This person is not a troll and whoever modded them troll will probably mod me down too.
I agree the GP is not a troll. He should have been modded flamebait. He does have a point somewhere down the line, but by calling bikers douches and speedbumps, he makes that point in a very imflamatory way.
That's just it. It's not. It's a bike. It cannot keep up with traffic and it not entitled to act as a motor vehicle. You make it sound like it is a motorcycle when it is not even close.
A bicycle is obviously not a motor vehicle, but it is a vehicle, and in many countries, it is a vehicle according to the law, although apparently the law is very different where you live.
I don't know where you live, but a bicyclist does not have the RIGHT to use any part of the road UNLESS there is a bike lane. I am certainly not hoping to change public policy by willfully hurting you on the road, but to say you have the right to the road is quite a stretch.
That depends on where he lives, of course. Clearly you know your law well enough to be certain that your law states that bicycles do not belong on the road unless there's a bike lane. You should know, however, that there are a lot of countries in the world where the law states that bicycles have every right to use the road, unless explicitly forbidden.
Where I live, for example, bicycles are not allowed on motorways (speed limits of 100 or 120 kph). Everywhere else, they are allowed unless there's a sign saying they're not, or there's a dedicated bicycle path next to the road. Now where I live, car drivers are sane enough to leave 1 meter of space on the right side of the road for cyclists, and when the road is too narrow for that, they stay behind the cyclists until it is safe to overtake. This is normal, safe, sane traffic behaviour.
But I keep hearing about countries where car drivers seem to turn into murderous psychopaths as soon as bicycles are involved. Maybe your law needs to be changed so it offers bikes more protection on the road (like it does in most other civilised countries).
I can't deny I've felt the urge to act out some road rage against anti-social car drivers, but I've always been able to restrain myself. If booting through car windows is common in your area, please let me know where that is, so I can avoid it like the plague. You people sound a bit too aggressive for my taste.
I'm pretty sure that kind of lighting is illegal where I live. But then, it's also unnecessary. We have lots of bike paths and bike lanes, and even non-homicidal car drivers who pay attention.
You're confused with cars. Bikes don't take up a lot of space, don't go very fast, don't kill people through carelessness. In general, bicycles are very undemanding. They just want to share the road. It's the car drivers who want the road all for themselves and andanger other traffic that dares to enter their domain.
For each single guy biking, the oil and gas used by other motorists to pass, evade, get stuck at stoplights, and make up for poor riders more than compensates for the people not using cars.
It's the cars that are using oil and gas, not the bicycles. Do you always blame all your problems on someone else?
This isn't to say bikes are OK, but cities spend millions for dedicated bike trails and bike lanes for them.
They should. They also spend many millions on roads, and if cars don't want to share those, you need dedicated bicycle paths. Where else do you expect cyclists to ride?
The intolerance of American car drivers amazes me (but Spain is rumoured to be even worse).
Though on second thought, as a cyclist, I'm not sure a deathly laser assault on drivers is completely unwarranted.
Cars blind me too, so why not return the favour? At night, on a well-lit bicycle path next to a big road, in the rain, while wearing glasses, I get completely blinded by the lights of approaching cars, to the point where I couldn't see the bicycle path at all.
I considered mounting a big floodlight on my bike, but I don't think the battery I'd need for that would enhance my cycling experience much.
It's your employer who made the rule that you can't save all your vacation for next year, right? That means your employer is forcing you to go on vacation this year. If he doesn't let you, you've got every reason to take all of December off. He can't give you vacation days and then forbid you to use them.
Personally I think the poster is insane, firstly to take a job working 12 hour shifts for more than 3 days a week. Secondly for living 1.5 hours away, meaning a 3 hour commute every day. 12 + 3 + 8 (sleep) leaves a grand total of 1 hour a day to live!
I wholeheartedly agree. If you work nightly shifts of 12 hours, you shouldn't be working more than 3 days a week. If you are working more than that, you should really be asking yourself the question if you're making enough money to retire before you burn out.
Of course if the 12 hour shift includes plenty of time to doze off, read a book, work out or do some other fun stuff, it might be a different matter. But you're still living in your office rather than at home. Do you really like the facilities at your office more than your own home? Or does your shift include time to sleep? Because then you'd be able to spend those 8 hours at home on other stuff. Getting paid to sleep is about as good as it gets, but this situation doesn't sound like that.
No. Lady Gaea has done the global warming (and global freezing) thing quite a few times.
