Re:statistically, cyclists don't hit pedestrians
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps I should have clarified - in my town, cyclists over the age of 18 are considered motor vehicle operators and thus, legally ineligible to travel on the sidewalks. Therefore, any incident of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian on a sidewalk in this city is automatically ruled to be the cyclists fault.
That doesn't change the nature of your claim that cyclists hitting pedestrians - anywhere - is a significant problem.
Call your local police department and ask them for how many pedestrians were hit by motor vehicles this year. Then ask how many cyclists hit pedestrians.
It's liable to be a 99%/1% ratio, or thereabouts.
Separately: there's nothing like criminalizing a behavior people do because they feel safer. The reason people ride on sidewalks is because they're terrified to ride in the road. And why is that, exactly, hmm?
research contradicts Forester and you
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I have an older version, but effectively the injury/death rate is mostly effected by poor decisions by the cyclist, not the car.
First off, "the car" doesn't do anything. The driver does. You're attributing behavior to an inanimate object, something I see people do constantly.
Second: several decades of research proves your claim wrong. Most collisions are due to the driver doing something illegal, sometimes simply failing to yield because they think they have right-of-way over someone on a bicycle.
The list goes on. Keep in mind that studies which are based off police reports that aren't carefully analyzed are typically faulty because police very often incorrectly side with motorists, don't interview cyclists, witness statements are wrong, etc. It's common to review a report, see obvious signs that the motorist did something illegal, and police do not cite them, and often cite the cyclist.
It should make you stop and think to consider that many cyclists ride with helmet cameras. There's a reason - drivers lie, police don't believe us (or very often we're incapacitated or otherwise unable to defend ourselves), and witnesses are discriminatory towards cyclists or simply don't understand traffic laws or think they saw what they didn't.
It's caused a lot of tension between drivers and cyclists because there's a sense amongst drivers (and pedestrians too, for that matter) that we're spending millions of tax dollars catering to a group who a) don't follow the rules of the road and b) feel that the rules don't apply to them.
In my city, I routinely see people driving down the road with their headlights off in the middle of the night. Cops don't care.
Crosswalks? I stop at crosswalks on my bike for peds; drivers frequently blow by me, even when I intentionally swing further out into the lane to help the ped cross.
Despite an anti-texting law, drivers are constantly staring at their phones, and it's quite common to see a light change, and they just sit there, staring at their phone. I've watched driver sit through an entire green light cycle if there wasn't someone behind them.
Our red lights can't be taken at face value because there's a good chance for up to several seconds after the other direction has had a red light, some asshole will fly through the light above the 30mph speed limit; you have to look both ways before entering an intersection with a green light these days. Sometimes people just drive through lights that have been red because they don't see any other traffic.
That represents substantially more of a threat to public safety than someone on a bike going through a red light, where they by and large only place themselves at risk (and thus have a vested interest in crossing safely.)
The only reason you think cyclist-red-light-running is such a problem is because you're used to drivers doing it constantly, cyclists are a minority, and you're a driver.
I'm a cyclist too, and you're victim-blaming
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
As a cyclist, I'd like to weigh in that it's the cyclists' fault.
As a cyclist, I'd like to weigh in that you're full of it, and engaging in thinking/logic that's a cousin to the basic logic employed by racists. You cite some guy riding extremely dangerously as an example of how everyone rides. You rely on an anecdote, which is not evidence. And then you state that this behavior is what causes all/most injuries, which is victim-blaming.
Turns out, there's plenty of studies on this subject, from all across the world, using various methods. They typically find between 66% and 90% of collisions are the fault of motorists, and the cyclist was doing nothing wrong or improper when they were hit. The top causes of injuries in most cities are doorings (which in many places is automatically the door-openers fault, even if it's not specifically codified into law, as virtually all jurisdictions make opening a door into the path of "traffic" illegal), right hooks (driver passes you and then immediately slows/turns, cutting you off and blocking your path), and left-crosses (left turn in front of you, illegally failing to yield to oncoming traffic.) None are the cyclist's fault.
