America is dysfunctional. Anyone who can't see that has a problem with reality. We're seeing this play out in the large, as they got the government they deserved. Sometimes people have to be in shit up to their neck before they'll admit that maybe something stinks. That's what's happening now. That's why they have a president who was a lame duck from the week he entered office. Whose popularity in 6 months dropped to the same level it took Richard Nixon 6 years to achieve.
It's sick - but it's also pretty damn funny to watch Trump lose and lose and lose. There's only 3-1/2 years to go. Maybe by then things will have gotten so bad that people will change it - because it's the public's fault, letting themselves be swayed by con men for 4 decades.
I hope you're being intentionally stupid, and that you're not normally so retarded. I was pointing out that the poster was making a bogus argument, by carrying the same argument to the next step.
Now if you were proposing tht we take all the Anonymous Cowards and turn them into fertilizer, I could get behind that.
When I was a kid one of my neighbors built a reclining 4-wheeled bike out of used bike parts. They don't have to cost any more than a regular bike if you're good at scrounging.
The "bike path" here is the same width as a full lane, just divided in two so people can go in both directions, or pass each other safely, or dedicated bike paths with no sidewalks or roads nearby that cut through the green spaces (suburbs with lots of reserved wooded areas and a few nature parks thanks to half-decent urban planning). But bikes aren't legally obliged to use the bike paths. I use the road when it's more convenient.
Jogging is worse for the environment than walking. Outlaw jogging! Also, outlaw any exercise machine that requires electricity.
Can't argue with that. It's also bad for the knees. And if your "exercise machine" requires energy, you're doing it wrong. It's silly that people drive to and from a gym to walk on an electric-powered treadmill. Of course, if they cycled there and back, they wouldn't NEED to get exercise at the gym.
One of the problems China is encountering is increased pollution due to people abandoning bikes because having something that emits fumes is now a status symbol. Other cities have already solved traffic congestion problems in part by banning cars in certain areas.
The call of the commie; "Pay for my shit! It's for the greater good!" Yet, when it's your turn to pay for someone else's benefits, your tune will change, especially if you disagree with what's being paid for.
Agreed - let's not buy any F35s. After all, I don't get to use them or benefit from them, so why should I pay for them:-)
The real world includes more than you. So, welcome to the real world. Also, in case you failed science class, you're still sucking in exhaust fumes sitting in traffic in your car. The ac/heating system doesn't remove most pollutants, including CO.
And you might as well face it, you can make a new bike every year for your lifetime for the same materials used to make ONE car. And each of those bikes will last longer than that one car, and use up far less resources, energy, space, and costs for things like maintenance. They're also usable by those who can't drive because they're too young, saving parents having to drive them to school and back or pay for school buses. Ditto for people whose vision is good enough to safely ride a bike, but not a car.
Total maintenance costs on my bike over the last 7 years has been $20.00 for 2 inner tubes - the second one was a few weeks ago. Haven't even oiled the chain - newer chains don't need oiling if you ride almost every day. Next year I'll replace both tires for a total of $30.00 for the 2. Bike tires are easy to change - a socket wrench to remove the wheels and loosen the brakes, 3 spoons from the kitchen to unmount/remount the tires, a foot pump to pump the tires. Takes less time than getting a tire changed on a car.
Yesterday it was in the 80s (90s with the humidity). I rode for 40 minutes each way during the peak temps to get to a meeting and back. It felt GOOD to be able to do that. Sure, a car would have been quicker, but the exercise has an immediate effect on things like morale, as well as the long-term health benefits. Plus with my eye problems, driving a car is out of the question, but a bike - no problem. I've even tried cycling with just my bad eye (20/400 - 20/200 is legally blind). Where are the health benefits of driving? Where are the cost savings?
Most cars and suvs and pickups and vans have only one occupant, so it's not like their extra passenger capacity makes up for their greater road and parking space requirements.
And of course, there's the added benefit that, no matter how crowded the shopping center or hospital parking lot is, I can chain my bike near the entrance and walk right in. Parking for bikes is always free - handy when you're going to the hospital like I did 6 times in June (plus a couple of doctor visits), Heck, the savings in parking fees alone could pay for a cheap new bike.
Bikes were on roads before the car even existed. Bikers have a well-established right to use the roads. Get over it. Go ride a bike once in a while - you'll probably live longer.
Seek bike paths, and press the point that it means there will be less cyclists on the road with the drivers.
Great. Let's take one lane from car traffic and dedicate it to bike traffic. Let's see how you like that.
