On every street? Why?
Designated bike lanes add an extra element of confusion into the traffic mix. Wide curb lanes are far, far better. IMHO, of course. See John Franklins writings (particularly on the the Milton Keynes Redway) for examples of why designated, striped bike lanes may not be the best solution.
3) Cyclists should be licensed.
Again, why? Has it helped motorists skills? >40k dead on the roads annually would say no.
Plus, then you start to infringe on the right to travel.
We accept licensing for motor vehicles, because of the potential for damage. A person on a bike hits something, and you get a few bruises.
At what age do we issue this bike license? 16? 14, 10? All roads are not alike. You'd remove the ability of a kid to ride to school or a friends house.
What's next? A license to walk?
from MS, referring to XP
"Can I make a second copy of my Windows operating system software for my portable computer?" "The End-User License Agreement (EULA) for many Microsoft application software products contains the following sentence: "The primary user of the computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed may make a second copy for his or her exclusive use on a portable computer." If your EULA contains this sentence, then, subject to the conditions mentioned, you may make a second copy of the software. "
Not knocking Spain (I lived there 3 years and LOVE it), but with an average income ~70% of the EU average, and Extremadura being the poorest region of Spain, and unemployment running at near 30%, 'extremely poor' might well be a valid descriptor.
It's not even that. In CA, part of your paycheck goes to the govt coffers, to be distributed to the medical industry. Here, part of my paycheck goes to the healthcare insurance company, to be distributed to the medical industry.
Pretty much the same thing. Just different fingers handling what used to be my money.
A Mac user opens an unknown file from an untrusted source, it turns out to be destructive, and it blows away his data. Conclusion - said Mac user is at fault.
Windows user open an unknown file from an untrusted source, it turns out to be destructive, and it blows away his data. Conclusion - Microsoft is at fault.
Other things to note: health care is essentially free.
Bullshit.
Unless your doctors and nurses work for free. And hospitals spring up out of the ground all on their own.
Where do they get their money. From the government. Where does the government get its money? From you.
Now...they may or may not do a better job with that money than a corporation (HMO or whatever), but they must get that money to pay the doctors from somewhere. And as the government makes nothing to sell, they get it via taxes. i.e., out of your pocket. Not having a separate line item on your paycheck stub for 'Medical' doesn't mean it is free. It just means you don't know exactly how much of your check goes towards it.
oh yes, the beer is good. But so are many US micros...
I've yet to see strong arguments or studies that child sexual behaviour with others is always necessarily harmful.
And there are no valid studies that show it is never harmful. By definition, children cannot give informed coonsent. (Define *child* as you wish)
Is it ok that 1 out of 100 will not suffer consequences years/decades later? By something they had no clue about at the time? Images, presuming they are actual people and not CG, involve people. In this case, children.
In no way can you determine *which* child will suffer because of a sexual act perpetrated upon them at age X. Not possible. I say "perpetrated upon", because again, they cannot give informed consent.
Either make it all illegal (as it is now, rightfully so) or accept the fact that some/most/all ex-children will be irreparably screwed up later in life.
Some things are just wrong. We are all ex-children.
between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" at Abu Ghraib. Taguba's report listed some of the wrongdoing:
And on the other side, we have the public beheading of an American civilian. Not suspected of a crime or terrorist acts, but simply for being an American.
In no way do I condone nor excuse what has happened in Abu Ghraib. I personally want to go and kick their asses. I think it's abhorrent, criminal, inexcusable. If we are to push the moral high ground (as we have done), then lets actually do that.
But where's the same indignation, the condemnation, the outrage towards the subhumans that would gleefully behead someone. And parade around, holding the severed head in their hands.
Unless the hiker is given something (RFID?) to trigger the sensor, it will report on anything of a similar size. Deer, bear, etc.
Give the hiker the trigger, then you'd have the concern of Hiker A = Sensor Y. Tracking a particular person, and when does the log get deleted and purged from all backups.
Why is my (as a rational human of legal age) owning a firearm a threat to anyone except those who might do me harm?
In other words...what business is it of yours what I own? I'm not planning on shooting you. Unless of course you plan on breaking into my house one night. Then all bets are off.
By definition...if you outlaw guns, the only ones with guns will be outlaws. Take that as you wish.
Just because we CAN invade their territory, disrupt their ecology, and torment them, doesn't mean that we should.
Can we assume that you've moved out of your house (built on land that used to be some sort of natural, unbuilt spot inhabited by creatures of all sorts), and moved into some place on the planet that had no natural wild animals? Like...well...actually nowhere.
They should not have to be permenantly looking around their shoulders to check for updates.
That's what Autoupdate is for. Autoinstall, autodownload and install later, or go get it yourself. Or are you arguing that they shouldn't have to download any security updates? Then they shouldn't be online, because that happens with all OS's.
When will the US learn that trying to remove the "mutual" from mutually assured destruction will earn the hostility of any number of military powers the world over?
You are being very inconsistent in your statement. The other guys are 'hostile', but it's the US's fault. hmmmm.
As to the MAD part, MAD is presently kind of irrelvant. US, Britain, France, & Russia have nukes and the long range, accurate delivery systems. And currently, we are all more or less friendly. and building down the nuke inventories.
