This. A lot of professional sports, from baseball to wrestling, have systemic doping...the difference is cycling has clamped down on it, where many others still turn a blind eye. When they look, they'll find it as well.
Soccer? Rugby? Tennis? Golf? Yachting? I don't think it's as wide-spread as you think.
Maybe some sports that require actual skill need drugs less, since drugs don't really help. In sports where it is simple endurance or strength then it does.
Funny thing is that I find those strength/endurance type sports the least entertaining to watch.
I went to an ebike store and the guy was showing me bikes in the range of $4,000-$6,000. Who would pay that much? Ridiculous. You know they are being manufactured in China for $200.
I know right. I was in the Apple store and they wanted $1000 for a phone, but last time I was in China I could get a ChingChong special for $20. Why would anyone pay more than that?
Most bike accidents happen to inexperienced riders and/or idiots. The rest were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Neither of those points will ever stop me from riding.
Same goes for most things. Once you remove the idiots from the stats, the risk profiles becomes much, much lower.
I ride a motorbike, and the stats for motorbikes are terrible. But once you realise that motorbikes are magnets for idiots, the stats become a lot more acceptable.
Every time I've reported skimmers to police, both in Europe and the US, they really don't give a damn
How many skimmers are you finding?
I'll admit I'm no expert but I do keep an eye out for any suspect ATMs. In my entire life I've come across precisely zero.
Even the cheapest Model S is about 2 tonnes and puts out about 250kW. The high performance versions are about 200kg heavier and pump out vastly more power.
Yeah, there's bit more to it than that. A Cessna can run at 80% power for hours on end. Good luck doing that with a Telsa.
And before someone starts complaining about "But we didn't used to have cellphones!" no we didn't, now we do: It's called progress.
Having fuckwits waving their phone in your face at a concert isn't progress. If you are concerned that a medical emergency may arise that you can't respond to quickly enough, you know you can always like, you know, not buy a ticket?
Be fearful! There might be strangers sleeping somewhere in a property near you.
I bet the hotels are lobbying for this. Airbnb is one thing that is pushing the cost of visiting New York down.
I'm a fan of the new "sharing economy" and even have signed up as a Uber driver, and have and AirBnB listing. But you can't realistically expect these things to remain unregulated. People have a right to a peaceful existence, and if the room on the other side of your bedroom wall is causing you continued grief you should have options available to restrict that.
If the law only targets apartments, and leaves owners of detached houses free to do what they want, isn't this creating a two-tier system favouring the already rich?
You mean the same way that money discriminates the rich because the more you have, the more it weighs?
In case you are serious, apartments have different rules because occupants are subject to different conditions (eg noise, smells etc have much more impact to others, because they are much closer, therefore need stricter regulations). Does that not seem obvious to you?
the global financial crisis caused half a million additional deaths due to cancer alone
Cancer would kill you anyway if rich people weren't paying for the medical system that improves quality of life for patients.
And life expectancy has increased decade on decade because of inventions and systems and policies put in place by those same rich people.
So if prosperity comes with the occasional correction, it's still a much larger net gain than some poor fool raping your wife for kicks. I'll still take a GFC every few decades over that alternative.
I don't support the Libertarian Party, but that's a quote from their 2004 platform, and I agree with it.
Well that's cute and all, but it's entirely impractical. eg How do you renounce participation in security that the US military provides you? Whether you renounce it or not you still receive direct benefit from it. So unless you have an entire planet which you can make yourself immune from every external influence, you are a participant, and therefore need to participate.
I'm not sure that's actually correct. Poor people get caught more often, but IIRC there's research showing that the rich are more likely to break the law. Also, the rich have more resources so their crimes have the potential to have a much bigger impact.
I'm not sure about that. Rich people crimes are mostly just inconveniences to others, poor people crimes usually involve violence and death.
If I had to be a victim, I prefer to have my shares lose value illegally, than my wife being raped.
Good plan lets have civics exam before anyone is allowed to vote. No democrat will win an election ever again.
Strange comment. I'm not American, but my impression is that Democrat areas are the more educated and developed (eg Silicon Valley, MIT etc), while Republican areas are hillbilly redneck, pray to jesus and shoot things areas.
Yeah, that's about right. There is an aspect to the American character that leads people to feel that if they haven't squeezed out every last drop, even if they have to be an asshole to do it, they are suckers leaving money on the table. There is a certain amount of "I've got mine, fuck you" going on here.
There is a definitely a cultural difference at play.
I remember a story my grandfather told me about his time as a WW2 POW. The Allied soldiers were all in it together, and if one guy was crook, or needed help, his fellow prisoners would chip in and help. English, French, Australian whatever, whether it was a blanket, a cigarette, or sharing rations, they all chipped in an helped each other out. Except the Americans he said. If the Americans had something on offer, it came with conditions. I give you a smoke, you give me two back. I see similar attitudes now in international forums such as this.