We actually did that, taking a 3-lane boulevard and turning it into 2 lanes each way, a bicycle path on one side, and turning one center lane into an area where cars can sit before making a left-hand turn rather than blocking traffic. Traffic flow improved, so did safety, and so did the quality of life for residents. It's been like that for more than 30 years because, despite greatly increased traffic volumes in the interim, it's still better able to handle traffic than the original 3-lanes-each-way.
There are cost SAVINGS to supporting cycling. Not just in the externalities of pollution that car users avoid paying, but also less competition for parking spaces, fewer vehicles double-parked (think bike courriers as compared to car courriers), the indirect cost of cars vis. obesity and general health, etc.
Adult tricycles. With an aging population, it's not a bad idea. Also recumbent 4-wheel pedal-powered quadracycles. Or make them look like Fred Flintstone cars. You can have more than one person peddling. Yabba-dabba-do!
Compared to the same number of people on bicycles, buses are also terrible for the environment. Walking is also far superior, though it uses more calories to cover the same distance, so the increased food production and consumption make it less environmentally friendly than cycling.
So what you need to do is build better facilities (bike paths, etc) to separate cyclist traffic from vehicle traffic. Everyone benefits in that scenario, whereas discouraging cyclists means bot more traffic congestion and more competition for parking spaces. After all, even you state that the problem is too many bikes on the roads, not too many bikes per se. (and yes, it's spelled "per se", not "per say")
The company making the cameras will be sued out of existence by the victim's family
So, how many municipalities will be sued out of existence by victim's families when the software in a camera mis-identifies a victim? Seems you can't come up with a number, especially since I don't see large software companies with a reputation of shitty bug-ridden products going broke, so based on historical data, the most likely answer will be zero.
Here it's perfectly legal to call the cops any name you want. It's called freedom of speech. They have to act the same way any other adult on the job would act in a similar situation - professionally. You seem to think that it's okay for cops to not be professional.
The problem is your country is sick. It not only has the largest prison population in the world - it's also the largest exporter of violence. The solution is obvious - split it up into east coast, west coast, Jeebusland, and whatever. Then each of you can live the way you want, and Jeebusland can build a wall to keep all the peacenik pinko commies with their desire for socialized medicine and gun control out. Win-win for everyone.
So what you're saying is that two cops with body armour, tasers, and pepper spray are not able to overpower an unarmed woman? Your cops need to be sent to another country for training, because obviously they aren't getting it in the USA.
I've had to deal with a guy (a co-worker of all things) with a knife who said he was going to slice my throat open. I was unarmed. What did I do? Dared him to try it, then stuck my head out closer to him to give him a good shot. I'd have wiped the floor with him, and at that point he knew it. People like that are cowards. So are your cops if they need to go for their gun first.
As for the poor crime ridden areas, maybe you should address the blatant racism that keeps poor people poor and that throws black people in jail for stuff that white folks get a fine for. And all those guns? That's the fault of your defectively worded constitution. You don't need militias any more.
Blah blah blah... totally ignores that the problem is specific to the gun-nutty USA. If you had gun control, everyone would be safer. Including the cops.
So you think it's okay for 2 cops in body armour, with tasers and pepper spray, to shoot first and ask questions later. No wonder the USA is now the world's laughingstock, with a president who is a lame duck after only 6 months.
Did you miss the part about body armour, taser, and pepper spray? And let's not forget that they usually outnumber the perp, AND they can call for backup.
2016 stats were more than 4x as many civilians killed by cops than cops killed by civilians. And if I wanted to cherry-pick stats, I could have gone to 2015, where it was about 8x. So fuck you. Other countries have almost nobody killed by cops, and almost no cops killed by anyone - way lower per capita rates than the US. Fix your country or keep killing yourselves - but as long as it doesn't spill over to other countries, I don't really give a shit how many of you kill each other. I'd consider it Darwin working to destroy non-viable cultures.
So, when are you going to admit you're having another civil war based on skin colour?
The #1 use case in the future will be personal security - so that even if the police "forget" to turn their body cams on, they'll know they're being watched. Give it 15 years.
Slashdot Mirror
America is dysfunctional. Anyone who can't see that has a problem with reality. We're seeing this play out in the large, as they got the government they deserved. Sometimes people have to be in shit up to their neck before they'll admit that maybe something stinks. That's what's happening now. That's why they have a president who was a lame duck from the week he entered office. Whose popularity in 6 months dropped to the same level it took Richard Nixon 6 years to achieve.