Having a nuke, say Pakistan or Israel, is far different from being able to hit a particular spot on the globe with it.
I'm glad I live in a country that's not run by a power mad dictator with a hard-on for World War III.
too bad development on this was started long before Bush became president. Kind of blows a hole in your 'power mad dictator' theory.
Terrorism is not the only threat out there. Not all countries are friendly with all other countries. China, for instance, may make a play for Taiwan at some point in the future. North Korea may shoot another missile across Japan's bow. I'd imagine both of those countries would like to have this type of defense.
IR and radar guided missiles were gimmicky at first, too. GPS was pie in the sky. The airplane istelf was considered to be of little military use at first.
OBTW, it's also for artillery size shells, not just ballistic missiles.
Let's face it, the army aren't a bunch of heroes, they're a bunch of fucking simpletons who can't find gainful employment anywhere else. They are the lowest strata of a free society, and the worst possible people to arm and send overseas. They only reason that they ever are is because they are so worthless that the rest of society is willing to let them die.
A few 'soldiers' you may have heard of:
John Kerry John McCain George Bush George Carlin Prince Charles George Bush David Robinson Charles Rangel Dwight Eisenhower Roger Staubach Henry Fonda Benny Hill Steve McQueen Sean Connery John Glenn Werner Heisenberg Leonard Nimoy
Some people will never understand why someone would join the military. And that's OK, because there are people who will, to protect your right to be innocent.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Bikes belong on the street.
Most assuredly yes.
2) Bike lanes must exist.
On every street? Why? Designated bike lanes add an extra element of confusion into the traffic mix. Wide curb lanes are far, far better. IMHO, of course.
See John Franklins writings (particularly on the the Milton Keynes Redway) for examples of why designated, striped bike lanes may not be the best solution.
3) Cyclists should be licensed.
Again, why? Has it helped motorists skills? >40k dead on the roads annually would say no.
Plus, then you start to infringe on the right to travel.
We accept licensing for motor vehicles, because of the potential for damage. A person on a bike hits something, and you get a few bruises.
At what age do we issue this bike license? 16? 14, 10?
All roads are not alike. You'd remove the ability of a kid to ride to school or a friends house.
What's next? A license to walk?
Take a suitably wide piece of paper. Lay it down on a carpeted floor.
Sit on it, and rock your pelvis forward a little.
Notice the two major depressions? Those are your pelvic bones. That is what you want to contact the seat.
Mark circles on the paper where the depressions are, and take it to a bike shop. Compare it against several seats.
Buy one.
Further info here.
please...There is enough junk science floating around about helmets to make your head spin.
research and understand the construction and testing of current style bike helmets, and the serious crash types that lead to blue-screening yourself.
You'll be surprised as to what a foamie can and can't do.
Not saying that a helmet isn't a good idea, but it's assuredly not a panacea, either.
Try riding one of those things, and you'll see why a normal bike seat is shaped like it is.
To avoid numbnuts, adjust the height correctly, wear padded bike shorts, and ride a correct width saddle.
Oh, and harder is usually better than softer. The seat doesn't break in, your ass does.
Actually, you're (partly, maybe) wrong.
from MS, referring to XP
"Can I make a second copy of my Windows operating system software for my portable computer?"
"The End-User License Agreement (EULA) for many Microsoft application software products contains the following sentence: "The primary user of the computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed may make a second copy for his or her exclusive use on a portable computer." If your EULA contains this sentence, then, subject to the conditions mentioned, you may make a second copy of the software. "
Not knocking Spain (I lived there 3 years and LOVE it), but with an average income ~70% of the EU average, and Extremadura being the poorest region of Spain, and unemployment running at near 30%, 'extremely poor' might well be a valid descriptor.
However, they did win a 2004 European Regional Action Award with their GNU/LinEX project.
Hopefully, more projects like this will help them boost their economy.
Was probably to be done by a wheel anyway. That it's made out of wood at the request of the officers is probably a nod to tradition.
Yuo seem to have two problems.
1) a badly distorted view on American healthcare, and
2) a serious linguistic impairment.
Come back when you can make a valid point.
I meant free-compared-to-the-US
It's not even that. In CA, part of your paycheck goes to the govt coffers, to be distributed to the medical industry.
Here, part of my paycheck goes to the healthcare insurance company, to be distributed to the medical industry.
Pretty much the same thing. Just different fingers handling what used to be my money.
A Mac user opens an unknown file from an untrusted source, it turns out to be destructive, and it blows away his data.
Conclusion - said Mac user is at fault.
Windows user open an unknown file from an untrusted source, it turns out to be destructive, and it blows away his data.
Conclusion - Microsoft is at fault.
Of course! How could I not see the difference?
Other things to note: health care is essentially free.
Bullshit.
Unless your doctors and nurses work for free. And hospitals spring up out of the ground all on their own.
Where do they get their money. From the government. Where does the government get its money? From you.
Now...they may or may not do a better job with that money than a corporation (HMO or whatever), but they must get that money to pay the doctors from somewhere. And as the government makes nothing to sell, they get it via taxes. i.e., out of your pocket.
