I'm all for this, so long as all concerned realize I'm no longer responsible for keeping everything working. Here's my pager, keep the paychecks coming!
What philosphy? It's legal to ride a bike in traffic. If the lane is wide the law requires that cyclists stay to the right. If the lane isn't wide enough to safely share between a bicycle and a truck then the cyclist is legally allowed to ride in the middle to assert his presence.
Should I play along and accept your faith in bicycle helmets I'll again have to point out that bicycling is not particularly dangerous and does not create a statistically significant drain on public or private resources.
If you want to go for the easy win, cancel the health insurance and public benefits for everyone that holds a drivers license. Auto accidents are the by-far #1 killer of young people in the United States.
Pedestrians are statistically more likely to be killed or injured than cyclists. Should we put thumb-readers on crosswalk buttons to identify those sucklers of the public teat?
The efficacy of bike helmets is strongly contested. The sidewalk is a demonstrably more dangerous place to ride than the traffic lane. People aren't out to kill you. Splitting lanes is safe and quite legal in some jurisdictions.
Actually, the road was built for bicycles. The public movement to get the roads paved in the US in the 19th century was spearheaded by cyclists.
I will concede that the 101 freeway that passes through Los Angeles wasn't built for bicycles, but rather for horses, donkeys, and foot-traffic. We used to call "the 101" "El Camino Real."
Where is this minimum speed limit in the vehicle code, exactly?
Not only can cyclists weave through cars, but we're allowed to do so in US states where lane sharing is legal (such as in California). It's much safer than riding between jammed traffic and parked cars.
Cyclists have a right to the road, it's a basic part of the common law that the United States inherited from Britain. Taking your multi-ton motorized vehicle on the road is not a right, but is permitted in some cases through licensing.
Your car is perfectly capable of traveling at 18 mph with the rest of us. Learn to love it.
as long as people are willing to accept the risks themselves and sign something stating they will never impose upon the state for medical care if they are injured doing something foolish.
Riding a bicycle isn't foolish. Riding a bike in traffic is statistically safer than walking down the sidewalk. Basketball puts more people in the ER every year than cycling: http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.h tm
The dangers of cycling have been hyped by the auto insurance lobby to decrease payouts (scare people away from cycling, problem solved!) and taint juries (He was riding a *bicycle*, what did he *expect*?). They work largely through "bike advocate" professional 501c3 NGO-jockeys with no real interest or commitment to cycling. Look behind groups like Bikes Belong or the League of American Bicyclists and you will see the AAA. No joke.
Many helmets do not meet the high-impact safety standards, but the fact is there are helmets out there that do. Helmets today are lightweight, well ventilated and comfortable. Even if they can protect in only a small fraction of cases, isn't it worth it to wear one?
What standard are you talking about? SNELL? CPSC? Bike helmet standards in the US have been twice-downgraded since the early 1970s.
Handwringers obsess over legions of tube-fed cycletards draining the common treasury, but economic analysis of cycling from the Wharton School shows the contrary: Cycling (with risk of accident factored in) increases longevity to such an extant that there is a real concern that longer-lived people will consume more energy by being around for extra decades to keep a fridge going and to forget to turn off the light in the garage. See: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/publications .html
The prevalence of blame-the-victim superstition in this world is ridiculous. A bicycle helmet is designed to deal with low-speed rider-only falls. Even helmet promoters accept that they are of no use in a car-bike collision.
Bicycle helmets save lives in the short term only by discouraging cycling altogether. Their efficacy does not extend past the prevention of roadrash. Skull-crushing forces are *way* beyond the spec.
If it doesn't do IAX, then who cares? Are there really people that keep five different VOIP client windows idling at all times to handle inbound from all of the different services?
I think it's been two years since I've had to email a webmaster and ask, "Flash only--WTF?" There are still some rubes in non-tech industries that load up on Flash crap, but isn't Flash mostly an anachronism these days?
Linphone and Kphone both manage to handle SIP, such that they interoperate well with Asterisk and FWD. I should hope that Gnomemeeting has support for at least SIP in their next release.
The inclusion of the mention of 1949 just drips with condescension, like spectrum management is some statist anachronism. Oh, those Evil Governments with laws almost as old as my Dad!
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)
If you have one class of people that zip through security, and a second that has to go through all the checks, then you have reinvented Apartheid.
If Americans are doomed to live in a police state, let's at least have an egalatarian one.
Clarke is either wrong or lying. It is documented that the CIA spies on Airbus to help Boeing get contracts.
I'm all for this, so long as all concerned realize I'm no longer responsible for keeping everything working. Here's my pager, keep the paychecks coming!
Iranians are not Arabs.
What philosphy? It's legal to ride a bike in traffic. If the lane is wide the law requires that cyclists stay to the right. If the lane isn't wide enough to safely share between a bicycle and a truck then the cyclist is legally allowed to ride in the middle to assert his presence.
Should I play along and accept your faith in bicycle helmets I'll again have to point out that bicycling is not particularly dangerous and does not create a statistically significant drain on public or private resources.
