low potassium level. The number of expressions that flew across the doctor's face were amazing, from the "Who are you to decide that?", to "Oh, shit, he's right!" to finally recomposing herself and agreeing.
My wife then and there decided to post herself and verify everything they did, and found a couple life altering mistakes that almost happened.
And at any rate, among motorcyclists, regarding the topic of accidents, everyone agrees that it is a matter of "when", not "if".
As for expiring, the same goes for everyone else as well.
But just like the school I drove past last summer that had an inspirational sign that read "Have a safe summer!", safety culture has permeated most of us so completely that many people's main goal in life is to not have an accident.
I've already had a motorcycle accident - several if you count the off-road motocross type accidents of my youth. I also twisted my ankle during a hike on Monday. I have no intention of giving up either hiking or motorcycling.
someone once said:
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body,but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW-- What a Ride!"
in addition to being a registered organ donor (especially if you ride a motorcycle). Good organs are needed by many living people.
I was 100 percent with you until you wrote the motorcycle bit. Did you go to school to become such a jerk?
Or do non motorcycle riders live forever?
Jerk.