I see the control fraud apologist brigade is right on top of this one. Corporations were successfully regulated in the US for decades, a period which coincided with a massive rise in the American standard of living.
On the whole though, you'll have a hard case to make that TBC or vanilla was any fun though. The questing there really really sucked, leveling sucked (e.g. Nagrand), PVP and PVE classes were hopelessly unbalanced, and 1% of players every even saw the end game despite mechanics being ridiculously simple. The run backs were endless and mind numbing, the servers had wait times to get on, the fights had all sorts of BS (immunities, fall deaths, mind controls, silences, stuns, etc). There were lots of ways to customize your talents, but only one right way to do so making all "choice" pointless. I honestly don't see what the fuss is about.
Right... WoW reached 13 million subscribers when the game wasn't any fun, and since then has slowly dropped down to under 8 million subscribers because it has been fixed....
It appears as though you're leaving LotR because it's being dumbed down. Reduction to the lowest common denominator is exactly what's been happening with World of Warcraft for some time, and the newly announced expansion appears to keep the same trend going.
A Justice department that claims it's getting hacked (to worrisome levels) by teenagers. A National Security Agency that spends hundreds of billions spying on the citizens it claims to be protecting while accomplishing nothing. A Defense Department whose specialty is fighting foreign wars badly, while shelling out trillions to contractors.
It's well past the time where an honest government, or a real democracy, would say "enough failure" throw in the towel, and start again from scratch.
Exactly. Starship Troopers was an entirely serious book, with some deep social commentary. Much of the current social morass might have been avoided if it (and similar ideas) had been heeded.
The Starship Troopers movie was a travesty that RAH would have hated!
And the fact that there are many people who agree with you is exactly what makes Verhoven's movie high art. (It's not that Heinlein had nothing to say, it's just that his was a very one-sided viewpoint. The film gives a look at the same ideas from an entirely different axis.)
Patents aren't about promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, they're about a business model based on rent-extraction via arcane legal means. As alternative manufacturing options such as 3D printing mature (assuming they're not strangled by the patent titans) patents will become as obsolete and ineffective as copyright is now.
Bodyguards for cops, to protect them as they carry out their vital duties. And then those bodyguards can have bodyguards! The solution to America's employment problem is at hand! Unless Haliburton et. al. just ship in 3rd World mercenaries to do the guarding - that would be just like them.
But the nice Americans bringing you "democracy" (and billions in cash) might get upset if you stop and arrest people for reasons like: being from the wrong ethnicity, being a woman, failing to pay a bribe, having some good loot, etc. But if you stop and arrest people "because the $1000 detect-o-tron detected explosive residue" the Americans will smile and nod and keep handing out cash.
Next thing you know, the Feds will be coming after me for my collection of marked tarot cards, and confiscating my 1st Edition Player's Handbook lest I share my secret spells that prevent scrying via crystal ball.
Perhaps she was operating under the (mistaken) assumption that she was living in a free country. America's "leaders" do talk about freedom and liberty a lot. Heck, the current President likes to go on about accountability and transparency too. Not all of the American public, particularly those who are part of the upper middle class (as journalists tend to be), have really internalized that their country is run by corrupt liars.
You still think the law is applied to agents of the state, acting in the state's interest? News flash: it doesn't. These agents are in zero danger of ever being held to account for their actions. And this isn't about siezing evidence - it's about silencing and intimidating someone criticizing the government, and finding out who the whistleblowers are, so they can also be intimidated or punished.
Re:It would be safer if cyclists followed traffic
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 1
I have read the study, and I was aware of that caveat. However, you're misunderstanding the point - it was meant to address issues of legal culpability (e.g. fault vs. cause). Since the data were based on actual police reports, the researchers are basically disclaiming themselves from any claims of legal responsibility.
All you really need to do is look at "Table 3.2" in "Chapter 3: Key Findings" and sum the numbers for incidents caused by cyclists vs. those caused by motorists. The results are quite clear.
