No, because that implies the thing has value, and thus that the price is reasonable, not to mention the obvious fact that shrinkage (fancy retail word for theft) is a major factor in price increases.
So, actually, by stealing it, you're just making the situation much worse in several ways.
Your bicycle has mass, and where the tires meet the road there is friction; while your bike does not cause as much damage to the roads as larger vehicles, to say that it causes no damage is intellectually dishonest at best, and yet another example of your ignorance.
Three strikes already? Damn, and there's so much bigoted, ignorant shit left to point out!
Third, you live in Montana
Yea, no I don't. Geolocation fail.
Your state...
Is not Montana, so whatever you were going to say means precisely dick to me.\
bicycle doesn't cause property damage, injury and death...your car sure as hell does,
Yea, no it doesn't. My truck has never once caused "property damage, injury [or] death," but if you disagree you're welcome to file charges with the local sheriff. Just be prepared for me to sue your ass into oblivion for defamation, oh and spend a little time in prison for filing a false report.
What you probably meant was that my truck has the potential to cause damage where your bicycle cannot, which is obvious bullshit. Bikes hurt/kill people too, when their operators are fucktards (and, judging by your nonsensical and very, very angry posts, you belong in that category).
hick.
Yea, real reasonable, adult response there. You sure you don't want to make a crack about my mother while you're at it, you bigoted fuck?
Shit, operating 2 tons of explosive-powered steel on a public street is dangerous, evidenced by the fact that motorists die in crashes every single day.
It should be. It seems to have to do with the cognitive process some drivers go through,at a guess. I would ride where a bike is supposed to be, would light up like a Christmas tree at night, and cars would *still* not see me. I had one guy make a right hand turn directly in front of me. Visually, in terms of photons bouncing off me, I could not have been more visible. The guy just drove right past me, then directly across my path. There was nothing preventing him seeing me, yet, still he didn't. ( and there are other incidents like this that inform my opinion on this... )
If it makes you feel any better, that happens to motorists a lot as well - idiot flies past in the left lane, zips right in front of you, then slams on his brakes (and, of course, doesn't hit his turn signal until he's pretty much done turning).
The major difference being, obviously, that I'm a lot more likely to survive the ordeal in my truck than I would if I were on a bicycle, but it still pisses me off.
I agree completely. There are many "cyclists" that I would like to make it so they are not allowed to ride any more. Course, there are a good number of car drivers I would extend the same privilege to...
I'm a firm believer that if we were as strict with driving requirements as we probably should be, the vast majority of vehicle operators would be permanently relegated to public transportation.
I presume, based on the anger and pre-judgement evident in your post, that I'm wasting time, but what the hell:
No, "a lot" of cyclists don't have deathwishes nor are they stupid.
Never said that; I said a lot of the cyclists around here are morons with a deathwish. [Insert smart-ass remark about Parent failing geography class here]
The vast majority of cyclist crashes are caused by drivers operating recklessly or illegally.
Yea, sure they are, that's why you provided stats to back your claim. Oh, wait, no you didn't, you're just engaging in the exact same biased presumptions that you accuse me of. Nice work, dude.
And what right-of-way laws would those be, by the way?
Uh, if you're operating a vehicle on a public street as you seem to be claiming you do, you should know them yourself...
But I'm trying to be the nice guy here, so I'll help out: the right of way laws that have existed since the first time 2 cars met on an intersecting street: use of turn signals, respecting stop lights and signs, not driving on the sidewalk, yielding to faster-moving traffic, etc. Otherwise, check your local and state ordinances, as these will vary (where I live, bicycles are legally considered motor vehicles, and thus subject to the same laws; YMMV).
If it makes you feel any better, I've seen motorists do all of those as well, however that does not excuse the cyclists I also see breaking the same laws.
Let me guess: you think that you have a right of way over someone on a bicycle, right? Yeah, you don't, actually.
Remember what I said earlier about biased presumptions? Perfect example right here.
