Actually I feel that 25 mph is too fast on a residential area street.
Good thing policy is deciding on more than just your feelings eh?
I can't see how anyone can argue for a single number to represent every single residential street ever built. I drive at whatever speed I feel like, and find some streets you have to go slower, and some allow you a bit more freedom. Road safety requires that users buy into the rules and play along. If you simply set super strict speed limits that make no sense, people won't go along with it, and hence you end up with a good portion of the population ignoring stupid speed limits.
Which has f' all to do with the fact that a car travelling at 20mph is not likely to kill someone it hits and a car travelling at 30mph is massively more likely to kill anyone it hits.
Couple of issues with this "Logic":
1. What are the increased/decreased chances of being "hit" at various speeds? Without this data, any claims are bunk
2. If 20mph is better than 30mph, that implies 10mph is better than 20mph, and 5 is better than 10, and 1 is better than 5. Applying your exact same logic, should the speed limit be zero (The only truly 'safe' speed)?
Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.
So what are the chances of being hit?
For someone calling himself MrLogic, you failed fucking miserably at this one.
We just had a major reshuffle of our local government here which made a lot of noise in the press. Community meetings were held, debates on the radio, posters in shop windows, and people explaining why it's the end of the world etc.
The local govt decided to hold a public forum to let the public have a voice, and out of over 200,000 local population less than 200 people showed up. So 199,800 people didn't really care that much, but the noisy 0.1% managed to turn it into a controversy.
These facts don't stop the media though, they love controversy so beat it up as much as possible to sell more advertising. Fucking parasites...
How do you decide what is the appropriate amount of equalness? Extreme edge case nutbags occupying less than 1% of the spectrum shouldn't necessarily be give 50% of air time.
And what if there's one party with 90% representation, and 49 parties all with 0.2% each, is your version of equal 2% air time for everyone?
What if the 90% are provably wrong, and one of the 49 minor parties is provably right? Do they still get 2% (equal air time), 0.2% (representational air time), or 50% (based on provable facts)?
Ray Crock's principle of "The Customer is always right" is great until the customer comes to believe that this should be the case every time.
I'm sure we've all experienced them before. I remember this stupid bitch at a touristy location begging for the operator of a Segway hire place to let her young children have a go (rules were you had to be over 12). So after being bullied, the operator gives in (these kids looked about 6 or 7), but only to be barraged again because they can't find a helmet to fit her kid's tiny heads. The operator puts on the smallest helmets which just hang over the kids faces obstructing their vision, so the women is now complaining loudly that they shouldn't have to wear helmets because they don't fit.
Never underestimate the stupidity of some people. Elon gave this guy what he deserves.
Not always, but it depends on how you complain. I only got as far as the title of the open letter before deciding the guy is a douche "Dear Elon Musk, You should be ashamed of yourself. It’s bad enough that your event producers couldn’t actually produce an event...".
I write complaint letters to companies all the time (yep, I'm that guy), but they're always constructive and full of advice and recommendations, not petty abuse. More often than not I get free stuff from those companies for giving them feedback. This guy wasn't that, he was a jerk and got what he deserved.
I am a person, and I buy from a corporation. And just because I buy from a corporation doesn't mean the employees have the right to treat me like shit.
Of course they do. It might not be good business, but the Soup Nazi has every right to be a dick if he so chooses, and you have every right to not buy his soup.
Twitter started it, they introduced censorship. Now they have to be consistent about it. That it becomes really nasty is the point, hopefully they will realise they don't want to be doing censorship.
Of course they do. Free Speech sounds nice when you use examples of resisting tyranny, but free Speech doesn't work so well when it involves exploiting weaker individuals. eg Intimidation, hate speech, sexual assault.
As as much as "Censorship" is used as some sort of invincibility shield in Internet forums , the civilised world isn't so simple.
The same as you can choose to censor democrats. Some people seem to confuse free speech with, "you must hear what I have to say".
That's is not how Free Speech works.
There is no more cheating in cycling than any other sport. For example, see the two major Australian football codes, which are using media and promotional ties to effectively sweep endemic drug cheating under the carpet. Or international athletics, of which the tip of the cheating iceberg has recently surfaced. The difference is that cycling is actively trying to eradicate cheating, thus the invasive scrutinising and drug tests.
But I've never seen a football player try to take the field in a car...
Personally, I'd favor the rear wheel. There's plenty of room inside the hub of the rear wheel (internally geared hubs have shown us that). The crank hub has to endure significant stress from pedaling. Lastly, it's a whole lot easier to "lose" the rear wheel (just get a flat and change it out on the way).
I'm no expert but having looked into ebikes in the past, the consensus seemed to be that hub motors are worse because they affect handling too much (heavy wheels). It's a similar reason to why electric cars moved away from hub motors I believe, too much of an impact on handling.
T In any case, as we have already seen with test deployments in Europe, the energy generated over the lifetime of each slab vastly exceeds the extra cost compared to concrete or asphalt.
But does it cost more or less than concrete/asphalt plus a brand new power station somewhere? They aren't cheap either.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that 85% of the people that drive by my house decide to drive like reckless idiots doesn't magically make it safer for them to do so.
No, but the fact they they aren't crashing does though.
Just because it feels bad to you, doesn't make it bad. This is why science was invented.
Anyone that XYZ is the worst type of scumbag.
No, that type of thinking is...
Actually I feel that 25 mph is too fast on a residential area street.
Good thing policy is deciding on more than just your feelings eh?
I can't see how anyone can argue for a single number to represent every single residential street ever built. I drive at whatever speed I feel like, and find some streets you have to go slower, and some allow you a bit more freedom. Road safety requires that users buy into the rules and play along. If you simply set super strict speed limits that make no sense, people won't go along with it, and hence you end up with a good portion of the population ignoring stupid speed limits.