The reason you're engaging in this victim-blaming is for a psychological self-defense mechanism. See, it's scary when a cyclist gets hit or killed, especially if they weren't doing anything wrong. That means it could happen to you. In order to protect yourself from that danger mentally, you see yourself as superior. "I ride safely." "I follow all the laws." "I have really bright lights." "I'm not riding a cheap bike, mine's better and well-maintained." Tada! You now ride proudly and feeling "safe."
Well, guess what? I follow the law. I have years of experience riding in the city. I know all the protect-yourself techniques. I have great lights. I ride a really nice bike with great disc brakes and it's well maintained. I've still been hit.
or slammed their brakes on and caused a lot of (probably harmless, but expensive) rear-end collisions. I would fully support the cop who arrests your fucking ass for that
The officer would ticket the driver of the vehicle that rear-ended the other for failing to follow at a safe distance. Nice try.
statistically, cyclists don't hit pedestrians
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
but what about one that runs over a pedestrian because he was riding on the sidewalk?
If you bothered to google this: cyclists are involved in collisions with.6% of pedestrian injuries in NYC that warrant a trip to the doctor, ER, or a police report.
The other 99.4% are motor vehicle drivers.
The statistics do not account for whether the cyclist or pedestrian is at fault. Quite a few pedestrians rely on hearing to tell if a vehicle is coming - I have people step right into the road in front of me all the time, and it's particularly annoying since I'm more likely to be injured trying to avoid them and hitting something or crashing, or glancing off them and then crashing. They're likely to only get a bruised rib, whereas I'll probably get a broken arm.
So the energy company dude pays some engineer handsomly to toss is a little extra waste. That ineffcient algorithm is now silently generating $5million/year in *free* revenue.
No, because power usage = needing to build infrastructure. They want everyone to be as energy-efficient, because then they don't have to build power plants and upgrade lines as much.
Power companies practically throw CFLs and energy-efficient appliances at people and are constantly putting energy-conservation tips in their mailings, etc. Utilities in general are more than happy to pay for a home energy audit; my parent's gas company did a whole-house leak test and gave us all sorts of insulating widgets, paid for insulating our attic, etc. There are rebates on more efficient furnaces and water heaters, too.
Seriously - I recently found out that our power company at work gives out 10-year zero-interest loans to businesses if the new equipment provides energy savings.
Power companies should band together and offer to pay for Microsoft to have a huge team of software engineers auditing code and working on energy use and optimizing Windows and the Microsoft compilers. The payback would be incredible. Power companies could do the same thing tomorrow for Linux and BSD if they wanted.
Also, they had this guy, he sold drugs... lots of drugs... but did they bust him? Nope, they did an elaborate sting to bag him for something REALLY REALLY evil... (I hate drugs btw) Why? So he wouldn't be a martyr for free wealth exchange.
Police/prosecutors commonly initially charge someone with crimes they think they have a high chance of conviction on, to keep them locked up, enable search warrants where additional evidence is collected, stings are set up, etc.
The case on more complex charges gets built in the meantime, further investigation happens, etc. If they charge him with drug crimes now, they might have to expose evidence that tips their hat to a number of people. They're probably much more interested in the people distributing/dealing, and more serious crimes (like if anyone was offering explosives, killing, etc.)
Why, aside from the fact that all the Cool Kids are supposedly Doing It?
It's a royal pain in the ass to participate in the bitcoin system, your transaction history is by definition public, and the value of the bitcoins you send to someone fluctuates like crazy. Anyone who takes bitcoins for compensation is insane.
I do believe it must be every person's right to refuse medical treatment, including vaccines.
If you've got an infectious disease that has outbreak potential, most legal systems allow doctors to detain you for treatment.
This isn't the same thing, but there's a similar public health factor. It's not a personal decision, given that there are people who CANNOT be vaccinated for whatever reason, and some of these diseases have no "cure" other than prevention.
Most of these outbreaks happen when unvaccinated people travel to other countries where vaccinations aren't commonplace and the diseases are. And they bring it home. That's half the reason your doctor and the Embassy suggest/strongly recommend getting booster shots before traveling to certain places!