FYI, do you think, as a cyclist, you have a right to block traffic by doing 10 MPH in a 45 MPH zone? Because you don't, any more than a motorist does.
Might I add, it's quite entertaining to watch the intellectual midgets do their mental gymnastics trying to come up with some madman's nightmare of a circumstance where inanimate objects take on a life of their own and start harming people.
Honestly, I'm surprised none of them have mentioned Skynet...
Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: imagine an enraged spouse abuser sitting on the floor of an empty room next to a spouse and a spilled glass of milk. Try to think of all the ways the abuser can cause harm to the spouse.
Now give the abuser a gun and repeat the experiment
None of that has anything to do with the original supposition that guns are inherently dangerous all by themselves.
Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: imagine a [gun, hand grenade, flamethrower, mortar, nuclear warhead, baseball bat] sitting on the floor in the middle of a room. Now, try to think of all the ways that thing could cause harm to someone, without their direct intervention.
Let me know if you come up with anything better than, "someone might trip over it."
Glad to know you finally see the light - the vast majority of inanimate objects are inherently harmless, until someone or something interacts with them and makes them harmful.
Why you have to be such a childish dick about it, the world may never know.
P.S. you still haven't answered my question: what, exactly, is the reason that "not everyone is allowed to handle" c4 and hand grenades?
I presume I will never get the straight answer I seek, judging by the ignorance and vitriol exhibited in your previous posts.
who is better a CEO who wants a new BMW or the GOV?
The CEO, sadly, because he knows he has to convince me to give him my dollars.
The GOV will just take them by threat of violence.
LoL,
Don't pay our extortionate rates and you dont get health care. That isn't convincing, that's the same kind of coercion you accuse the govt of.
Idealistically, that attitude shouldn't fly because of free market economics - other companies would be available that provide better coverage at a fair rate, and companies that take the attitude you describe would not be long for this world.
Of course, with all the price fixing and collusion in the insurance business, that's not how things actually work right now, and IMO it's one of the major obstacles to affordable health care.
The difference is the government has to pretend to appease the people once every 3-4 years.
FTFY. It's not really 'appeasement' when there is no notable difference between the old boss and the new boss.
Caveat: I refer to the American government. YMMV abroad.
Now I'm from Australia, I pay $1350 in the Medicare levy (socialised medicine, the levy is 1.5% of my income) and another $850 for better hospital cover. So a total of $2200 for top hospital cover PER YEAR.
I find that a perfectly reasonable cost.
In the US a single person younger than me can expect to pay US$700-800 PER MONTH for average care.
Usually more, and if you smoke or have a pre-existing condition, you could very well be looking at over $10,000/yr just for healthcare. For a lot of 20-somethings, 10 grand is about half their annual income (contrary to what the media wants you to believe, very few young Americans make 6 figures working at Google).
The only issue that I have with the system is that because I'm over 30 and earn over the A$84K threshold I have to get private health to avoid extra levy's and surcharges. But I earn $90K a year and pay $2.2K for health care.
I presume that's based on the concept of, "you make enough money to buy your own insurance, so get off the public dole."
Which I completely agree with, especially considering that based on your anecdote you pay less than 5% of your income on healthcare. That's tits, man.
Single payer really does work better because the govt's inefficiency is less of a cost than the private sectors profit motive.
Single payer works in a fair system that isn't corrupted by avarice and greed... which makes me wonder if we could ever pull it off here in the States.
This is why we need separate bicycle paths and lanes separated from other traffic by barriers
Yea, OK, so if you and your cyclists buddies want to get together and raise the money to pay for dedicated bike paths, I'll support using public land to build them.
However, if you're like many of the d-bags around these parts who want their private bike streets paid for with my road and fuel taxes... You can go piss up a rope.
Witnesses told police that the car, a late-1990s or early 2000s model, slowed quickly and swerved before hitting Vidal and continuing north on Hillandale Road.