It's sick - but it's also pretty damn funny to watch Trump lose and lose and lose. There's only 3-1/2 years to go. Maybe by then things will have gotten so bad that people will change it - because it's the public's fault, letting themselves be swayed by con men for 4 decades.
So the problem was in the implementation. Blame the city administration, not the cyclists, and the program for not establishing minimum standards.
I hope you're being intentionally stupid, and that you're not normally so retarded. I was pointing out that the poster was making a bogus argument, by carrying the same argument to the next step.
Now if you were proposing tht we take all the Anonymous Cowards and turn them into fertilizer, I could get behind that.
When I was a kid one of my neighbors built a reclining 4-wheeled bike out of used bike parts. They don't have to cost any more than a regular bike if you're good at scrounging.
The "bike path" here is the same width as a full lane, just divided in two so people can go in both directions, or pass each other safely, or dedicated bike paths with no sidewalks or roads nearby that cut through the green spaces (suburbs with lots of reserved wooded areas and a few nature parks thanks to half-decent urban planning). But bikes aren't legally obliged to use the bike paths. I use the road when it's more convenient.
So you admit you need more dedicated bike paths. Don't blame the cyclists for poor urban planning.
Jogging is worse for the environment than walking. Outlaw jogging! Also, outlaw any exercise machine that requires electricity.
Can't argue with that. It's also bad for the knees. And if your "exercise machine" requires energy, you're doing it wrong. It's silly that people drive to and from a gym to walk on an electric-powered treadmill. Of course, if they cycled there and back, they wouldn't NEED to get exercise at the gym.
One of the problems China is encountering is increased pollution due to people abandoning bikes because having something that emits fumes is now a status symbol. Other cities have already solved traffic congestion problems in part by banning cars in certain areas.
The call of the commie; "Pay for my shit! It's for the greater good!" Yet, when it's your turn to pay for someone else's benefits, your tune will change, especially if you disagree with what's being paid for.
Agreed - let's not buy any F35s. After all, I don't get to use them or benefit from them, so why should I pay for them :-)
The real world includes more than you. So, welcome to the real world. Also, in case you failed science class, you're still sucking in exhaust fumes sitting in traffic in your car. The ac/heating system doesn't remove most pollutants, including CO.
And you might as well face it, you can make a new bike every year for your lifetime for the same materials used to make ONE car. And each of those bikes will last longer than that one car, and use up far less resources, energy, space, and costs for things like maintenance. They're also usable by those who can't drive because they're too young, saving parents having to drive them to school and back or pay for school buses. Ditto for people whose vision is good enough to safely ride a bike, but not a car.
Total maintenance costs on my bike over the last 7 years has been $20.00 for 2 inner tubes - the second one was a few weeks ago. Haven't even oiled the chain - newer chains don't need oiling if you ride almost every day. Next year I'll replace both tires for a total of $30.00 for the 2. Bike tires are easy to change - a socket wrench to remove the wheels and loosen the brakes, 3 spoons from the kitchen to unmount/remount the tires, a foot pump to pump the tires. Takes less time than getting a tire changed on a car.
Yesterday it was in the 80s (90s with the humidity). I rode for 40 minutes each way during the peak temps to get to a meeting and back. It felt GOOD to be able to do that. Sure, a car would have been quicker, but the exercise has an immediate effect on things like morale, as well as the long-term health benefits. Plus with my eye problems, driving a car is out of the question, but a bike - no problem. I've even tried cycling with just my bad eye (20/400 - 20/200 is legally blind). Where are the health benefits of driving? Where are the cost savings?
Most cars and suvs and pickups and vans have only one occupant, so it's not like their extra passenger capacity makes up for their greater road and parking space requirements.
And of course, there's the added benefit that, no matter how crowded the shopping center or hospital parking lot is, I can chain my bike near the entrance and walk right in. Parking for bikes is always free - handy when you're going to the hospital like I did 6 times in June (plus a couple of doctor visits), Heck, the savings in parking fees alone could pay for a cheap new bike.
Bikes were on roads before the car even existed. Bikers have a well-established right to use the roads. Get over it. Go ride a bike once in a while - you'll probably live longer.
Seek bike paths, and press the point that it means there will be less cyclists on the road with the drivers.
Great. Let's take one lane from car traffic and dedicate it to bike traffic. Let's see how you like that.