When I saw the header, I thought that the rocket engine would have 3D-printed cooling ducts around its nozzle. It is something that Apollo / space shuttle - sized rocket engines have, but which can be quite complex. This engine doesn't.
The article clearly states: "The rocket has a regenerative cooling jacket that extends to the nozzle."
The jackets/piping are clearly visible in all the photos, too...
Yes, them jews have been blowing up shit all over the US. We need to watch them close.
I would've moderated this funny 3 months ago, but I recently found out there's a very violent (as in, yes, "blowing up shit") Jewish extremist group in the US. The name escapes me. They weren't the only group I'd never heard of.
Domestic terror groups are our dirty little secret, apparently - at least the ones who aren't skinheads or ultralibertarian gun nuts.
It is unbelievable that this article is taken seriously. The writer refers to the shift paddles as "flappy paddles behind the steering wheel". This tells me that the person writing the article knows nothing about cars and did very little research to reach their conclusions.
Actually, you just showed you know less about the automotive world than they do.
"Flappy paddle" has been the derogatory term Jeremy Clarkson and the other Top Gear presenters have used for years upon years, and it's now in widespread popular use. It referred to three things, early on: 1)Automatics with paddles that simply said to the transmission "shift up or down now", which usually happened eons after you pushed the paddle and the transmission still has all the inefficiencies of an automatic 2)Automated-manual transmissions which had horrendous "creeping" functionality, poor usability/interface (ie 3 point turns were mind-numbingly hard/slow/complex), and broke down a lot because of the complexity of actuators/sensors/etc. 3)Sequential transmissions that were brutal in terms of comfort (having been adopted from racing applications) and poor creeping functionality.
Nowadays the term is mostly used by automotive fans who hate anything that doesn't have a manual gearbox, even if it's a perfectly reliable 7 gear, double-clutch transmission that shifts so smoothly you can do so mid-corner and not upset the car's balance, and can shift so fast it has to wait for the engine to match revs...
Given all the snark on Slashdot about the sorry state of modern journalism, it is well worth a read to see one organization that got it right.
You mean like the fact that the reporter in question thought Snowdon was fucking with him and ignored him, until Snowdon managed to find an intermediary?
I don't really call that "getting it right." I call that a Mulligan. The whole thing damn near went into the toilet because the reporter couldn't be bothered to explore the goldmine that fell into his lap.
There still is; it's just not the same companies, except for Microsoft, Oracle, and Google, among the big "old tech" companies. Microsoft owns a huge building right on the Charles, for example, and has a huge office on 128; so does Oracle. Google's smack in the middle of Kendal Square.
Facebook, Apple, Amazon, ITA, Turbine, SCVNGR/LevelUp....that's just who I can think of off the top of my head. Then there's all the pharma companies...
Boston remains popular because of a steady supply of young, well-educated labor and living costs that are high but not astronomical like they are in SV. It's also a far more pleasant area to live in than NYC.
Verizon does offer DSL in Boston too but it is of course not FIOS but still adequate for most basic web surfers.
DSL is not competitive in an age when other technologies offer 10-15x the bandwidth. Seriously - when my comcast connection works and the stars align, I've seen download speeds of 5-10MBytes/sec.
RCN is a competitor to Comcast and I get my Internet through them.
It used to be that Comcast and RCN service areas in Boston don't overlap. One street might be RCN, another might be Comcast. I don't know if things have changed. If you plug in your address, does Comcast offer service in your area? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious.)
The "free market" part comes from the bidding/negotiations process any cable company can engage in with the town.
In MA towns, the franchise negotiations are handled by the selectmen (whose meetings are broadcast), and then approved at the annual town meeting.
Yeah, you read that right. We have annual town meetings, where the entire town approves the budget. It's over the course of a couple of evenings, and anyone who is a resident can show up, speak, and vote on how the town spends its money.
What do you expect from the birthplace of the American Revolution?
Posted from Boston, plugged into 50MBps Verizon FiOS. I have no idea what this article is talking about.
Years ago, Verizon rolled out FiOS to a handful (literally) of customers in Boston, same as they did in Cambridge and other municipalities. It was probably done as some sort of token measure to claim they were offering the service everywhere, or justify commercials like these.