It certainly sounds like a sad "prank" as you said. WTF?
Depends; did they swerve towards or away from the cyclist? TFA seems to have missed that not-so-minor detail.
My guess is (assuming the driver swerved away) is that the driver didn't see him until it was too late, and tried to avoid by slamming on the binders and swerving.
IMO, That part makes sense, and is perfectly reasonable; The "Oh shit I think I hit that guy so I'm GONE" reaction is where the driver went from "human who made a mistake" to "worthless piece of shit that deserves hard time in fed-max."
I have seen drivers of vehicles in the USA perform an act which looks like a deliberate "nudge" to a random cyclist before driving away at high speed.
If I had an always-on dash-mounted video camera, I would be tempted to post videos of people doing such nonsense.
So sad.
You should - vehicular assault is a serious offence, and if your video can be used to prove malice, those sociopathic pricks will be confined to a cell where they belong.
I've been wanting a dash cam for the opposite reason - a lot of the cyclists around here are either stupid or have a deathwish, judging by how flagrantly they violate right-of-way laws.
Although it may be true that most people do not work to "do good" they do tend to avoid work they consider manifest wickedness.
I'd believe that if not for all the people working for tobacco companies.
Not everyone considers smoking tobacco to be 'manifest wickedness,' you know.
Smokers, for example.
Actually, I don't know many smokers that actually DO think smoking tobacco is a Good Thing after a few years of it.
I never said they would.
FYI, there is quite a bit of grey area between "thinks it's the Devil Incarnate" and "thinks it's the BESTESTES THING EVAAAAAR!!!" For example, I'm not a big fan of welfare for lazy fucks and dopers, but I support it because it beats the alternative of crazy-high crime and incarceration rates.
Knowing what we know about tobacco in this day and age, anyone who can work in the industry and feel like they are doing something they can be proud of is probably a certifiable psychopath.
What, you don't think having a job where you know you are helping people live their lives in free liberty is something to be proud of? Are you sure you aren't the sociopath here? BTW, I've heard the exact same argument made about people who work in the firearms industry, and it's a bullshit cop-out in both situations - nothing more than a pathetic attempt by assholes with agendas to demonize and marginalize activities they choose to be against.
For the record, I smoke (a pipe); I make the choice to do so, and I live with the consequences, and FUCK any person who believes that I should not have the right to make that call for myself.
That's the implication. Remember, dude, you're on Slashdot, where most of us actually use the neurons we've been blessed with. If you want to find someone to fall for such an obvious and weak tactic, take your commentary to Yahoo or Huffpo.
I only said that they work the same in your thought experiment.
No, they don't, because as soon as you change the key element (the gun), it becomes a completely different experiment. Can you substitute Arsenic for Carbon in an experiment? Of course not, because they are completely different elements... kind of like guns and explosives.
P.S. you never answered my question: what, exactly, is the reason that "not everyone is allowed to handle" c4 and hand grenades?
Slashdot Mirror
OR! "Steal" it.
No, because that implies the thing has value, and thus that the price is reasonable, not to mention the obvious fact that shrinkage (fancy retail word for theft) is a major factor in price increases.
So, actually, by stealing it, you're just making the situation much worse in several ways.
Dear Richard Allen Black,
Hey, look, someone knows how to look at a profile!
FYI, Captain Assumption, I am in fact not Mr. Black, though I do work for the man. Strike 1.
There's no such thing as a road tax
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_tax -
Road tax, known by various names around the world, is a tax which has to be paid on a motor vehicle before using it on a public road.
Strike 2.
Second, your car (especially if you drive an SUV or pickup) causes wear and tear on the road. My bicycle does not.
http://www.williams.edu/feature-stories/elementary-physics/
Your bicycle has mass, and where the tires meet the road there is friction; while your bike does not cause as much damage to the roads as larger vehicles, to say that it causes no damage is intellectually dishonest at best, and yet another example of your ignorance.