If you want to go for the easy win, cancel the health insurance and public benefits for everyone that holds a drivers license. Auto accidents are the by-far #1 killer of young people in the United States.
Pedestrians are statistically more likely to be killed or injured than cyclists. Should we put thumb-readers on crosswalk buttons to identify those sucklers of the public teat?
The efficacy of bike helmets is strongly contested. The sidewalk is a demonstrably more dangerous place to ride than the traffic lane. People aren't out to kill you. Splitting lanes is safe and quite legal in some jurisdictions.
I'm with you on the road signs and anti-oblivion.
Actually, the road was built for bicycles. The public movement to get the roads paved in the US in the 19th century was spearheaded by cyclists.
I will concede that the 101 freeway that passes through Los Angeles wasn't built for bicycles, but rather for horses, donkeys, and foot-traffic. We used to call "the 101" "El Camino Real."
Where is this minimum speed limit in the vehicle code, exactly?
Not only can cyclists weave through cars, but we're allowed to do so in US states where lane sharing is legal (such as in California). It's much safer than riding between jammed traffic and parked cars.
I stop at red lights and at stop signs.
Bike lanes are often way more dangerous than riding in the street. Read:o ne/laird1.htm
http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorz
Here in California the law recognizes that lots of bike lanes are substandard and can be legally ignored:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm
As for your feelings about erratic sidewalk cycling, I'm with you. Bicycles belong out in the traffic lane.
Cyclists have a right to the road, it's a basic part of the common law that the United States inherited from Britain. Taking your multi-ton motorized vehicle on the road is not a right, but is permitted in some cases through licensing.
Your car is perfectly capable of traveling at 18 mph with the rest of us. Learn to love it.
as long as people are willing to accept the risks themselves and sign something stating they will never impose upon the state for medical care if they are injured doing something foolish.
h tm
s .html
Riding a bicycle isn't foolish. Riding a bike in traffic is statistically safer than walking down the sidewalk. Basketball puts more people in the ER every year than cycling:
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.
The dangers of cycling have been hyped by the auto insurance lobby to decrease payouts (scare people away from cycling, problem solved!) and taint juries (He was riding a *bicycle*, what did he *expect*?). They work largely through "bike advocate" professional 501c3 NGO-jockeys with no real interest or commitment to cycling. Look behind groups like Bikes Belong or the League of American Bicyclists and you will see the AAA. No joke.
Many helmets do not meet the high-impact safety standards, but the fact is there are helmets out there that do. Helmets today are lightweight, well ventilated and comfortable. Even if they can protect in only a small fraction of cases, isn't it worth it to wear one?
What standard are you talking about? SNELL? CPSC? Bike helmet standards in the US have been twice-downgraded since the early 1970s.
Handwringers obsess over legions of tube-fed cycletards draining the common treasury, but economic analysis of cycling from the Wharton School shows the contrary: Cycling (with risk of accident factored in) increases longevity to such an extant that there is a real concern that longer-lived people will consume more energy by being around for extra decades to keep a fridge going and to forget to turn off the light in the garage. See:
http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/publication
It's not the autolane, it's the lane. You're allowed to ride your bike there to stay clear of the parked cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_lane
Here's the relevant bit of the California-specific vehicle code:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
The prevalence of blame-the-victim superstition in this world is ridiculous. A bicycle helmet is designed to deal with low-speed rider-only falls. Even helmet promoters accept that they are of no use in a car-bike collision.
Bicycle helmets save lives in the short term only by discouraging cycling altogether. Their efficacy does not extend past the prevention of roadrash. Skull-crushing forces are *way* beyond the spec.
http://cyclehelmets.org/
Ouch. That's no way to live, man.
If it doesn't do IAX, then who cares? Are there really people that keep five different VOIP client windows idling at all times to handle inbound from all of the different services?
Any percieved differences between Dell and Apple QC are faith-based. It's the same stuff. 'But Apples don't break..'
Who are the good guys?
Defending yourself against the United States makes you a "bad guy?"
I've never logged in to a word processor, myself. Scads of executions, though.
I think it's been two years since I've had to email a webmaster and ask, "Flash only--WTF?" There are still some rubes in non-tech industries that load up on Flash crap, but isn't Flash mostly an anachronism these days?
Linphone and Kphone both manage to handle SIP, such that they interoperate well with Asterisk and FWD. I should hope that Gnomemeeting has support for at least SIP in their next release.
o ne.org/?lang=us&rubrique=1
http://www.wirlab.net/kphone/
http://www.linph
How about "news for kids and emotionally stunted middle-aged women." I could give a damn what kind of cartoons Disney is making.
I'll bet you a dollar that Europe would start competing for 'our' Mexican and Venezuelan oil supplies if Gulf production shut down.
reckon?
The inclusion of the mention of 1949 just drips with condescension, like spectrum management is some statist anachronism. Oh, those Evil Governments with laws almost as old as my Dad!