For all practical purposes Verizon does not, and has not ever, offered FiOS in Boston, Cambridge, or Somerville. If you don't believe me, plug in a friend's phone number and address into their "can I get FiOS?" tool. You won't succeed.
This is well documented in discussions on DSLreports and other forums if you just bother to plug in "Boston FiOS coverage". Go look at the DSLreports maps for self-reported service coverage. There are a couple of dots of FiOS customers in the Boston area, and a sea of them elsewhere.
Why did Slashdot choose this article? Do they like Marky Mark or something?
Because Verizon, a supposed common carrier, is refusing to offer services in a city that is a)one of two major tech capitals of the United States, an area with a long history of computer industry tech b)the largest city in New England.
There are a couple of factors at play. One is that Verizon wants an exemption from the state's requirements that TV cable providers secure franchise agreements with each town. The state basically forces cable companies to bid against each other. So that's why, for example, many MA towns have a cable studio in one of their schools, or at least some sort of community access station. That's important, but Verizon doesn't want to play ball against Comcast, RCN, Cablevision, etc. They just want to be able to offer TV services statewide.
The second factor: Verizon has studiously avoided low income (ie minority) areas in rolling out. They can run fiber down a street in Weston and get ~$200/household for internet, phone, and a fat TV package...and not need to feed that connection much in the way of data. In the city, people don't have as much disposable income, don't want phone service, and don't sit on their couch watching TV as much either because they're busy working or they're out taking advantage of more things the city has to offer...plus there's a LOT more internet connection sharing via wifi.
The end result is that we have only one real internet service provider in the city: Comcast. There's no competition, in a supposedly free market economy, in one of the oldest tech hubs in the country. Boston is the Silicon Valley of the East Coast; Massachusetts actually used to be as much or more of a tech powerhouse than SV was. DEC, Wang, HP, Sun, SGI, Oracle, Microsoft, and virtually every other major tech company used to have a massive presence here on either the Route 495 or 128 belts (495/128 and the spoke roads...93, 2, 3, 90, etc are why Boston is referred to as "The Hub")
All the tech elite/execs out in the burbs have awesomely fast internet and a choice in providers, but anyone in Cambridge, Somerville, or Boston don't. Similarly, if you head out to Needham you get 5-6Mbit/sec download speeds on your cell.
This is the explicit purpose of taxes. When the majority of people say that society would benefit from everyone chipping in to a cause. What is this world coming to when people resort to a website called "Crowdtilt" as a replacement for government?
This was entirely predictable when we allowed people to give money to a charity in lieu paying their taxes. IMHO, donations to charities shouldn't be tax-deductable.
Instead, we have rich people donating to NPOs for bullshit causes like Saving The Show Horsies (where their kids just coincidentally get instruction and riding time), there's a booster organization for their private school, etc. Hell, in my town, there was a swim and tennis club that was an NPO. It's absurd.
Then we have people in towns where the local (insert religious flavor here) school looks like a palace because people are donating up to the limits and the church isn't paying a dime in taxes...and the town library, public school, etc. are crumbling.
The professionalization of the police and fire fighting organizations are what allowed huge parts of the population to justify their abdication of personal responsibility.
There are some youtube clips out there of a small-town rural commercial fire department, one of two or three in the area. They're apparently infamous, and people in the area have been trying to get the state fire marshal to shut them down because they're so incompetent.
They don't have SCBA units. Their fire trucks break down enroute and on-scene. They fight fires with what appear to be slightly better than garden hoses. They appear to be a mom/pop/teenage-sons operation. There's one clip in particular of them trying to knock down a small fire. They finally call one of the other companies - well after the house has become fully engulfed and is a complete loss and might as well be left to burn - and the other company knocks it down in a few minutes.
Nothing stops you (legally) from helping your neighbor if their house catches on fire, and yes, the US firefighting community is extremely stubborn. That doesn't mean that overall a government-run fire department is a bad thing. The alternative is pretty terrifying.