Three strikes already? Damn, and there's so much bigoted, ignorant shit left to point out!
Third, you live in Montana
Yea, no I don't. Geolocation fail.
Your state...
Is not Montana, so whatever you were going to say means precisely dick to me.\
bicycle doesn't cause property damage, injury and death...your car sure as hell does,
Yea, no it doesn't. My truck has never once caused "property damage, injury [or] death," but if you disagree you're welcome to file charges with the local sheriff. Just be prepared for me to sue your ass into oblivion for defamation, oh and spend a little time in prison for filing a false report.
What you probably meant was that my truck has the potential to cause damage where your bicycle cannot, which is obvious bullshit. Bikes hurt/kill people too, when their operators are fucktards (and, judging by your nonsensical and very, very angry posts, you belong in that category).
hick.
Yea, real reasonable, adult response there. You sure you don't want to make a crack about my mother while you're at it, you bigoted fuck?
Shit, operating 2 tons of explosive-powered steel on a public street is dangerous, evidenced by the fact that motorists die in crashes every single day.
She can be presumed to be an idiot if she knows the locals are like that and insists on showing some leg anyhow--or even her face, in some places.
In other words:
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
A no-fault accident is when a biker appears from the side of the road and you can't manage to avoid hitting him.
That's not 'no-fault,' if one of the vehicle operators failed to yield to right-of-way (for example, if one of them blew a stop sign).
I can't speak for anywhere else, but where I live the only place you can have a no-fault accident is in a parking lot.
It should be. It seems to have to do with the cognitive process some drivers go through,at a guess.
I would ride where a bike is supposed to be, would light up like a Christmas tree at night, and cars would *still* not see me.
I had one guy make a right hand turn directly in front of me. Visually, in terms of photons bouncing off me, I could not have been more visible.
The guy just drove right past me, then directly across my path. There was nothing preventing him seeing me, yet, still he didn't.
( and there are other incidents like this that inform my opinion on this... )
If it makes you feel any better, that happens to motorists a lot as well - idiot flies past in the left lane, zips right in front of you, then slams on his brakes (and, of course, doesn't hit his turn signal until he's pretty much done turning).
The major difference being, obviously, that I'm a lot more likely to survive the ordeal in my truck than I would if I were on a bicycle, but it still pisses me off.
I agree completely. There are many "cyclists" that I would like to make it so they are not allowed to ride any more.
Course, there are a good number of car drivers I would extend the same privilege to...
I'm a firm believer that if we were as strict with driving requirements as we probably should be, the vast majority of vehicle operators would be permanently relegated to public transportation.
I presume, based on the anger and pre-judgement evident in your post, that I'm wasting time, but what the hell:
No, "a lot" of cyclists don't have deathwishes nor are they stupid.
Never said that; I said a lot of the cyclists around here are morons with a deathwish. [Insert smart-ass remark about Parent failing geography class here]
The vast majority of cyclist crashes are caused by drivers operating recklessly or illegally.
Yea, sure they are, that's why you provided stats to back your claim. Oh, wait, no you didn't, you're just engaging in the exact same biased presumptions that you accuse me of. Nice work, dude.
And what right-of-way laws would those be, by the way?
Uh, if you're operating a vehicle on a public street as you seem to be claiming you do, you should know them yourself...
But I'm trying to be the nice guy here, so I'll help out: the right of way laws that have existed since the first time 2 cars met on an intersecting street: use of turn signals, respecting stop lights and signs, not driving on the sidewalk, yielding to faster-moving traffic, etc. Otherwise, check your local and state ordinances, as these will vary (where I live, bicycles are legally considered motor vehicles, and thus subject to the same laws; YMMV).
If it makes you feel any better, I've seen motorists do all of those as well, however that does not excuse the cyclists I also see breaking the same laws.
Let me guess: you think that you have a right of way over someone on a bicycle, right? Yeah, you don't, actually.