The current global warming trend (which is what is generally meant by the phrase) is very recent. In the last 65 million years, I bet the earth has several times been warmer than it is now.
Global warming is very recent. Also, the amazing shrinking genome is about mammals in particular, and mammals can control their own temperature, which means environmental temperature has little or no effect on genes. It's possible that warmbloodedness is shrinking our genome, though (which is what the GP is suggesting).
Devolution is indeed still evolution in some way. But I think by evolution we mean progress too something 'better' and devolution too something 'worse'. While I'll leave defining better and worse as an excercise to the reader (try finding a concencus on thatone).
Evolution doesn't make any value judgement other than: if it survives and reproduces, it's good. If it dies before reproduction, it's bad. In that sense, there's no such thing as evolution towards something worse. No matter how degenerate an organism may seem to you, it's like that because that's what works in that particular niche.
A major political party? They got 7% of the Swedish votes for the Europarliament, which is quite impressive, mostly because it's the first time they won any seats in a parliament at all. They're still not in Swedish parliament. The most impressive thing is their membership, which has been growing rapidly in the last couple of months, probably because of the Pirate Bay trial.
Even so, the party does not officially support TPB. They want copyright reform, not copyright violation.
At least that's how I (as a foreigner) understand it.
Two week overseas vacation seems like it would cost $4200 if you skimped it up to $6000 for a no holds barred "middle class" vacation ( I know the wealthy could drop $10k a day easily but I'm not talking about them).
Spending one month's income on vacation is pretty normal around here, but it doesn't have to be that expensive. I've had an awesome two weeks' vacation to Mali for less than $2000 (for one person only, though), and my wife and I went to Egypt for about $1000 each.
But I've got the feeling that Americans are less vacationers than Europeans. In much of Europe, 5 weeks vacation per year is bog standard and most people get more, while I get the impression most Americans get less. Your average Dutch middle class family goes skiing in the Alps in winter and to a beach in France or Spain in summer.
In the end, I basically live on about 1/3 of my salary.
That's smart. Leaves with a lot of disposable income (or savings, if you're even smarter).
Hacker mentality or not, lack of creativity is why Indian developers tend to produce lackluster results. (And before I get flamed, I'm saying this in general, I'm sure there are many creative Indian developers out there, just as there are many uncreative American developers)
I don't think it's creativity. I think it's lack of ownership of the code. They don't feel responsible for the end result, partially because of training, partially because it's an outsourcing job, partially because they simply get paid by the hour and nobody who cares notices when they're crap. You get better code when it's written by someone who cares. Hackers usually care quite a lot.
And it's not because they're Indian either. Plenty of Indians who don't work in outsourcing are excellent programmers.
You realise you're using a slightly different definition of hacking than many other people, right? There's nothing wrong with that in itself, because a lot of people have wildly varying definitions of the word. But your definition of hacking looks like "everything that's bad or ugly", and then use that to prove that hacking is bad and ugly.
Consider that quantum physics itself is something of a hack, and you might argue that the same is true of special relativity and the theory of evolution. All of them have hack value, and good hacks in particular are beautiful and elegant and work. (Although QM, definitely the hackiest of the lot, isn't really all that elegant. The process of evolution (rather than the theory) scores way high in hack value too.)
It's also not true that hackers don't design, but they do tend to be a bit more flexible in their design. More agile, less waterfall. A hacker might revel in intentionally obfuscated code, but a good hacker won't do that for a production system, but only as a challenge in itself.
So, hack all you want, but if you want to be a REAL PROGRAMMER choose the simplicity and rigorous methods of design!
To be a real programmer, you need to be flexible and pragmatic about your design.
Cowboys do not do code reviews. Cowboys do not question their own code. Cowboys just throw code at any and all situations. Cowboys don't test. Cowboys treat users like idiots. Cowboys don't document.
Slashdot Mirror
This person is not a troll and whoever modded them troll will probably mod me down too.
I agree the GP is not a troll. He should have been modded flamebait. He does have a point somewhere down the line, but by calling bikers douches and speedbumps, he makes that point in a very imflamatory way.
That's just it. It's not. It's a bike. It cannot keep up with traffic and it not entitled to act as a motor vehicle. You make it sound like it is a motorcycle when it is not even close.
A bicycle is obviously not a motor vehicle, but it is a vehicle, and in many countries, it is a vehicle according to the law, although apparently the law is very different where you live.
I don't know where you live, but a bicyclist does not have the RIGHT to use any part of the road UNLESS there is a bike lane. I am certainly not hoping to change public policy by willfully hurting you on the road, but to say you have the right to the road is quite a stretch.
