I'm talking about people that fly through red lights and stop signs because they think the lights/signs don't concern the cyclists.
Those are exactly what I was referring to.
I've seen people run lights, cut through sidewalks and cut back into the road, or generally do a lot of really stupid things which amount to "I don't care what the rules of the road are". You can treat yourself like a pedestrian off the roads, or you can treat yourself like a cyclist entitled to use the road and follow the rules. But you can't just make it up as you go.
I'm talking about the idiots that ride on the highway without helmets and don't stay in the shoulder.
Don't know about where you live, but here, on roads where cyclists are allowed they are entitled to use the road and drivers are legally required to respect that. Cyclists have as much right to use the lane as the cars as long as they follow the traffic rules. Basically they get the few feet of lane before the shoulder, because on an awful lot of roads you can't ride a bike on the shoulder safely and you need some room to avoid potholes and sewer grates.
I've definitely seen cyclists riding 2 or 3 abreast, and here that's illegal. But they're definitely not relegated to the shoulder.
Me, I sure as hell wouldn't ride a bike in city traffic in lanes shared with cars. Because from what I've seen, it's dangerous as all hell.
It isn't. At least, not on roads shared with cars.
Most drivers treat cyclists like pests (and in fairness, I see a lot of cyclists who completely ignore all traffic rules and deserve the reputation).
Where I live, we've had the buses kill cyclists because the bike lane and the bus lane co-exist and the bus drivers don't look.
I gave up on any notion of cycling on the same road as cars 15+ years ago. Unless you have an entire network of bike lanes which are physically separated from the cars (and even those tend to be spotty), I wouldn't consider cycling on city streets to be even remotely safe.
I don't trust most drivers while I'm in a car, being exposed on a bicycle? No way in hell I'd be willing to do that anymore.
Maybe if the high end folks buy enough of them the prices will fall, and then it will be more accessible.
Possibly, but I think consumers have already been burned with changing standards enough to stay away.
HD-DVD v BluRay is a great example of this. The consumers got burned so the media companies could have a pissing contest. Most of us wouldn't even consider a replacement for BluRay that isn't definitive and stable.
The people who buy 4K TV will sit around feeling all smug and happy that they've got a super awesome new TV. Then they'll realize there's not much for it.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will stand back and wait for the dust to settle to have any confidence there's any value in it. Because it's just as likely to become obsolete or get replaced with yet another new shiny thing.
You are complaining that your 12 year old (at least) tv hasn't future proofed you? Its lasted you this long hasn't it?
No, he's complaining that the HDTV he bought 12 years ago wasn't supported properly as much as 8-10 years ago.
Because the HD spec kept changing, the early adopters got screwed. Before HD was available to most people, the first two generations of display devices were already obviated. By the time you actually got any HD content the spec had said "oh, you aren't supported at full resolution or with this connector".
At which point it becomes a "fool me once" kind of scenario where consumers think "WTF would I buy something which is still going through changes?".
My guess is the GPs HDTV from 12 years ago didn't support HD from 10 years ago. I certainly know people who had bought HDTVs early only to find out they were no longer supported by the time there was anything to connect to it.
Me, I wouldn't consider buying any display technology which hasn't been out and stable for at least several years at this point. And by stable, I mean end to end with the cable and satellite companies, and with some form of DVD which has significant market share.
Anything else is just a gamble which likely won't pay off.
The bill will require patent holders who are filing a suit to identify the specific products and claims which are being infringed
I've never understood how you can file suit without explicitly listing this.
We've heard about far too many lawsuits which vaguely reference a "set of infringing patents", and I seem to recall that (despite asserting Linux infringes) Microsoft has never actually enumerated the patents Linux is supposed to violate.
Forcing them to disclose who has financial interest in it is a good idea, because one gets the impression a lot of these have a behind-the-scenes actor which doesn't get revealed.
But I know plenty of people who are always on the bleeding edge.
Oh, sure, there's always going to be those who pay $20K for a plasma screen or something like that. I knew someone who had CD player where all of the interconnect inside were fiber -- and then people realized there was no actual benefit to that.