Remember what I said earlier about biased presumptions? Perfect example right here.
FYI, do you think, as a cyclist, you have a right to block traffic by doing 10 MPH in a 45 MPH zone? Because you don't, any more than a motorist does.
the amount of times I almost got hit by [a cyclist] while crossing the street is just nuts.
Hmm, sounds like a great reason to start carrying a walking stick...
'Oh, did my cane get tangled up in your spokes? Guess you'll think of that next time you're about to illegally drive through a crowd, eh?'
Might I add, it's quite entertaining to watch the intellectual midgets do their mental gymnastics trying to come up with some madman's nightmare of a circumstance where inanimate objects take on a life of their own and start harming people.
Honestly, I'm surprised none of them have mentioned Skynet...
Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: imagine an enraged spouse abuser sitting on the floor of an empty room next to a spouse and a spilled glass of milk. Try to think of all the ways the abuser can cause harm to the spouse.
Now give the abuser a gun and repeat the experiment
None of that has anything to do with the original supposition that guns are inherently dangerous all by themselves.
Glad to know you finally see the light - the vast majority of inanimate objects are inherently harmless, until someone or something interacts with them and makes them harmful.
Why you have to be such a childish dick about it, the world may never know.
P.S. you still haven't answered my question: what, exactly, is the reason that "not everyone is allowed to handle" c4 and hand grenades?
I presume I will never get the straight answer I seek, judging by the ignorance and vitriol exhibited in your previous posts.
who is better a CEO who wants a new BMW or the GOV?
The CEO, sadly, because he knows he has to convince me to give him my dollars.
The GOV will just take them by threat of violence.
LoL,
Don't pay our extortionate rates and you dont get health care. That isn't convincing, that's the same kind of coercion you accuse the govt of.
Idealistically, that attitude shouldn't fly because of free market economics - other companies would be available that provide better coverage at a fair rate, and companies that take the attitude you describe would not be long for this world.
Of course, with all the price fixing and collusion in the insurance business, that's not how things actually work right now, and IMO it's one of the major obstacles to affordable health care.
The difference is the government has to pretend to appease the people once every 3-4 years.
FTFY. It's not really 'appeasement' when there is no notable difference between the old boss and the new boss.
Caveat: I refer to the American government. YMMV abroad.
Now I'm from Australia, I pay $1350 in the Medicare levy (socialised medicine, the levy is 1.5% of my income) and another $850 for better hospital cover. So a total of $2200 for top hospital cover PER YEAR.
I find that a perfectly reasonable cost.
In the US a single person younger than me can expect to pay US$700-800 PER MONTH for average care.
Usually more, and if you smoke or have a pre-existing condition, you could very well be looking at over $10,000/yr just for healthcare. For a lot of 20-somethings, 10 grand is about half their annual income (contrary to what the media wants you to believe, very few young Americans make 6 figures working at Google).
The only issue that I have with the system is that because I'm over 30 and earn over the A$84K threshold I have to get private health to avoid extra levy's and surcharges. But I earn $90K a year and pay $2.2K for health care.
I presume that's based on the concept of, "you make enough money to buy your own insurance, so get off the public dole."
Which I completely agree with, especially considering that based on your anecdote you pay less than 5% of your income on healthcare. That's tits, man.
Single payer really does work better because the govt's inefficiency is less of a cost than the private sectors profit motive.
Single payer works in a fair system that isn't corrupted by avarice and greed... which makes me wonder if we could ever pull it off here in the States.
This is why we need separate bicycle paths and lanes separated from other traffic by barriers
Yea, OK, so if you and your cyclists buddies want to get together and raise the money to pay for dedicated bike paths, I'll support using public land to build them.
However, if you're like many of the d-bags around these parts who want their private bike streets paid for with my road and fuel taxes... You can go piss up a rope.
Holy shit! From the article:
Witnesses told police that the car, a late-1990s or early 2000s model, slowed quickly and swerved before hitting Vidal and continuing north on Hillandale Road.
