Wait, you are a Boston driver complaining about Boston bikers? Boston drivers are, bar none, the absolute worst drivers I've ever experienced, having lived there for a couple years, and having traveled to 49 of our 50 states. At the end of my two years living there I saw a car use a turn signal before making a turn, and Boston drivers never ever use turn signals, and I swear it is true that for about two seconds I was wondering "Why does that car have its emergency blinkers on, and does that driver know that one of them doesn't work?" Only after completing that cogitation did I realize that the driver must be from out of town, unaware that the local custom is to drive like a lunatic on cocaine.
Leave the Boston bikers alone. You should be so lucky that they haven't clogged your ridiculous streets with another car.
That strikes me as difficult to believe. So, you buy lots and lots of gasoline, the taxes on which pay for roads, even though with your bike you don't need it? You pay high vehicle registration fees, which help pay for roads, even though bike registrations are usually ignored and always far lower than car registrations?
I love riding my bike, and avoiding those taxes is quite a bonus in my mind. If you somehow convince me that bikers are paying as many road-specific taxes as drivers, then that might lessen my enjoyment.
Does IE even have an ad blocker? If not, it's difficult to qualify it as a browser in a modern sense. That would be like a DVR that doesn't have a pause button.
Interesting. Yes, it is different here, but it is highly dependent on municipality. There are all sorts of different rules (or no rules at all) in different places with different infrastructure. But as a general rule, I think most Americans would agree that pedestrians don't belong in the road, except in rare circumstances.
The answer is YES, you can sue Google for anything. In the American justice system, frivolity of lawsuit is determined after the suit is filed, not before. Actually it's difficult to imagine how it could be determined before, but if you have an idea I'm confident the courts would really like to hear it.
Did you see the picture of the roadside? To me it seems unquestionably unreasonable for a pedestrian to use that tiny shoulder; it is tantamount to walking in the road. To me, that absolves the driver of fault, and in fact opens a tort by the driver against the walker. But, I only know the few scant details from the article, which might not be complete, and other details might change my opinion.
Yeah, my community (Madison, WI) publishes pedestrian and bike trail info, and it is all in Google Maps too. It's rather nice, actually. I agree with you: it would be swell if the data were more available.
Ha ha, that's funny. Most likely you just made a silly mistake about traffic best safety practices, but I think it's funny that you asserted that a driver can see your back better than they can see your front.
Unless you are wearing a mirror on your chest, I'm pretty sure drivers can see you equally well from the front or back. The traditional advice is, therefore, to walk against traffic for safety.
We tell bicyclists to ride with traffic because they *are* traffic, although I personally think bicycles are a sometimes/sometimes vehicle: sometimes they are more like cars and should ride with traffic; sometimes they are more like pedestrians and should ride against traffic on the sidewalk.
Yes of course. That happens all the time (thank goodness), and might happen with this case. But this case isn't to the point of dismissal yet, it has only just been filed.
I think the driver might have a claim against the woman. The way I see it, the woman broke the law by illegally walking along in a street (shoulders count as the street) and her illegal act caused financial harm to another person, the person who hit her.
I actually know of a case where exactly that happened: a man jay walked across a road (this was a country road, apparently, not a city street) and a car struck him because the car did not have time to stop. The insurance company of the driver successfully sued the man for damages -- because it was in fact his fault. Yeah, it seems bad to sue the person who got hit, but we need to keep our eyes on the facts here: the person who got hit caused the accident; and whoever causes the accident pays for damages.
But as you correctly said, it depends completely on the exact facts of the case. The second linked article has some pictures of the roadway but it doesn't provide all the details.
I'm a big-government supporter myself, but my guess is that the people whom you refer to actually *like it* when everything goes to shit. That's the way it looks to me, anyway. Those people prefer to have a problem than to allow the government to solve it.
As a point of fact, not to disagree with your point at all, smoking weed is not illegal -- rather, possessing weed is illegal, and possession is normally a necessary condition to use.
Obviously, no serious person opposes legalization.
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
The way I think about it, they should have had a mechanism already in place to stop the oil, something like a protector for a blowout. Oh, wait, what? You say they had a device called a Blowout Protector? but it didn't work? Well then obviously we need not one, not two, not three, but four or five or ten or twenty blowout protectors. How much could they possibly cost? Ten million dollars each? So that is, what, literally fifteen minutes of profits each?