Also, volunteer departments? They do great things with very little...and I romanticized living in a small town and helping out. Then I read the statistics for injuries and deaths in volunteer vs. professional departments, and said "pass."
I imagine the primary change will be around water.
Fraking is destroying aquifers everywhere, rendering water undrinkable in entire counties. It's absurd - despite clear warning signs that fraking is horrible, the industry is screaming "There's no PROOF it's all this crap we're pumping into the ground!" and the government is happy to march lock-step because it delays the energy crisis another day.
You could tip over a barrel of any of the dozens of chemicals in fraking fluid and the EPA would be all over you, but pump it down a well and it's A-OK...idiocy.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I should have clarified - in my town, cyclists over the age of 18 are considered motor vehicle operators and thus, legally ineligible to travel on the sidewalks. Therefore, any incident of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian on a sidewalk in this city is automatically ruled to be the cyclists fault.
That doesn't change the nature of your claim that cyclists hitting pedestrians - anywhere - is a significant problem.
Call your local police department and ask them for how many pedestrians were hit by motor vehicles this year. Then ask how many cyclists hit pedestrians.
It's liable to be a 99%/1% ratio, or thereabouts.
Separately: there's nothing like criminalizing a behavior people do because they feel safer. The reason people ride on sidewalks is because they're terrified to ride in the road. And why is that, exactly, hmm?
I have an older version, but effectively the injury/death rate is mostly effected by poor decisions by the cyclist, not the car.
First off, "the car" doesn't do anything. The driver does. You're attributing behavior to an inanimate object, something I see people do constantly.
Second: several decades of research proves your claim wrong. Most collisions are due to the driver doing something illegal, sometimes simply failing to yield because they think they have right-of-way over someone on a bicycle.
Australian helmet cam study: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/study-blames-drivers-for-bike-crashes-20101122-18330.html
London study: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-twothirds-of-bicycle-collisions-in-westminster-8602166.html
UK-wide study: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
Toronto study which found cyclists at fault in TEN PERCENT of crashes: http://www.examiner.com/article/study-claims-cyclists-at-fault-only-10-percent-of-crashes
The list goes on. Keep in mind that studies which are based off police reports that aren't carefully analyzed are typically faulty because police very often incorrectly side with motorists, don't interview cyclists, witness statements are wrong, etc. It's common to review a report, see obvious signs that the motorist did something illegal, and police do not cite them, and often cite the cyclist.
This guy was hit and two witnesses and the driver claimed he ran a red light; police tried to give him a ticket for running the light. He knew he hadn't. He found video from a traffic camera showing very clearly that he was cut off by the driver - what we call a "left cross": http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19284/it-must-have-been-your-fault-cmon-you-are-a-biker/
It should make you stop and think to consider that many cyclists ride with helmet cameras. There's a reason - drivers lie, police don't believe us (or very often we're incapacitated or otherwise unable to defend ourselves), and witnesses are discriminatory towards cyclists or simply don't understand traffic laws or think they saw what they didn't.
It's caused a lot of tension between drivers and cyclists because there's a sense amongst drivers (and pedestrians too, for that matter) that we're spending millions of tax dollars catering to a group who a) don't follow the rules of the road and b) feel that the rules don't apply to them.
If we applied that logic, we'd stop building roads entirely.
In my city, I routinely see people driving down the road with their headlights off in the middle of the night. Cops don't care.
Crosswalks? I stop at crosswalks on my bike for peds; drivers frequently blow by me, even when I intentionally swing further out into the lane to help the ped cross.
Despite an anti-texting law, drivers are constantly staring at their phones, and it's quite common to see a light change, and they just sit there, staring at their phone. I've watched driver sit through an entire green light cycle if there wasn't someone behind them.
Our red lights can't be taken at face value because there's a good chance for up to several seconds after the other direction has had a red light, some asshole will fly through the light above the 30mph speed limit; you have to look both ways before entering an intersection with a green light these days. Sometimes people just drive through lights that have been red because they don't see any other traffic.
That represents substantially more of a threat to public safety than someone on a bike going through a red light, where they by and large only place themselves at risk (and thus have a vested interest in crossing safely.)