It certainly sounds like a sad "prank" as you said. WTF?
Depends; did they swerve towards or away from the cyclist? TFA seems to have missed that not-so-minor detail.
My guess is (assuming the driver swerved away) is that the driver didn't see him until it was too late, and tried to avoid by slamming on the binders and swerving.
IMO, That part makes sense, and is perfectly reasonable; The "Oh shit I think I hit that guy so I'm GONE" reaction is where the driver went from "human who made a mistake" to "worthless piece of shit that deserves hard time in fed-max."
In many places hit and run carries a lighter penalty than DUI
... The fuck????
Where? I want to know which communities/states to add to my "Avoid Like the Bubonic Plague" list.
...
Well played...
I have seen drivers of vehicles in the USA perform an act which looks like a deliberate "nudge" to a random cyclist before driving away at high speed.
If I had an always-on dash-mounted video camera, I would be tempted to post videos of people doing such nonsense.
So sad.
You should - vehicular assault is a serious offence, and if your video can be used to prove malice, those sociopathic pricks will be confined to a cell where they belong.
I've been wanting a dash cam for the opposite reason - a lot of the cyclists around here are either stupid or have a deathwish, judging by how flagrantly they violate right-of-way laws.
blame the victim. i guess you think women in short skirts are asking to be raped?
He's not "blaming the victim," he's pointing out a safety tip for those of you who don't understand the basic physics of how our eyes work, you Fuck.
Military. Industrial. Complex.
It's sure to fall under at least one of those.
Well stated.
Although it may be true that most people do not work to "do good" they do tend to avoid work they consider manifest wickedness.
I'd believe that if not for all the people working for tobacco companies.
Not everyone considers smoking tobacco to be 'manifest wickedness,' you know.
Smokers, for example.
Actually, I don't know many smokers that actually DO think smoking tobacco is a Good Thing after a few years of it.
I never said they would.
FYI, there is quite a bit of grey area between "thinks it's the Devil Incarnate" and "thinks it's the BESTESTES THING EVAAAAAR!!!" For example, I'm not a big fan of welfare for lazy fucks and dopers, but I support it because it beats the alternative of crazy-high crime and incarceration rates.
Knowing what we know about tobacco in this day and age, anyone who can work in the industry and feel like they are doing something they can be proud of is probably a certifiable psychopath.
What, you don't think having a job where you know you are helping people live their lives in free liberty is something to be proud of? Are you sure you aren't the sociopath here? BTW, I've heard the exact same argument made about people who work in the firearms industry, and it's a bullshit cop-out in both situations - nothing more than a pathetic attempt by assholes with agendas to demonize and marginalize activities they choose to be against.
For the record, I smoke (a pipe); I make the choice to do so, and I live with the consequences, and FUCK any person who believes that I should not have the right to make that call for myself.
Fuck 'em hard.
There are more than two parties.
Yea, but you, me, and the rest of the world know which two I'm talking about.
They are setting the bar mighty low.
FTFY. I don't set the bar, I just calls it like I sees it.
I did not say they are equivalent.
That's the implication. Remember, dude, you're on Slashdot, where most of us actually use the neurons we've been blessed with. If you want to find someone to fall for such an obvious and weak tactic, take your commentary to Yahoo or Huffpo.
I only said that they work the same in your thought experiment.
No, they don't, because as soon as you change the key element (the gun), it becomes a completely different experiment. Can you substitute Arsenic for Carbon in an experiment? Of course not, because they are completely different elements... kind of like guns and explosives.
P.S. you never answered my question: what, exactly, is the reason that "not everyone is allowed to handle" c4 and hand grenades?
Oh, wait, sorry - I take it back.
Wouldn't want to accidentally insult people who actually suffer from mental retardation by comparing them to CEO types...
It's not a debilitating condition anymore - now it's a requirement for executive level positions.