Only a fool gets up and leaves money on the table.
Depends if you care more about money more than other things.
Most people I talk to are happy to pay a reasonable amount of tax to maintain a reasonable quality of life for themselves and others.
I get the impression the US outlook is that other people can get fucked, it's all about me. Then they wonder when the other guy treats them in the same manner.
subsidy / welfare == receipt of someone else's money
tax deduction == less of one's own money being taken
those things are different
The myth that it is your money. As a society, we all get value from others, this value is abstracted in the form of money, but that doesn't mean it is yours.
This is what Obama was saying to Romney with the "you didn't build that" speech. Even the richest person receives benefits from the greater community, they therefore have an obligation to contribute to that community in the form of taxes.
Real unemployment (as measured by taking the inverse of the labor participation rate).
No it isn't. Since labour participation only uses raw figures of people with jobs vs total population.
Some reasons this is not accurate are:
Kids now stay in school longer, so of course 15-24 year olds will participate in the labour market less.
Some older people retire earlier, hence will participate in the market less
There is more wealth overall so some increasing percentage will choose not to work.
The labour market is changing, no doubt about that, technology and wealth creation will do that. But that doesn't mean it's bad, and suggesting it's the same as the great depression is moronic.
Are you one of those people that thinks that it's not your money, it's the government's.
It is. Money is a construct of some sort of authority, since without it it's just paper or numbers on a spreadsheet. In our case that authority is chosen by the people in the form of a democratic government.
So yeah, the government does own the money, and has the right to control it how it sees fit.
To be in the top 1%, you have to earn over $428,000 per year. I'd venture that most of/. wouldn't even crack the top 10% (about $128K annually).
I'd venture that it's even higher than that, since not all rich people earn there wealth through big tax-declared salaries (eg Steve Jobs).
One of the great conspiracies of the wealthy is to not let everyone else know how truly rich they are.
Slashdot Mirror
This. A lot of professional sports, from baseball to wrestling, have systemic doping...the difference is cycling has clamped down on it, where many others still turn a blind eye. When they look, they'll find it as well.
Soccer? Rugby? Tennis? Golf? Yachting? I don't think it's as wide-spread as you think. Maybe some sports that require actual skill need drugs less, since drugs don't really help. In sports where it is simple endurance or strength then it does.
Funny thing is that I find those strength/endurance type sports the least entertaining to watch.
I went to an ebike store and the guy was showing me bikes in the range of $4,000-$6,000. Who would pay that much? Ridiculous. You know they are being manufactured in China for $200.
I know right. I was in the Apple store and they wanted $1000 for a phone, but last time I was in China I could get a ChingChong special for $20. Why would anyone pay more than that?
Most bike accidents happen to inexperienced riders and/or idiots. The rest were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Neither of those points will ever stop me from riding.
Same goes for most things. Once you remove the idiots from the stats, the risk profiles becomes much, much lower.
I ride a motorbike, and the stats for motorbikes are terrible. But once you realise that motorbikes are magnets for idiots, the stats become a lot more acceptable.
Every time I've reported skimmers to police, both in Europe and the US, they really don't give a damn
How many skimmers are you finding?
I'll admit I'm no expert but I do keep an eye out for any suspect ATMs. In my entire life I've come across precisely zero.
Has any other sport ever been associated so much with cheating as cycling? It really is getting ridiculous.
Came here to say this. Intake snorkels are common, I've never seen an "exhaust scoop"
Same. Makes me wonder at the intelligence of the submission/editorial process to have such ignorance on the front page.
Even the cheapest Model S is about 2 tonnes and puts out about 250kW. The high performance versions are about 200kg heavier and pump out vastly more power.
Yeah, there's bit more to it than that. A Cessna can run at 80% power for hours on end. Good luck doing that with a Telsa.
Ha! I'm going to use that...
form a roman-shield formation
The word you are looking for is phalanx.
My kids' school has a no camera/phone/tablet policy at all performances. No-one has died of a medical emergency so far.
But don't punish everyone for the actions of a minority.
So not having your phone for 2 hours is now considered "punishment"?
If you don't like it, don't go. Is it that hard?
And before someone starts complaining about "But we didn't used to have cellphones!" no we didn't, now we do: It's called progress.
Having fuckwits waving their phone in your face at a concert isn't progress. If you are concerned that a medical emergency may arise that you can't respond to quickly enough, you know you can always like, you know, not buy a ticket?
Be fearful! There might be strangers sleeping somewhere in a property near you.
I bet the hotels are lobbying for this. Airbnb is one thing that is pushing the cost of visiting New York down.