The only reason you think cyclist-red-light-running is such a problem is because you're used to drivers doing it constantly, cyclists are a minority, and you're a driver.
As a cyclist, I'd like to weigh in that it's the cyclists' fault.
As a cyclist, I'd like to weigh in that you're full of it, and engaging in thinking/logic that's a cousin to the basic logic employed by racists. You cite some guy riding extremely dangerously as an example of how everyone rides. You rely on an anecdote, which is not evidence. And then you state that this behavior is what causes all/most injuries, which is victim-blaming.
Turns out, there's plenty of studies on this subject, from all across the world, using various methods. They typically find between 66% and 90% of collisions are the fault of motorists, and the cyclist was doing nothing wrong or improper when they were hit. The top causes of injuries in most cities are doorings (which in many places is automatically the door-openers fault, even if it's not specifically codified into law, as virtually all jurisdictions make opening a door into the path of "traffic" illegal), right hooks (driver passes you and then immediately slows/turns, cutting you off and blocking your path), and left-crosses (left turn in front of you, illegally failing to yield to oncoming traffic.) None are the cyclist's fault.
The reason you're engaging in this victim-blaming is for a psychological self-defense mechanism. See, it's scary when a cyclist gets hit or killed, especially if they weren't doing anything wrong. That means it could happen to you. In order to protect yourself from that danger mentally, you see yourself as superior. "I ride safely." "I follow all the laws." "I have really bright lights." "I'm not riding a cheap bike, mine's better and well-maintained." Tada! You now ride proudly and feeling "safe."
Well, guess what? I follow the law. I have years of experience riding in the city. I know all the protect-yourself techniques. I have great lights. I ride a really nice bike with great disc brakes and it's well maintained. I've still been hit.
or slammed their brakes on and caused a lot of (probably harmless, but expensive) rear-end collisions. I would fully support the cop who arrests your fucking ass for that
The officer would ticket the driver of the vehicle that rear-ended the other for failing to follow at a safe distance. Nice try.
but what about one that runs over a pedestrian because he was riding on the sidewalk?
If you bothered to google this: cyclists are involved in collisions with .6% of pedestrian injuries in NYC that warrant a trip to the doctor, ER, or a police report.
The other 99.4% are motor vehicle drivers.
The statistics do not account for whether the cyclist or pedestrian is at fault. Quite a few pedestrians rely on hearing to tell if a vehicle is coming - I have people step right into the road in front of me all the time, and it's particularly annoying since I'm more likely to be injured trying to avoid them and hitting something or crashing, or glancing off them and then crashing. They're likely to only get a bruised rib, whereas I'll probably get a broken arm.
So the energy company dude pays some engineer handsomly to toss is a little extra waste. That ineffcient algorithm is now silently generating $5million/year in *free* revenue.
No, because power usage = needing to build infrastructure. They want everyone to be as energy-efficient, because then they don't have to build power plants and upgrade lines as much.
Power companies practically throw CFLs and energy-efficient appliances at people and are constantly putting energy-conservation tips in their mailings, etc. Utilities in general are more than happy to pay for a home energy audit; my parent's gas company did a whole-house leak test and gave us all sorts of insulating widgets, paid for insulating our attic, etc. There are rebates on more efficient furnaces and water heaters, too.
Seriously - I recently found out that our power company at work gives out 10-year zero-interest loans to businesses if the new equipment provides energy savings.
Power companies should band together and offer to pay for Microsoft to have a huge team of software engineers auditing code and working on energy use and optimizing Windows and the Microsoft compilers. The payback would be incredible. Power companies could do the same thing tomorrow for Linux and BSD if they wanted.
Also, they had this guy, he sold drugs... lots of drugs... but did they bust him? Nope, they did an elaborate sting to bag him for something REALLY REALLY evil... (I hate drugs btw) Why? So he wouldn't be a martyr for free wealth exchange.
Police/prosecutors commonly initially charge someone with crimes they think they have a high chance of conviction on, to keep them locked up, enable search warrants where additional evidence is collected, stings are set up, etc.