But those people are both uncommon, and generally don't indicate what the rest of the market will do. In fact, they're often quite wrong. Sure, laser disc was supposed to be awesome, but I only know about 2 people who ever owned one before they became obsolete.
The rest of us have to be a lot more cautious with our money, and won't piss it away on new tech which hasn't established itself yet.
And the ever changing specs which characterized HD for the first bunch of years has reminded a lot of people that just because it's out and it's new, that it might not be around in a few years or your first gen device might not actually still work. Which means many of us are now looking at anything new that comes out and thinking "yeah, but will it still be around in 2 years?"
But when my cable company doesn't yet give me 1080p, and even the 720p shows compression artifacts -- I figure 4K for TV is pretty much DOA from a consumer perspective. There's no content you can even get, and the cable companies can't deliver the bandwidth for full HD now -- which means they're not likely to be able to handle even higher resolutions.
As usual, I've heard that the porn industry is looking into 4K. And I'm mostly just thinking "now that would be nasty".
Given that my HDTV is only about 2 years old, I don't expect to be seriously investigating any new TV technology for at least another 3-5 years. And I'm betting by then 4K either still won't be available in any meaningful way, or there will be yet another new spec I will be ignoring for the exact same reasons.
Cable companies have a hard enough time providing enough bandwidth for more than a couple HD channels, where are they going to find the bandwidth for 4K Ultra HD?
Exactly, I get 720p from TV, and in places I can see where they're compressing it down and it looks blocky.
In the abstract, this might be good. But from a practical purpose, my cable company isn't delivering 1080p to me now, there's no way they'd give me 4K.
This makes sense for movie theaters, but for consumers I think this is a complete dead end except for the people who insist on buying the latest and greatest just because it's there. This is just companies trying to sell us something new, and for which there's very little justification.
There's a simple reason for this... people don't care, and don't have the money to replace their TVs just because something new and shiny comes along.
I'd need to replace my amp, my DVD player (or whatever it would be called), my TV and who knows what else. All to get me a marginally better display?
No thanks.
I'm interested in 4K for my computer monitor, but the ever changing standards around TV makes it a nuisance.
I know plenty of people who bought "HDTV" early in the game, only to find out when HD became common than their devices weren't supported because the spec had changed. Or that they wouldn't get HD because their device didn't support the copy protection scheme.
What consumers want is a stable technology, not be be on a constant upgrade treadmill (as much as the people who sell TVs would like otherwise).
NTSC was unchanged and compatible for what, 40 odd years? When things stabilize in a bunch of years I might consider thinking about 4K -- but right now it's a pointless and expensive upgrade for little or no benefit.
Unfortunately the content industry seems to think we're all going to ditch our stuff every two years as the new hotness comes out. And in the case of 3D, it's gimmicky and gives me a headache, so I never wanted that at all.
That the TV networks are thinking "why would be invest in this" makes perfect sense to me -- because there's no market for it.
What happens if somebody does walk past the guards into the nuclear arsenal?
Well, if you've gotten that far, you might be able to make off with it.
And if you can't, if you can detonate in place... you still create a hell of a mess.
The point is, if the guards are sleeping and the door is open, all of your security up to that point is useless. If security falls apart at the weakest link, it sounds like they identified some.
Whatever shows up (significantly) on the hiring boards.
Do you think that's an indication of what will survive, or merely what a bunch of HR people have been told is the latest buzzword they need to ramp up on?
I'm not sure it's a sign of longevity so much as it is a sign of what's effectively trending on twitter.
"If we can't monitor you to prove you're doing something bad, we'll never be able to know".
Law enforcement and governments have decided it's too inconvenient to follow the procedural rules which have been established, and more or less started trying to make the case for just bypassing them out of convenience.
And, sadly, some of the courts seem stacked with people inclined to just say "well, if you're law enforcement, go ahead".
Why should you have to do this anyway? Guilty until proven innocent?
Welcome to the post 9/11 world, where it's safer (and more lucrative) to assume everyone is a terrorist and have them prove otherwise.
This is all about money for private contractors sucking the blood of American taxpayers.