We're reading the study quite differently. I think it's quite clear that the researchers were interested in neither legal culpability nor determining which party made the "worse" error in judgement. They quite clearly state that listing an accident as caused by one party or another is for classification purposes only. In the quotes I included above the researchers disclaim both fault and absolute cause.
It's always better to take a second look, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
In general, I agree with you, and I do appreciate your civility. But the biking community has gone beyond my ability to tolerate their behavior. I am tired of getting screamed at by cyclists when I'm crossing with the light (that they're running). I'm tired of having to think, every time I share a road with a cyclist, "when am I going to need to slam on my brakes to avoid killing this guy?" and usually needing to do so. I'm tired of getting thrown around my bus when it gets cut off by a cyclist. (Which happens slightly less than once a week, and I'm not an everyday bus rider.) I'm tired of being startled when driving home late at night by cyclists in dark clothes with minimal (if any) reflectors, much less lights. I'm tired of getting almost run over by and yelled at by cyclists on the sidewalk that they're not even supposed to be riding on.
I've been physically logging egregious bike and vehicle behavior for the better part of a year now. And no, neither group is perfect. But the number of cars I've seen causing others to slam on their brakes hard, running stop-signs and red-lights, and generally grossly violating the rules of the road is less than a score. Meanwhile, it's literally a rare event to see a cyclist actually stop, or even slow down for a red light or stop sign anywhere but the heaviest traffic. And if they do, they inevitably weave through vehicles, cut them off, and cross intersections as it pleases them, without regard for signals, nor even one way streets.
The biking community needs to start policing itself, because it's reputation is (rightfully, imnsho) lower than that of Congress. I used to be a (small-town) cyclist, but now my bike hangs unused in the garage, in no small part because I don't want to be thought of as "one of those assholes" by my friends, colleagues, and random citizens. (Seriously, when the bus slams on its brakes to avoid creaming a cyclist who cut it off, the whole vehicle is filled with cries of "hit him!" or the equivalent every time.)
Re:It would be safer if cyclists followed traffic
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 1
Motorists are more reckless and dangerous than cyclists.
In pretty much every study conducted on bike-car accidents, the majority of them have been caused by motorists breaking the law, not cyclists. In Toronto, it's something like ~83% of bike-car collisions were the fault of the motorist,, not the cyclist. You can see that data here:
The basic results have been replicated in many other cities as well. IIRC in NYC it was even worse, with like 90%+ bike-car accidents being caused by motorists...
That's odd, because after reading the report, it's clear that the researchers were focused on understanding bike-car accidents and in preventing future ones, not in determining who was at fault. But don't take my word for it, read the study! "Although they may refer to the actions of only one party, these labels are not intended to assign fault." (Emphasis mine.) Or, "Thus it cannot be said, for instance, that more cyclists than motorists caused collisions by disobeying traffic control."
On the other hand, why should I be surprised that a cyclist doesn't bother to read the study they referenced, or that they automatically assume they're right regardless of what's actually in front of them? Such behavior matches perfectly with my observed actions of cyclists on the road!
It would be safer if cyclists followed traffic law
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I know it isn't charitable, but I don't give a damn about cyclists. Both as a pedestrian and a driver, I've had it with the reckless fools. Cyclists are a menace. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of cyclists I've seen in the last year who haven't run red lights and stop signs or otherwise ignored basic safety and traffic laws.
Public utilities aren't perfect, but done decently they're much better than the alternatives. The telcos (and cable companies) have had their chance, and they've blown it, big time. So screw'em. Comcast, Verizon, Time-Warner, AT&T, and their smaller siblings are done. They can choose whether they sell off their broadband services, or to be bound by strong public-interest regulation on multiple levels, but that's it. Internet access proviers in the U.S. are greedy incompetents - they shouldn't be in control anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
More like Land of the Corporate Tools :-(
Neal Stephenson did it first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age
The one thing I hope the Republicans are right about: hell. Because if they are, they're going to burn.
I see the control fraud apologist brigade is right on top of this one. Corporations were successfully regulated in the US for decades, a period which coincided with a massive rise in the American standard of living.