That depends on where he lives, of course. Clearly you know your law well enough to be certain that your law states that bicycles do not belong on the road unless there's a bike lane. You should know, however, that there are a lot of countries in the world where the law states that bicycles have every right to use the road, unless explicitly forbidden.
Where I live, for example, bicycles are not allowed on motorways (speed limits of 100 or 120 kph). Everywhere else, they are allowed unless there's a sign saying they're not, or there's a dedicated bicycle path next to the road. Now where I live, car drivers are sane enough to leave 1 meter of space on the right side of the road for cyclists, and when the road is too narrow for that, they stay behind the cyclists until it is safe to overtake. This is normal, safe, sane traffic behaviour.
But I keep hearing about countries where car drivers seem to turn into murderous psychopaths as soon as bicycles are involved. Maybe your law needs to be changed so it offers bikes more protection on the road (like it does in most other civilised countries).
I can't deny I've felt the urge to act out some road rage against anti-social car drivers, but I've always been able to restrain myself. If booting through car windows is common in your area, please let me know where that is, so I can avoid it like the plague. You people sound a bit too aggressive for my taste.
...are the laser-lines legally binding?
I'm pretty sure that kind of lighting is illegal where I live. But then, it's also unnecessary. We have lots of bike paths and bike lanes, and even non-homicidal car drivers who pay attention.
Now I am forced to almost be in the oncoming traffic lane while passing this bike ON A BLIND CURVE?
What the hell are you doing overtaking traffic ON A BLIND CURVE, you dangerous loon?
Why does this person on a bicycle have the right to put us all at risk?
You are the one putting everybody at risk with your reckless behaviour.
Bicyclists are a scourge on the roads.
You're confused with cars. Bikes don't take up a lot of space, don't go very fast, don't kill people through carelessness. In general, bicycles are very undemanding. They just want to share the road. It's the car drivers who want the road all for themselves and andanger other traffic that dares to enter their domain.
For each single guy biking, the oil and gas used by other motorists to pass, evade, get stuck at stoplights, and make up for poor riders more than compensates for the people not using cars.
It's the cars that are using oil and gas, not the bicycles. Do you always blame all your problems on someone else?
This isn't to say bikes are OK, but cities spend millions for dedicated bike trails and bike lanes for them.
They should. They also spend many millions on roads, and if cars don't want to share those, you need dedicated bicycle paths. Where else do you expect cyclists to ride?
The intolerance of American car drivers amazes me (but Spain is rumoured to be even worse).
Though on second thought, as a cyclist, I'm not sure a deathly laser assault on drivers is completely unwarranted.
Cars blind me too, so why not return the favour? At night, on a well-lit bicycle path next to a big road, in the rain, while wearing glasses, I get completely blinded by the lights of approaching cars, to the point where I couldn't see the bicycle path at all.
I considered mounting a big floodlight on my bike, but I don't think the battery I'd need for that would enhance my cycling experience much.
I admit I had some trouble finding a good spot for "several times" in that sentence, but I thought this one would work.
It's your employer who made the rule that you can't save all your vacation for next year, right? That means your employer is forcing you to go on vacation this year. If he doesn't let you, you've got every reason to take all of December off. He can't give you vacation days and then forbid you to use them.
Plan your vacation in advance. Go to Africa in winter, to the beach in summer, and if you've got anything left, spend December with your family.
Despite my 5 weeks of vacation days, I always need more.
If those 12 hours are stressful, it's a really stupid job and he should quit while he's still alive.
Personally I think the poster is insane, firstly to take a job working 12 hour shifts for more than 3 days a week. Secondly for living 1.5 hours away, meaning a 3 hour commute every day. 12 + 3 + 8 (sleep) leaves a grand total of 1 hour a day to live!
I wholeheartedly agree. If you work nightly shifts of 12 hours, you shouldn't be working more than 3 days a week. If you are working more than that, you should really be asking yourself the question if you're making enough money to retire before you burn out.
Of course if the 12 hour shift includes plenty of time to doze off, read a book, work out or do some other fun stuff, it might be a different matter. But you're still living in your office rather than at home. Do you really like the facilities at your office more than your own home? Or does your shift include time to sleep? Because then you'd be able to spend those 8 hours at home on other stuff. Getting paid to sleep is about as good as it gets, but this situation doesn't sound like that.
> Global warming is very recent.
No. Lady Gaea has done the global warming (and global freezing) thing quite a few times.