Precisely.
And I've heard enough stories about the baggage handlers stealing stuff and smuggling drugs to suspect they're not putting enough scrutiny on the people who have the best chance of doing something bad.
How is it possible that large organizations such as Verizon fail to include or test even the most trivial security checks before they bring their websites online?
Because security takes time and costs money, and because there's absolutely no real laws compelling corporations to make any effort to do this properly.
How is it possible there isn't a law requiring them to safeguard your personal information and large penalties if they fail to do so? They can mostly just say "oops, sorry" with no penalty so why bother?
If I were any more cynical I'd suspect
You don't need to be more cynical. They do a half assed job of security because they only need to, and because there's no real penalties for being incompetent at implementing security.
So companies let some summer student write the stuff which secures your data, and don't actually give a damn if it works or not. The bottom line is, it's simply more cost effective to do a bad job of this, and there's no real privacy laws with any teeth to make them try harder.
Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.
You're right. But Facebook chooses if that's what they're willing to allow on their site.
Somehow I doubt this is some noble thing about freedom of expression like they're saying -- I strongly suspect it's more about the advertising revenue generated.
Zuckerberg and Facebook can claim some principled stand, but from what I've seen, it's likely just plain old greed.
I'm not convinced they're actually capable of being principled on these things -- they want to do two things, make as much money as possible, and collect as much of your personal information as they can (so they can make as much money as possible). But lets' not pretend that Zuckerfuck is, or ever has been, a principled actor in all of this.
Originally, you were implying it "costs money" to deny people exorbitant health care. When confronted, you backpeddled on that and now claim bogus moral grounds.
No, now you're full of shit and making up your own stupid notions as you go.
It does have a cost on your economy to decide that healthcare is only for the wealthy. And it's the epitome of douchebag to say "let the poor die".
Because the best way to achieve our goals as a society is to compete with China by winning a race to the bottom?
Depends on exactly whose goals you mean.
There are clearly many people for whom that race to the bottom is the goal, as long as they keep making money and their stocks go up, they don't give a damn what happens to the rest of society.
They want 'society' to entrench looking out for their interests, but figure the rest of everyone doesn't get anything in return.
Instead they get to be the magnanimous business leaders who throw us a few crumbs now and then.
first off, hospitals are required to treat emergency medical situations
Only the emergency part, no ongoing care. Nothing preventative... just enough to say you occasionally provide some medical care.
second, many of the uncovered treatments are often just prolonging the arrival of death
Or, you know, you invest in preventative medicine so it doesn't come down to "sorry, you're terminal, we don't care". So instead of waiting to force people to go for meager emergency care, actually work to have a healthy population like the rest of the civilized world tries to do. Because then those people might actually be working and contributing to your economy instead of waiting to die.
This is why you go in for a small treatment and it costs $5,000.
No, this is why I'm glad I don't live in America, where if you're rich you can have anything you want, and if you're poor you're 'surplus population'.
The rest of the world looks at the US stance on this and shakes their heads. But, hey, if America wants to be known as heartless bastards where life is cheap, that's your choice.
Some citizens not getting health care might actually save money. I know this sounds terrible, but for some people it might not be cost-effective to keep them alive because their expected return is so low.
If the American position is truly "let them die and get it over with", then America as a society is pretty much fucked and deserves what they get.
But don't go around the world pretending like you're the defenders of human rights and liberties. The rest of the world doesn't buy into your myths about yourselves.
Polar/brown bear hybrids are rare... not undocumented
In the Himalayas?
Yes, there are hybrids, but whether or not that has anything to do with this is another thing.
Like I said, he's postulated another thing for which there isn't direct evidence in the Himalayas (what with it being very far from where you find polar bears) -- at which point, he's just suggested another theory.
So, yes, he tested *something*, and we don't know where that really came from. He's then suggesting the existence of something else in an area it's not been documented, and my question is if there's anything to warrant that conclusion.
I'm far more inclined to believe he's tested what was actually a hoax, and any conclusions about a possible polar bear hybrid is at best speculative, and at worst utterly pointless.