With the amounts of money they make in profits, there is pretty much no excuse to have "accidents" which could have been prevented with objects that can be purchased with money. They should have fucking titanium oil tankers with six-layer hulls escorted by small armies of boats loaded with sensors and booms. Drilling wells should have ten of each safety mechanism, and should be surrounded at all times with emergency equipment and personnel.
If their profits shrink back down to earthly proportions, then we can talk about how much safety is "worth", but as it stands now, it's "worth it".
Whoa whoa whoa there, bucko. Don't accuse "NewsCorp" of reporting the news! Allow them to be what they want to be -- a shill for the opinions of one megalomaniac named Rupert.
Yes indeed, without a credit history you can't get a credit card, and without a credit card, you can't get a credit history. That is why nobody in the world has a credit card, right?
I will enjoy your valid and good point by assuming you meant "someone who has read English literature *from* the last 400 years". That, or you are Yoda, or Noah.
Yeah, what I'm saying is that the consumer did not choose to support the subsidized printer model. I'm sure if you asked consumers about that, they wouldn't know what you are talking about.
Rather, consumers look at the printers, look at the prices, and pick one based on other characteristics. The business model of the hardware company isn't a part of the decision, and I think it's disingenuous to say it is. That goes not only for printers but for all sorts of bought goods. I always hear people (not you, others) blame the consumers, as if consumers are all-knowing perfectly logical actors working with unlimited knowledge, math, and expertise. That claim is so preposterous that I accuse proponents of intentional shenanigans.
I desperately want to believe this, but it just isn't true. I have several times done personal comparisons between disposables and Mach 3s, and the Mach 3s are way better every time. That is why I grumble, biatch, moan, and then pay for the stupid fancy razors. I try to make them last as long as possible, though.
No one put a gun to your head, and if you didn't do your research to profile which printer cost you the least over time for your printing needs, the only person you have to blame is yourself.
Why is that? Why can't we also blame the sheisters who intentionally manipulate human vagaries for personal profit? Can't the blame be spread around?
I'm not clear why so many people are so quick to blame the consumer. Why the presumption that consumers should spend all their time doing deep market research and mathematics when trying to do something so simple as buying a printer?
Re:Meandering story not going anywhere
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, you are a Boston driver complaining about Boston bikers? Boston drivers are, bar none, the absolute worst drivers I've ever experienced, having lived there for a couple years, and having traveled to 49 of our 50 states. At the end of my two years living there I saw a car use a turn signal before making a turn, and Boston drivers never ever use turn signals, and I swear it is true that for about two seconds I was wondering "Why does that car have its emergency blinkers on, and does that driver know that one of them doesn't work?" Only after completing that cogitation did I realize that the driver must be from out of town, unaware that the local custom is to drive like a lunatic on cocaine.
Leave the Boston bikers alone. You should be so lucky that they haven't clogged your ridiculous streets with another car.
You pay as many taxes for roads as car drivers?
That strikes me as difficult to believe. So, you buy lots and lots of gasoline, the taxes on which pay for roads, even though with your bike you don't need it? You pay high vehicle registration fees, which help pay for roads, even though bike registrations are usually ignored and always far lower than car registrations?
I love riding my bike, and avoiding those taxes is quite a bonus in my mind. If you somehow convince me that bikers are paying as many road-specific taxes as drivers, then that might lessen my enjoyment.
Does IE even have an ad blocker? If not, it's difficult to qualify it as a browser in a modern sense. That would be like a DVR that doesn't have a pause button.
Interesting. Yes, it is different here, but it is highly dependent on municipality. There are all sorts of different rules (or no rules at all) in different places with different infrastructure. But as a general rule, I think most Americans would agree that pedestrians don't belong in the road, except in rare circumstances.
The answer is YES, you can sue Google for anything. In the American justice system, frivolity of lawsuit is determined after the suit is filed, not before. Actually it's difficult to imagine how it could be determined before, but if you have an idea I'm confident the courts would really like to hear it.
I think you might have whoooooshed DaMattster's joke.
For reals. She didn't even bother to sue the company which paved the road.
Did you see the picture of the roadside? To me it seems unquestionably unreasonable for a pedestrian to use that tiny shoulder; it is tantamount to walking in the road. To me, that absolves the driver of fault, and in fact opens a tort by the driver against the walker. But, I only know the few scant details from the article, which might not be complete, and other details might change my opinion.
Yeah, my community (Madison, WI) publishes pedestrian and bike trail info, and it is all in Google Maps too. It's rather nice, actually. I agree with you: it would be swell if the data were more available.
Ha ha, that's funny. Most likely you just made a silly mistake about traffic best safety practices, but I think it's funny that you asserted that a driver can see your back better than they can see your front.