The current global warming trend (which is what is generally meant by the phrase) is very recent. In the last 65 million years, I bet the earth has several times been warmer than it is now.
Do I need to point this out?
Global warming is very recent. Also, the amazing shrinking genome is about mammals in particular, and mammals can control their own temperature, which means environmental temperature has little or no effect on genes. It's possible that warmbloodedness is shrinking our genome, though (which is what the GP is suggesting).
No idea, but it's an interesting thought.
Devolution is indeed still evolution in some way.
But I think by evolution we mean progress too something 'better' and devolution too something 'worse'.
While I'll leave defining better and worse as an excercise to the reader (try finding a concencus on thatone).
Evolution doesn't make any value judgement other than: if it survives and reproduces, it's good. If it dies before reproduction, it's bad. In that sense, there's no such thing as evolution towards something worse. No matter how degenerate an organism may seem to you, it's like that because that's what works in that particular niche.
They get Brand. A brand that has a major political party behind it.
A major political party? They got 7% of the Swedish votes for the Europarliament, which is quite impressive, mostly because it's the first time they won any seats in a parliament at all. They're still not in Swedish parliament. The most impressive thing is their membership, which has been growing rapidly in the last couple of months, probably because of the Pirate Bay trial.
Even so, the party does not officially support TPB. They want copyright reform, not copyright violation.
At least that's how I (as a foreigner) understand it.
Anyone got a creative alternate title?
Brain Control Interface? Mind Control Interface?
That sounds like I'm gonna need a tinfoil hat.
Two week overseas vacation seems like it would cost $4200 if you skimped it up to $6000 for a no holds barred "middle class" vacation ( I know the wealthy could drop $10k a day easily but I'm not talking about them).
Spending one month's income on vacation is pretty normal around here, but it doesn't have to be that expensive. I've had an awesome two weeks' vacation to Mali for less than $2000 (for one person only, though), and my wife and I went to Egypt for about $1000 each.
But I've got the feeling that Americans are less vacationers than Europeans. In much of Europe, 5 weeks vacation per year is bog standard and most people get more, while I get the impression most Americans get less. Your average Dutch middle class family goes skiing in the Alps in winter and to a beach in France or Spain in summer.
In the end, I basically live on about 1/3 of my salary.
That's smart. Leaves with a lot of disposable income (or savings, if you're even smarter).
Is that the city centre or the *wink* city centre?
There's no difference. The winks are all in the city center.
Actually it's those with the hacker ethic that cheat their way through life with "hacks" rather than doing things right and professional.
Those with hacker ethic cheat their way through life by getting stuff to work, rather than bogging everything down with the proper paperwork.
Hacker mentality or not, lack of creativity is why Indian developers tend to produce lackluster results. (And before I get flamed, I'm saying this in general, I'm sure there are many creative Indian developers out there, just as there are many uncreative American developers)
I don't think it's creativity. I think it's lack of ownership of the code. They don't feel responsible for the end result, partially because of training, partially because it's an outsourcing job, partially because they simply get paid by the hour and nobody who cares notices when they're crap. You get better code when it's written by someone who cares. Hackers usually care quite a lot.
And it's not because they're Indian either. Plenty of Indians who don't work in outsourcing are excellent programmers.
You realise you're using a slightly different definition of hacking than many other people, right? There's nothing wrong with that in itself, because a lot of people have wildly varying definitions of the word. But your definition of hacking looks like "everything that's bad or ugly", and then use that to prove that hacking is bad and ugly.
Consider that quantum physics itself is something of a hack, and you might argue that the same is true of special relativity and the theory of evolution. All of them have hack value, and good hacks in particular are beautiful and elegant and work. (Although QM, definitely the hackiest of the lot, isn't really all that elegant. The process of evolution (rather than the theory) scores way high in hack value too.)
It's also not true that hackers don't design, but they do tend to be a bit more flexible in their design. More agile, less waterfall. A hacker might revel in intentionally obfuscated code, but a good hacker won't do that for a production system, but only as a challenge in itself.
So, hack all you want, but if you want to be a REAL PROGRAMMER choose the simplicity and rigorous methods of design!
To be a real programmer, you need to be flexible and pragmatic about your design.
May you hack better.
Cowboys do not do code reviews. Cowboys do not question their own code. Cowboys just throw code at any and all situations. Cowboys don't test. Cowboys treat users like idiots. Cowboys don't document.
Oh my god, I'm a cowboy!
I didn't know.
Job security through code obscurity.