What the professor is suggesting is that a rare hybrid of brown and polar bear may be the actual, elusive creature of legend
Why does this sound like he's made up another undocumented creature as his explanation?
This sounds like he either tested a sample which was from a hoax, or he's just making shit up.
I'm going with "researcher tests hoax, comes up with own unfounded explanation to get publicity". Because there's no more evidence for the existence of this creature in the Himalayas than the yeti.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are exactly what I was referring to.
I've seen people run lights, cut through sidewalks and cut back into the road, or generally do a lot of really stupid things which amount to "I don't care what the rules of the road are". You can treat yourself like a pedestrian off the roads, or you can treat yourself like a cyclist entitled to use the road and follow the rules. But you can't just make it up as you go.
Don't know about where you live, but here, on roads where cyclists are allowed they are entitled to use the road and drivers are legally required to respect that. Cyclists have as much right to use the lane as the cars as long as they follow the traffic rules. Basically they get the few feet of lane before the shoulder, because on an awful lot of roads you can't ride a bike on the shoulder safely and you need some room to avoid potholes and sewer grates.
I've definitely seen cyclists riding 2 or 3 abreast, and here that's illegal. But they're definitely not relegated to the shoulder.
Me, I sure as hell wouldn't ride a bike in city traffic in lanes shared with cars. Because from what I've seen, it's dangerous as all hell.
It isn't. At least, not on roads shared with cars.
Most drivers treat cyclists like pests (and in fairness, I see a lot of cyclists who completely ignore all traffic rules and deserve the reputation).
Where I live, we've had the buses kill cyclists because the bike lane and the bus lane co-exist and the bus drivers don't look.
I gave up on any notion of cycling on the same road as cars 15+ years ago. Unless you have an entire network of bike lanes which are physically separated from the cars (and even those tend to be spotty), I wouldn't consider cycling on city streets to be even remotely safe.
I don't trust most drivers while I'm in a car, being exposed on a bicycle? No way in hell I'd be willing to do that anymore.
Possibly, but I think consumers have already been burned with changing standards enough to stay away.
HD-DVD v BluRay is a great example of this. The consumers got burned so the media companies could have a pissing contest. Most of us wouldn't even consider a replacement for BluRay that isn't definitive and stable.
The people who buy 4K TV will sit around feeling all smug and happy that they've got a super awesome new TV. Then they'll realize there's not much for it.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will stand back and wait for the dust to settle to have any confidence there's any value in it. Because it's just as likely to become obsolete or get replaced with yet another new shiny thing.
No, he's complaining that the HDTV he bought 12 years ago wasn't supported properly as much as 8-10 years ago.
Because the HD spec kept changing, the early adopters got screwed. Before HD was available to most people, the first two generations of display devices were already obviated. By the time you actually got any HD content the spec had said "oh, you aren't supported at full resolution or with this connector".
At which point it becomes a "fool me once" kind of scenario where consumers think "WTF would I buy something which is still going through changes?".
My guess is the GPs HDTV from 12 years ago didn't support HD from 10 years ago. I certainly know people who had bought HDTVs early only to find out they were no longer supported by the time there was anything to connect to it.
Me, I wouldn't consider buying any display technology which hasn't been out and stable for at least several years at this point. And by stable, I mean end to end with the cable and satellite companies, and with some form of DVD which has significant market share.
Anything else is just a gamble which likely won't pay off.
I've never understood how you can file suit without explicitly listing this.
We've heard about far too many lawsuits which vaguely reference a "set of infringing patents", and I seem to recall that (despite asserting Linux infringes) Microsoft has never actually enumerated the patents Linux is supposed to violate.
Forcing them to disclose who has financial interest in it is a good idea, because one gets the impression a lot of these have a behind-the-scenes actor which doesn't get revealed.
Oh, sure, there's always going to be those who pay $20K for a plasma screen or something like that. I knew someone who had CD player where all of the interconnect inside were fiber -- and then people realized there was no actual benefit to that.