Unless you are wearing a mirror on your chest, I'm pretty sure drivers can see you equally well from the front or back. The traditional advice is, therefore, to walk against traffic for safety.
We tell bicyclists to ride with traffic because they *are* traffic, although I personally think bicycles are a sometimes/sometimes vehicle: sometimes they are more like cars and should ride with traffic; sometimes they are more like pedestrians and should ride against traffic on the sidewalk.
Yes of course. That happens all the time (thank goodness), and might happen with this case. But this case isn't to the point of dismissal yet, it has only just been filed.
I think the driver might have a claim against the woman. The way I see it, the woman broke the law by illegally walking along in a street (shoulders count as the street) and her illegal act caused financial harm to another person, the person who hit her.
I actually know of a case where exactly that happened: a man jay walked across a road (this was a country road, apparently, not a city street) and a car struck him because the car did not have time to stop. The insurance company of the driver successfully sued the man for damages -- because it was in fact his fault. Yeah, it seems bad to sue the person who got hit, but we need to keep our eyes on the facts here: the person who got hit caused the accident; and whoever causes the accident pays for damages.
But as you correctly said, it depends completely on the exact facts of the case. The second linked article has some pictures of the roadway but it doesn't provide all the details.
You obviously know a lot about what "treason" means. You are obviously very well informed. I congratulate you on your air-tight argument.
I'm a big-government supporter myself, but my guess is that the people whom you refer to actually *like it* when everything goes to shit. That's the way it looks to me, anyway. Those people prefer to have a problem than to allow the government to solve it.
As a point of fact, not to disagree with your point at all, smoking weed is not illegal -- rather, possessing weed is illegal, and possession is normally a necessary condition to use.
Obviously, no serious person opposes legalization.
The way I think about it, they should have had a mechanism already in place to stop the oil, something like a protector for a blowout. Oh, wait, what? You say they had a device called a Blowout Protector? but it didn't work? Well then obviously we need not one, not two, not three, but four or five or ten or twenty blowout protectors. How much could they possibly cost? Ten million dollars each? So that is, what, literally fifteen minutes of profits each?
With the amounts of money they make in profits, there is pretty much no excuse to have "accidents" which could have been prevented with objects that can be purchased with money. They should have fucking titanium oil tankers with six-layer hulls escorted by small armies of boats loaded with sensors and booms. Drilling wells should have ten of each safety mechanism, and should be surrounded at all times with emergency equipment and personnel.
If their profits shrink back down to earthly proportions, then we can talk about how much safety is "worth", but as it stands now, it's "worth it".
I don't think any (print) newspaper can survive off internet advertising income alone.
Print news has always been funded primarily by advertising.
So, you agree with the person to whom you replied?
great joke! thank you. i'm going to steal it.
Whoa whoa whoa there, bucko. Don't accuse "NewsCorp" of reporting the news! Allow them to be what they want to be -- a shill for the opinions of one megalomaniac named Rupert.
Yes indeed, without a credit history you can't get a credit card, and without a credit card, you can't get a credit history. That is why nobody in the world has a credit card, right?
I will enjoy your valid and good point by assuming you meant "someone who has read English literature *from* the last 400 years". That, or you are Yoda, or Noah.
Yeah, what I'm saying is that the consumer did not choose to support the subsidized printer model. I'm sure if you asked consumers about that, they wouldn't know what you are talking about.
Rather, consumers look at the printers, look at the prices, and pick one based on other characteristics. The business model of the hardware company isn't a part of the decision, and I think it's disingenuous to say it is. That goes not only for printers but for all sorts of bought goods. I always hear people (not you, others) blame the consumers, as if consumers are all-knowing perfectly logical actors working with unlimited knowledge, math, and expertise. That claim is so preposterous that I accuse proponents of intentional shenanigans.
I desperately want to believe this, but it just isn't true. I have several times done personal comparisons between disposables and Mach 3s, and the Mach 3s are way better every time. That is why I grumble, biatch, moan, and then pay for the stupid fancy razors. I try to make them last as long as possible, though.
No one put a gun to your head, and if you didn't do your research to profile which printer cost you the least over time for your printing needs, the only person you have to blame is yourself.
Why is that? Why can't we also blame the sheisters who intentionally manipulate human vagaries for personal profit? Can't the blame be spread around?
I'm not clear why so many people are so quick to blame the consumer. Why the presumption that consumers should spend all their time doing deep market research and mathematics when trying to do something so simple as buying a printer?
don't forget Heroes.