Which has f' all to do with the fact that a car travelling at 20mph is not likely to kill someone it hits and a car travelling at 30mph is massively more likely to kill anyone it hits.
Couple of issues with this "Logic":
1. What are the increased/decreased chances of being "hit" at various speeds? Without this data, any claims are bunk
2. If 20mph is better than 30mph, that implies 10mph is better than 20mph, and 5 is better than 10, and 1 is better than 5. Applying your exact same logic, should the speed limit be zero (The only truly 'safe' speed)?
Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.
So what are the chances of being hit?
For someone calling himself MrLogic, you failed fucking miserably at this one.
We just had a major reshuffle of our local government here which made a lot of noise in the press. Community meetings were held, debates on the radio, posters in shop windows, and people explaining why it's the end of the world etc.
The local govt decided to hold a public forum to let the public have a voice, and out of over 200,000 local population less than 200 people showed up. So 199,800 people didn't really care that much, but the noisy 0.1% managed to turn it into a controversy.
These facts don't stop the media though, they love controversy so beat it up as much as possible to sell more advertising. Fucking parasites...
The United Nations disagrees with you.
Yet no representation at the United Nations? Weird....
I fully support equal air time.
How do you decide what is the appropriate amount of equalness? Extreme edge case nutbags occupying less than 1% of the spectrum shouldn't necessarily be give 50% of air time.
And what if there's one party with 90% representation, and 49 parties all with 0.2% each, is your version of equal 2% air time for everyone?
What if the 90% are provably wrong, and one of the 49 minor parties is provably right? Do they still get 2% (equal air time), 0.2% (representational air time), or 50% (based on provable facts)?
That's only one individual in 169,350. Nobody with the most basic grasp of probability would expect many people to qualify.
This might be part of the strategy. I don't think many people are expected to qualify as Air Force pilots anyway, so this is an easy culling measure.
Ray Crock's principle of "The Customer is always right" is great until the customer comes to believe that this should be the case every time.
I'm sure we've all experienced them before. I remember this stupid bitch at a touristy location begging for the operator of a Segway hire place to let her young children have a go (rules were you had to be over 12). So after being bullied, the operator gives in (these kids looked about 6 or 7), but only to be barraged again because they can't find a helmet to fit her kid's tiny heads. The operator puts on the smallest helmets which just hang over the kids faces obstructing their vision, so the women is now complaining loudly that they shouldn't have to wear helmets because they don't fit.
Never underestimate the stupidity of some people. Elon gave this guy what he deserves.
Complaining != rude customer
Not always, but it depends on how you complain. I only got as far as the title of the open letter before deciding the guy is a douche "Dear Elon Musk, You should be ashamed of yourself. It’s bad enough that your event producers couldn’t actually produce an event...".
I write complaint letters to companies all the time (yep, I'm that guy), but they're always constructive and full of advice and recommendations, not petty abuse. More often than not I get free stuff from those companies for giving them feedback. This guy wasn't that, he was a jerk and got what he deserved.
I am a person, and I buy from a corporation. And just because I buy from a corporation doesn't mean the employees have the right to treat me like shit.
Of course they do. It might not be good business, but the Soup Nazi has every right to be a dick if he so chooses, and you have every right to not buy his soup.
3D printer prints some parts of a gun, but none of the important bits. Who gives a fuck, seriously?
But wait, 3D printing!!!
Free speech is free speech. Everyone else is free to ignore it.
Even children?
Twitter started it, they introduced censorship. Now they have to be consistent about it. That it becomes really nasty is the point, hopefully they will realise they don't want to be doing censorship.
Of course they do. Free Speech sounds nice when you use examples of resisting tyranny, but free Speech doesn't work so well when it involves exploiting weaker individuals. eg Intimidation, hate speech, sexual assault.
As as much as "Censorship" is used as some sort of invincibility shield in Internet forums , the civilised world isn't so simple.
Um I think you're confusing free speech with discrimination...
After all, they have aspirations of being a communications platform and social network and that requires more than merely being legally above board.
Does it? I thought Twitter was simply a platform for D grade wannabe celebrities to try and get attention?
No, dude, it's OK to censor republicans. ;)
The same as you can choose to censor democrats. Some people seem to confuse free speech with, "you must hear what I have to say".
That's is not how Free Speech works.
which saves 30-40% of their energy/aka watts.
Ok I have to pick you out on this, because of where you are.
/pedantry
Energy is measured in Joules, Power is measured in Watts.
There is no more cheating in cycling than any other sport. For example, see the two major Australian football codes, which are using media and promotional ties to effectively sweep endemic drug cheating under the carpet. Or international athletics, of which the tip of the cheating iceberg has recently surfaced. The difference is that cycling is actively trying to eradicate cheating, thus the invasive scrutinising and drug tests.
But I've never seen a football player try to take the field in a car...
Dunno, have you ever seen a horse riding a bike?
Personally, I'd favor the rear wheel. There's plenty of room inside the hub of the rear wheel (internally geared hubs have shown us that). The crank hub has to endure significant stress from pedaling. Lastly, it's a whole lot easier to "lose" the rear wheel (just get a flat and change it out on the way).
I'm no expert but having looked into ebikes in the past, the consensus seemed to be that hub motors are worse because they affect handling too much (heavy wheels). It's a similar reason to why electric cars moved away from hub motors I believe, too much of an impact on handling.
T In any case, as we have already seen with test deployments in Europe, the energy generated over the lifetime of each slab vastly exceeds the extra cost compared to concrete or asphalt.
But does it cost more or less than concrete/asphalt plus a brand new power station somewhere?
They aren't cheap either.
I mean, I just can't comprehend how this is even a proposal in the first place.
And here is your problem. Failure of imagination...