But those people are both uncommon, and generally don't indicate what the rest of the market will do. In fact, they're often quite wrong. Sure, laser disc was supposed to be awesome, but I only know about 2 people who ever owned one before they became obsolete.
The rest of us have to be a lot more cautious with our money, and won't piss it away on new tech which hasn't established itself yet.
And the ever changing specs which characterized HD for the first bunch of years has reminded a lot of people that just because it's out and it's new, that it might not be around in a few years or your first gen device might not actually still work. Which means many of us are now looking at anything new that comes out and thinking "yeah, but will it still be around in 2 years?"
But when my cable company doesn't yet give me 1080p, and even the 720p shows compression artifacts -- I figure 4K for TV is pretty much DOA from a consumer perspective. There's no content you can even get, and the cable companies can't deliver the bandwidth for full HD now -- which means they're not likely to be able to handle even higher resolutions.
As usual, I've heard that the porn industry is looking into 4K. And I'm mostly just thinking "now that would be nasty".
Given that my HDTV is only about 2 years old, I don't expect to be seriously investigating any new TV technology for at least another 3-5 years. And I'm betting by then 4K either still won't be available in any meaningful way, or there will be yet another new spec I will be ignoring for the exact same reasons.
Exactly, I get 720p from TV, and in places I can see where they're compressing it down and it looks blocky.
In the abstract, this might be good. But from a practical purpose, my cable company isn't delivering 1080p to me now, there's no way they'd give me 4K.
This makes sense for movie theaters, but for consumers I think this is a complete dead end except for the people who insist on buying the latest and greatest just because it's there. This is just companies trying to sell us something new, and for which there's very little justification.
There's a simple reason for this ... people don't care, and don't have the money to replace their TVs just because something new and shiny comes along.
I'd need to replace my amp, my DVD player (or whatever it would be called), my TV and who knows what else. All to get me a marginally better display?
No thanks.
I'm interested in 4K for my computer monitor, but the ever changing standards around TV makes it a nuisance.
I know plenty of people who bought "HDTV" early in the game, only to find out when HD became common than their devices weren't supported because the spec had changed. Or that they wouldn't get HD because their device didn't support the copy protection scheme.
What consumers want is a stable technology, not be be on a constant upgrade treadmill (as much as the people who sell TVs would like otherwise).
NTSC was unchanged and compatible for what, 40 odd years? When things stabilize in a bunch of years I might consider thinking about 4K -- but right now it's a pointless and expensive upgrade for little or no benefit.
Unfortunately the content industry seems to think we're all going to ditch our stuff every two years as the new hotness comes out. And in the case of 3D, it's gimmicky and gives me a headache, so I never wanted that at all.
That the TV networks are thinking "why would be invest in this" makes perfect sense to me -- because there's no market for it.
Well, if you've gotten that far, you might be able to make off with it.
And if you can't, if you can detonate in place ... you still create a hell of a mess.
The point is, if the guards are sleeping and the door is open, all of your security up to that point is useless. If security falls apart at the weakest link, it sounds like they identified some.
LOL ... sounds familiar I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather.. Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car.
I actually know a couple of narcoleptics who can't drive any more for precisely this reason.
So you'd be OK with be hauled off in the night to be interrogated then? It's security after all there comrade.
Well, the rest of us don't trust TSA or the people who oversee them. So giving them blanket ability to abuse us sounds misplaced.
If the TSA wasn't such an inept organization, they might merit some level of trust. But they aint and they aren't.
Do you think that's an indication of what will survive, or merely what a bunch of HR people have been told is the latest buzzword they need to ramp up on?
I'm not sure it's a sign of longevity so much as it is a sign of what's effectively trending on twitter.
Yes, that's exactly what they've been saying.
"If we can't monitor you to prove you're doing something bad, we'll never be able to know".
Law enforcement and governments have decided it's too inconvenient to follow the procedural rules which have been established, and more or less started trying to make the case for just bypassing them out of convenience.
And, sadly, some of the courts seem stacked with people inclined to just say "well, if you're law enforcement, go ahead".
Welcome to the post 9/11 world, where it's safer (and more lucrative) to assume everyone is a terrorist and have them prove otherwise.