I'm a fan of the new "sharing economy" and even have signed up as a Uber driver, and have and AirBnB listing. But you can't realistically expect these things to remain unregulated. People have a right to a peaceful existence, and if the room on the other side of your bedroom wall is causing you continued grief you should have options available to restrict that.
If the law only targets apartments, and leaves owners of detached houses free to do what they want, isn't this creating a two-tier system favouring the already rich?
You mean the same way that money discriminates the rich because the more you have, the more it weighs?
In case you are serious, apartments have different rules because occupants are subject to different conditions (eg noise, smells etc have much more impact to others, because they are much closer, therefore need stricter regulations). Does that not seem obvious to you?
the global financial crisis caused half a million additional deaths due to cancer alone
Cancer would kill you anyway if rich people weren't paying for the medical system that improves quality of life for patients.
And life expectancy has increased decade on decade because of inventions and systems and policies put in place by those same rich people.
So if prosperity comes with the occasional correction, it's still a much larger net gain than some poor fool raping your wife for kicks. I'll still take a GFC every few decades over that alternative.
I don't support the Libertarian Party, but that's a quote from their 2004 platform, and I agree with it.
Well that's cute and all, but it's entirely impractical. eg How do you renounce participation in security that the US military provides you? Whether you renounce it or not you still receive direct benefit from it. So unless you have an entire planet which you can make yourself immune from every external influence, you are a participant, and therefore need to participate.
I'm not sure that's actually correct. Poor people get caught more often, but IIRC there's research showing that the rich are more likely to break the law. Also, the rich have more resources so their crimes have the potential to have a much bigger impact.
I'm not sure about that. Rich people crimes are mostly just inconveniences to others, poor people crimes usually involve violence and death.
If I had to be a victim, I prefer to have my shares lose value illegally, than my wife being raped.
Good plan lets have civics exam before anyone is allowed to vote. No democrat will win an election ever again.
Strange comment. I'm not American, but my impression is that Democrat areas are the more educated and developed (eg Silicon Valley, MIT etc), while Republican areas are hillbilly redneck, pray to jesus and shoot things areas.
Yeah, that's about right. There is an aspect to the American character that leads people to feel that if they haven't squeezed out every last drop, even if they have to be an asshole to do it, they are suckers leaving money on the table. There is a certain amount of "I've got mine, fuck you" going on here.
There is a definitely a cultural difference at play.
I remember a story my grandfather told me about his time as a WW2 POW. The Allied soldiers were all in it together, and if one guy was crook, or needed help, his fellow prisoners would chip in and help. English, French, Australian whatever, whether it was a blanket, a cigarette, or sharing rations, they all chipped in an helped each other out. Except the Americans he said. If the Americans had something on offer, it came with conditions. I give you a smoke, you give me two back. I see similar attitudes now in international forums such as this.
Only a fool gets up and leaves money on the table.
Depends if you care more about money more than other things.
Most people I talk to are happy to pay a reasonable amount of tax to maintain a reasonable quality of life for themselves and others.
I get the impression the US outlook is that other people can get fucked, it's all about me. Then they wonder when the other guy treats them in the same manner.
Of course I reject that concept. Taxes are the resources the government uses to wage war on others and on ourselves.
That's fair enough. So you also reject all of the services the government provides?
Thought so....
subsidy / welfare == receipt of someone else's money tax deduction == less of one's own money being taken
those things are different
The myth that it is your money. As a society, we all get value from others, this value is abstracted in the form of money, but that doesn't mean it is yours.
This is what Obama was saying to Romney with the "you didn't build that" speech. Even the richest person receives benefits from the greater community, they therefore have an obligation to contribute to that community in the form of taxes.
Real unemployment (as measured by taking the inverse of the labor participation rate) .
No it isn't. Since labour participation only uses raw figures of people with jobs vs total population.
Some reasons this is not accurate are:
Kids now stay in school longer, so of course 15-24 year olds will participate in the labour market less.
Some older people retire earlier, hence will participate in the market less
There is more wealth overall so some increasing percentage will choose not to work.
The labour market is changing, no doubt about that, technology and wealth creation will do that. But that doesn't mean it's bad, and suggesting it's the same as the great depression is moronic.
Are you one of those people that thinks that it's not your money, it's the government's.
It is. Money is a construct of some sort of authority, since without it it's just paper or numbers on a spreadsheet. In our case that authority is chosen by the people in the form of a democratic government.
So yeah, the government does own the money, and has the right to control it how it sees fit.
To be in the top 1%, you have to earn over $428,000 per year. I'd venture that most of /. wouldn't even crack the top 10% (about $128K annually).
I'd venture that it's even higher than that, since not all rich people earn there wealth through big tax-declared salaries (eg Steve Jobs).
One of the great conspiracies of the wealthy is to not let everyone else know how truly rich they are.