We actually did that, taking a 3-lane boulevard and turning it into 2 lanes each way, a bicycle path on one side, and turning one center lane into an area where cars can sit before making a left-hand turn rather than blocking traffic. Traffic flow improved, so did safety, and so did the quality of life for residents. It's been like that for more than 30 years because, despite greatly increased traffic volumes in the interim, it's still better able to handle traffic than the original 3-lanes-each-way.
There are cost SAVINGS to supporting cycling. Not just in the externalities of pollution that car users avoid paying, but also less competition for parking spaces, fewer vehicles double-parked (think bike courriers as compared to car courriers), the indirect cost of cars vis. obesity and general health, etc.
Adult tricycles. With an aging population, it's not a bad idea. Also recumbent 4-wheel pedal-powered quadracycles. Or make them look like Fred Flintstone cars. You can have more than one person peddling. Yabba-dabba-do!
$15 per limb at time of purchase
$15 per limb at time of birth, $60. Spiders have 8 legs, so they pay $120.
So anyone buying a Christmas tree better be ready to shell out big bucks.
Compared to the same number of people on bicycles, buses are also terrible for the environment. Walking is also far superior, though it uses more calories to cover the same distance, so the increased food production and consumption make it less environmentally friendly than cycling.
So what you need to do is build better facilities (bike paths, etc) to separate cyclist traffic from vehicle traffic. Everyone benefits in that scenario, whereas discouraging cyclists means bot more traffic congestion and more competition for parking spaces. After all, even you state that the problem is too many bikes on the roads, not too many bikes per se. (and yes, it's spelled "per se", not "per say")
The company making the cameras will be sued out of existence by the victim's family
So, how many municipalities will be sued out of existence by victim's families when the software in a camera mis-identifies a victim? Seems you can't come up with a number, especially since I don't see large software companies with a reputation of shitty bug-ridden products going broke, so based on historical data, the most likely answer will be zero.
Here it's perfectly legal to call the cops any name you want. It's called freedom of speech. They have to act the same way any other adult on the job would act in a similar situation - professionally. You seem to think that it's okay for cops to not be professional.
The problem is your country is sick. It not only has the largest prison population in the world - it's also the largest exporter of violence. The solution is obvious - split it up into east coast, west coast, Jeebusland, and whatever. Then each of you can live the way you want, and Jeebusland can build a wall to keep all the peacenik pinko commies with their desire for socialized medicine and gun control out. Win-win for everyone.
So what you're saying is that two cops with body armour, tasers, and pepper spray are not able to overpower an unarmed woman? Your cops need to be sent to another country for training, because obviously they aren't getting it in the USA.
I've had to deal with a guy (a co-worker of all things) with a knife who said he was going to slice my throat open. I was unarmed. What did I do? Dared him to try it, then stuck my head out closer to him to give him a good shot. I'd have wiped the floor with him, and at that point he knew it. People like that are cowards. So are your cops if they need to go for their gun first.
As for the poor crime ridden areas, maybe you should address the blatant racism that keeps poor people poor and that throws black people in jail for stuff that white folks get a fine for. And all those guns? That's the fault of your defectively worded constitution. You don't need militias any more.
Read the story, asshole. The whole world is talking about it. You are one sick country.
Blah blah blah ... totally ignores that the problem is specific to the gun-nutty USA. If you had gun control, everyone would be safer. Including the cops.
So you think it's okay for 2 cops in body armour, with tasers and pepper spray, to shoot first and ask questions later. No wonder the USA is now the world's laughingstock, with a president who is a lame duck after only 6 months.
Did you miss the part about body armour, taser, and pepper spray? And let's not forget that they usually outnumber the perp, AND they can call for backup.
2016 stats were more than 4x as many civilians killed by cops than cops killed by civilians. And if I wanted to cherry-pick stats, I could have gone to 2015, where it was about 8x. So fuck you. Other countries have almost nobody killed by cops, and almost no cops killed by anyone - way lower per capita rates than the US. Fix your country or keep killing yourselves - but as long as it doesn't spill over to other countries, I don't really give a shit how many of you kill each other. I'd consider it Darwin working to destroy non-viable cultures.
So, when are you going to admit you're having another civil war based on skin colour?
The #1 use case in the future will be personal security - so that even if the police "forget" to turn their body cams on, they'll know they're being watched. Give it 15 years.
A pair of cops wearing body armour, armed with pepper spray and taser, shouldn't reach for their guns unless the other person also has a gun.
We convicted a cop of murder because he repeatedly shot a man armed with a knife. If you can't use a gun responsibly, you shouldn't have one.