On the whole though, you'll have a hard case to make that TBC or vanilla was any fun though. The questing there really really sucked, leveling sucked (e.g. Nagrand), PVP and PVE classes were hopelessly unbalanced, and 1% of players every even saw the end game despite mechanics being ridiculously simple. The run backs were endless and mind numbing, the servers had wait times to get on, the fights had all sorts of BS (immunities, fall deaths, mind controls, silences, stuns, etc). There were lots of ways to customize your talents, but only one right way to do so making all "choice" pointless. I honestly don't see what the fuss is about.
Right... WoW reached 13 million subscribers when the game wasn't any fun, and since then has slowly dropped down to under 8 million subscribers because it has been fixed....
It appears as though you're leaving LotR because it's being dumbed down. Reduction to the lowest common denominator is exactly what's been happening with World of Warcraft for some time, and the newly announced expansion appears to keep the same trend going.
What's Senator Chuckles going to do when he learns that hobbyists can build armed drones? Crap himself to death out of fear?
A Justice department that claims it's getting hacked (to worrisome levels) by teenagers. A National Security Agency that spends hundreds of billions spying on the citizens it claims to be protecting while accomplishing nothing. A Defense Department whose specialty is fighting foreign wars badly, while shelling out trillions to contractors.
It's well past the time where an honest government, or a real democracy, would say "enough failure" throw in the towel, and start again from scratch.
As long as the religious gimcracks scream "Conservative Christian" I'm sure you're fine.
You may think you're joking, but you're not:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/18442-flow-chart-exposes-common-cores-myriad-corporate-connections
It'd be more impressive if they weren't building their country with slave labor.
I agree. While it wasn't an awful apology, it did have a whiff of "I'm really sorry what I said is negatively impacting my interests" about it.
Exactly. Starship Troopers was an entirely serious book, with some deep social commentary. Much of the current social morass might have been avoided if it (and similar ideas) had been heeded.
The Starship Troopers movie was a travesty that RAH would have hated!
And the fact that there are many people who agree with you is exactly what makes Verhoven's movie high art. (It's not that Heinlein had nothing to say, it's just that his was a very one-sided viewpoint. The film gives a look at the same ideas from an entirely different axis.)
Patents aren't about promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, they're about a business model based on rent-extraction via arcane legal means. As alternative manufacturing options such as 3D printing mature (assuming they're not strangled by the patent titans) patents will become as obsolete and ineffective as copyright is now.
And you can buy them direct from China! http://www.tungsten-alloy.com/tungsten-alloy-scan-gold-coin.html
Bodyguards for cops, to protect them as they carry out their vital duties. And then those bodyguards can have bodyguards! The solution to America's employment problem is at hand! Unless Haliburton et. al. just ship in 3rd World mercenaries to do the guarding - that would be just like them.
But the nice Americans bringing you "democracy" (and billions in cash) might get upset if you stop and arrest people for reasons like: being from the wrong ethnicity, being a woman, failing to pay a bribe, having some good loot, etc. But if you stop and arrest people "because the $1000 detect-o-tron detected explosive residue" the Americans will smile and nod and keep handing out cash.
Next thing you know, the Feds will be coming after me for my collection of marked tarot cards, and confiscating my 1st Edition Player's Handbook lest I share my secret spells that prevent scrying via crystal ball.
It's like a microcosm of the country as a whole
Perhaps she was operating under the (mistaken) assumption that she was living in a free country. America's "leaders" do talk about freedom and liberty a lot. Heck, the current President likes to go on about accountability and transparency too. Not all of the American public, particularly those who are part of the upper middle class (as journalists tend to be), have really internalized that their country is run by corrupt liars.
You still think the law is applied to agents of the state, acting in the state's interest? News flash: it doesn't. These agents are in zero danger of ever being held to account for their actions. And this isn't about siezing evidence - it's about silencing and intimidating someone criticizing the government, and finding out who the whistleblowers are, so they can also be intimidated or punished.