Not having a separate line item on your paycheck stub for 'Medical' doesn't mean it is free. It just means you don't know exactly how much of your check goes towards it.
oh yes, the beer is good. But so are many US micros...
I've yet to see strong arguments or studies that child sexual behaviour with others is always necessarily harmful.
And there are no valid studies that show it is never harmful.
By definition, children cannot give informed coonsent. (Define *child* as you wish)
Is it ok that 1 out of 100 will not suffer consequences years/decades later? By something they had no clue about at the time?
Images, presuming they are actual people and not CG, involve people. In this case, children.
In no way can you determine *which* child will suffer because of a sexual act perpetrated upon them at age X. Not possible. I say "perpetrated upon", because again, they cannot give informed consent.
Either make it all illegal (as it is now, rightfully so) or accept the fact that some/most/all ex-children will be irreparably screwed up later in life.
Some things are just wrong. We are all ex-children.
between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" at Abu Ghraib. Taguba's report listed some of the wrongdoing:
And on the other side, we have the public beheading of an American civilian. Not suspected of a crime or terrorist acts, but simply for being an American.
In no way do I condone nor excuse what has happened in Abu Ghraib. I personally want to go and kick their asses. I think it's abhorrent, criminal, inexcusable. If we are to push the moral high ground (as we have done), then lets actually do that.
But where's the same indignation, the condemnation, the outrage towards the subhumans that would gleefully behead someone. And parade around, holding the severed head in their hands.
Unless the hiker is given something (RFID?) to trigger the sensor, it will report on anything of a similar size. Deer, bear, etc.
Give the hiker the trigger, then you'd have the concern of Hiker A = Sensor Y. Tracking a particular person, and when does the log get deleted and purged from all backups.
A thorny problem.
Why is my (as a rational human of legal age) owning a firearm a threat to anyone except those who might do me harm?
In other words...what business is it of yours what I own? I'm not planning on shooting you. Unless of course you plan on breaking into my house one night. Then all bets are off.
By definition...if you outlaw guns, the only ones with guns will be outlaws. Take that as you wish.
Or, French military Victories
Sure, you could buy a Saab Viggen, or you could buy a Saab Viggen.
Or maybe a Kawasaki motorcycle, or a Kawasaki satellite.
How about a Countach, or a tractor
Even software or hardware
Or the other guys
Lots of companies diversify. MS is plenty big enough to both if they choose.
Honestly, who would want to watch TV on a cell phone?
The same clown who bought a Sony Watchman or a Casio handheld
it's nice once in a while to have a computer under warranty, with the components rigorously tested and certified to work well together
And you want this from HP/Compaq?
Just because we CAN invade their territory, disrupt their ecology, and torment them, doesn't mean that we should.
Can we assume that you've moved out of your house (built on land that used to be some sort of natural, unbuilt spot inhabited by creatures of all sorts), and moved into some place on the planet that had no natural wild animals?
Like...well...actually nowhere.
They should not have to be permenantly looking around their shoulders to check for updates.
That's what Autoupdate is for. Autoinstall, autodownload and install later, or go get it yourself.
Or are you arguing that they shouldn't have to download any security updates? Then they shouldn't be online, because that happens with all OS's.
All very true, but I think you missed the word 'presently'.
When will the US learn that trying to remove the "mutual" from mutually assured destruction will earn the hostility of any number of military powers the world over?
You are being very inconsistent in your statement.
The other guys are 'hostile', but it's the US's fault. hmmmm.
As to the MAD part, MAD is presently kind of irrelvant. US, Britain, France, & Russia have nukes and the long range, accurate delivery systems. And currently, we are all more or less friendly. and building down the nuke inventories.
Having a nuke, say Pakistan or Israel, is far different from being able to hit a particular spot on the globe with it.
I'm glad I live in a country that's not run by a power mad dictator with a hard-on for World War III.
too bad development on this was started long before Bush became president. Kind of blows a hole in your 'power mad dictator' theory.
Terrorism is not the only threat out there. Not all countries are friendly with all other countries. China, for instance, may make a play for Taiwan at some point in the future.
North Korea may shoot another missile across Japan's bow.
I'd imagine both of those countries would like to have this type of defense.
IR and radar guided missiles were gimmicky at first, too. GPS was pie in the sky. The airplane istelf was considered to be of little military use at first.
OBTW, it's also for artillery size shells, not just ballistic missiles.
Let's face it, the army aren't a bunch of heroes, they're a bunch of fucking simpletons who can't find gainful employment anywhere else. They are the lowest strata of a free society, and the worst possible people to arm and send overseas. They only reason that they ever are is because they are so worthless that the rest of society is willing to let them die.
A few 'soldiers' you may have heard of:
John Kerry
John McCain
George Bush
George Carlin
Prince Charles
George Bush
David Robinson
Charles Rangel
Dwight Eisenhower
Roger Staubach
Henry Fonda
Benny Hill
Steve McQueen
Sean Connery
John Glenn
Werner Heisenberg
Leonard Nimoy
Some people will never understand why someone would join the military. And that's OK, because there are people who will, to protect your right to be innocent.