Precisely.
And I've heard enough stories about the baggage handlers stealing stuff and smuggling drugs to suspect they're not putting enough scrutiny on the people who have the best chance of doing something bad.
So, The USB Implementers Forum is a cartel intended to make sure only approved corporations can play the game then?
And, once again, corporations take over everything and the rest of us can eat cake. Color me totally un-surprised.
Because security takes time and costs money, and because there's absolutely no real laws compelling corporations to make any effort to do this properly.
How is it possible there isn't a law requiring them to safeguard your personal information and large penalties if they fail to do so? They can mostly just say "oops, sorry" with no penalty so why bother?
You don't need to be more cynical. They do a half assed job of security because they only need to, and because there's no real penalties for being incompetent at implementing security.
So companies let some summer student write the stuff which secures your data, and don't actually give a damn if it works or not. The bottom line is, it's simply more cost effective to do a bad job of this, and there's no real privacy laws with any teeth to make them try harder.
You're right. But Facebook chooses if that's what they're willing to allow on their site.
Somehow I doubt this is some noble thing about freedom of expression like they're saying -- I strongly suspect it's more about the advertising revenue generated.
Zuckerberg and Facebook can claim some principled stand, but from what I've seen, it's likely just plain old greed.
I'm not convinced they're actually capable of being principled on these things -- they want to do two things, make as much money as possible, and collect as much of your personal information as they can (so they can make as much money as possible). But lets' not pretend that Zuckerfuck is, or ever has been, a principled actor in all of this.
So if the credit bureau is selling all of the information to the identify thieves you're pretty much fucked.
Sounds like this company is playing both ends against the middle and needs to be shutdown.
Pathetic.
No, now you're full of shit and making up your own stupid notions as you go.
It does have a cost on your economy to decide that healthcare is only for the wealthy. And it's the epitome of douchebag to say "let the poor die".
I can disagree with you for both reasons.
Depends on exactly whose goals you mean.
There are clearly many people for whom that race to the bottom is the goal, as long as they keep making money and their stocks go up, they don't give a damn what happens to the rest of society.
They want 'society' to entrench looking out for their interests, but figure the rest of everyone doesn't get anything in return.
Instead they get to be the magnanimous business leaders who throw us a few crumbs now and then.
Only the emergency part, no ongoing care. Nothing preventative ... just enough to say you occasionally provide some medical care.
Or, you know, you invest in preventative medicine so it doesn't come down to "sorry, you're terminal, we don't care". So instead of waiting to force people to go for meager emergency care, actually work to have a healthy population like the rest of the civilized world tries to do. Because then those people might actually be working and contributing to your economy instead of waiting to die.
No, this is why I'm glad I don't live in America, where if you're rich you can have anything you want, and if you're poor you're 'surplus population'.
The rest of the world looks at the US stance on this and shakes their heads. But, hey, if America wants to be known as heartless bastards where life is cheap, that's your choice.
If the American position is truly "let them die and get it over with", then America as a society is pretty much fucked and deserves what they get.
But don't go around the world pretending like you're the defenders of human rights and liberties. The rest of the world doesn't buy into your myths about yourselves.
How much does having your citizens not being able to afford medical care cost the economy?
In the Himalayas?
Yes, there are hybrids, but whether or not that has anything to do with this is another thing.
Like I said, he's postulated another thing for which there isn't direct evidence in the Himalayas (what with it being very far from where you find polar bears) -- at which point, he's just suggested another theory.
So, yes, he tested *something*, and we don't know where that really came from. He's then suggesting the existence of something else in an area it's not been documented, and my question is if there's anything to warrant that conclusion.
I'm far more inclined to believe he's tested what was actually a hoax, and any conclusions about a possible polar bear hybrid is at best speculative, and at worst utterly pointless.
Why does this sound like he's made up another undocumented creature as his explanation?
This sounds like he either tested a sample which was from a hoax, or he's just making shit up.
I'm going with "researcher tests hoax, comes up with own unfounded explanation to get publicity". Because there's no more evidence for the existence of this creature in the Himalayas than the yeti.