I have read the study, and I was aware of that caveat. However, you're misunderstanding the point - it was meant to address issues of legal culpability (e.g. fault vs. cause). Since the data were based on actual police reports, the researchers are basically disclaiming themselves from any claims of legal responsibility.
All you really need to do is look at "Table 3.2" in "Chapter 3: Key Findings" and sum the numbers for incidents caused by cyclists vs. those caused by motorists. The results are quite clear.
We're reading the study quite differently. I think it's quite clear that the researchers were interested in neither legal culpability nor determining which party made the "worse" error in judgement. They quite clearly state that listing an accident as caused by one party or another is for classification purposes only. In the quotes I included above the researchers disclaim both fault and absolute cause.
It's always better to take a second look, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
In general, I agree with you, and I do appreciate your civility. But the biking community has gone beyond my ability to tolerate their behavior. I am tired of getting screamed at by cyclists when I'm crossing with the light (that they're running). I'm tired of having to think, every time I share a road with a cyclist, "when am I going to need to slam on my brakes to avoid killing this guy?" and usually needing to do so. I'm tired of getting thrown around my bus when it gets cut off by a cyclist. (Which happens slightly less than once a week, and I'm not an everyday bus rider.) I'm tired of being startled when driving home late at night by cyclists in dark clothes with minimal (if any) reflectors, much less lights. I'm tired of getting almost run over by and yelled at by cyclists on the sidewalk that they're not even supposed to be riding on.
I've been physically logging egregious bike and vehicle behavior for the better part of a year now. And no, neither group is perfect. But the number of cars I've seen causing others to slam on their brakes hard, running stop-signs and red-lights, and generally grossly violating the rules of the road is less than a score. Meanwhile, it's literally a rare event to see a cyclist actually stop, or even slow down for a red light or stop sign anywhere but the heaviest traffic. And if they do, they inevitably weave through vehicles, cut them off, and cross intersections as it pleases them, without regard for signals, nor even one way streets.
The biking community needs to start policing itself, because it's reputation is (rightfully, imnsho) lower than that of Congress. I used to be a (small-town) cyclist, but now my bike hangs unused in the garage, in no small part because I don't want to be thought of as "one of those assholes" by my friends, colleagues, and random citizens. (Seriously, when the bus slams on its brakes to avoid creaming a cyclist who cut it off, the whole vehicle is filled with cries of "hit him!" or the equivalent every time.)
Motorists are more reckless and dangerous than cyclists.
In pretty much every study conducted on bike-car accidents, the majority of them have been caused by motorists breaking the law, not cyclists. In Toronto, it's something like ~83% of bike-car collisions were the fault of the motorist,, not the cyclist. You can see that data here:
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/
The basic results have been replicated in many other cities as well. IIRC in NYC it was even worse, with like 90%+ bike-car accidents being caused by motorists...
That's odd, because after reading the report, it's clear that the researchers were focused on understanding bike-car accidents and in preventing future ones, not in determining who was at fault. But don't take my word for it, read the study! "Although they may refer to the actions of only one party, these labels are not intended to assign fault." (Emphasis mine.) Or, "Thus it cannot be said, for instance, that more cyclists than motorists caused collisions by disobeying traffic control."
On the other hand, why should I be surprised that a cyclist doesn't bother to read the study they referenced, or that they automatically assume they're right regardless of what's actually in front of them? Such behavior matches perfectly with my observed actions of cyclists on the road!
I know it isn't charitable, but I don't give a damn about cyclists. Both as a pedestrian and a driver, I've had it with the reckless fools. Cyclists are a menace. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of cyclists I've seen in the last year who haven't run red lights and stop signs or otherwise ignored basic safety and traffic laws.
Public utilities aren't perfect, but done decently they're much better than the alternatives. The telcos (and cable companies) have had their chance, and they've blown it, big time. So screw'em. Comcast, Verizon, Time-Warner, AT&T, and their smaller siblings are done. They can choose whether they sell off their broadband services, or to be bound by strong public-interest regulation on multiple levels, but that's it. Internet access proviers in the U.S. are greedy incompetents - they shouldn't be in control anymore.