The case on more complex charges gets built in the meantime, further investigation happens, etc. If they charge him with drug crimes now, they might have to expose evidence that tips their hat to a number of people. They're probably much more interested in the people distributing/dealing, and more serious crimes (like if anyone was offering explosives, killing, etc.)
I still prefer the Bitcoin schemes.
Why, aside from the fact that all the Cool Kids are supposedly Doing It?
It's a royal pain in the ass to participate in the bitcoin system, your transaction history is by definition public, and the value of the bitcoins you send to someone fluctuates like crazy. Anyone who takes bitcoins for compensation is insane.
I do believe it must be every person's right to refuse medical treatment, including vaccines.
If you've got an infectious disease that has outbreak potential, most legal systems allow doctors to detain you for treatment.
This isn't the same thing, but there's a similar public health factor. It's not a personal decision, given that there are people who CANNOT be vaccinated for whatever reason, and some of these diseases have no "cure" other than prevention.
Most of these outbreaks happen when unvaccinated people travel to other countries where vaccinations aren't commonplace and the diseases are. And they bring it home. That's half the reason your doctor and the Embassy suggest/strongly recommend getting booster shots before traveling to certain places!
When I saw the header, I thought that the rocket engine would have 3D-printed cooling ducts around its nozzle. It is something that Apollo / space shuttle - sized rocket engines have, but which can be quite complex. This engine doesn't.
The article clearly states: "The rocket has a regenerative cooling jacket that extends to the nozzle."
The jackets/piping are clearly visible in all the photos, too...
Yes, them jews have been blowing up shit all over the US. We need to watch them close.
I would've moderated this funny 3 months ago, but I recently found out there's a very violent (as in, yes, "blowing up shit") Jewish extremist group in the US. The name escapes me. They weren't the only group I'd never heard of.
Domestic terror groups are our dirty little secret, apparently - at least the ones who aren't skinheads or ultralibertarian gun nuts.
It is unbelievable that this article is taken seriously. The writer refers to the shift paddles as "flappy paddles behind the steering wheel". This tells me that the person writing the article knows nothing about cars and did very little research to reach their conclusions.
Actually, you just showed you know less about the automotive world than they do.
"Flappy paddle" has been the derogatory term Jeremy Clarkson and the other Top Gear presenters have used for years upon years, and it's now in widespread popular use. It referred to three things, early on: 1)Automatics with paddles that simply said to the transmission "shift up or down now", which usually happened eons after you pushed the paddle and the transmission still has all the inefficiencies of an automatic 2)Automated-manual transmissions which had horrendous "creeping" functionality, poor usability/interface (ie 3 point turns were mind-numbingly hard/slow/complex), and broke down a lot because of the complexity of actuators/sensors/etc. 3)Sequential transmissions that were brutal in terms of comfort (having been adopted from racing applications) and poor creeping functionality.
Nowadays the term is mostly used by automotive fans who hate anything that doesn't have a manual gearbox, even if it's a perfectly reliable 7 gear, double-clutch transmission that shifts so smoothly you can do so mid-corner and not upset the car's balance, and can shift so fast it has to wait for the engine to match revs...
A bit? :)
The 918 Spyder starts at $845,000.
It's more than ten times the cost...
Given all the snark on Slashdot about the sorry state of modern journalism, it is well worth a read to see one organization that got it right.
You mean like the fact that the reporter in question thought Snowdon was fucking with him and ignored him, until Snowdon managed to find an intermediary?
I don't really call that "getting it right." I call that a Mulligan. The whole thing damn near went into the toilet because the reporter couldn't be bothered to explore the goldmine that fell into his lap.
TX/RX is unethical and scammy
Citation required, on both of those. How are they unethical, and how are they scammy?
There *used* to be technology in Boston.
There still is; it's just not the same companies, except for Microsoft, Oracle, and Google, among the big "old tech" companies. Microsoft owns a huge building right on the Charles, for example, and has a huge office on 128; so does Oracle. Google's smack in the middle of Kendal Square.
Facebook, Apple, Amazon, ITA, Turbine, SCVNGR/LevelUp....that's just who I can think of off the top of my head. Then there's all the pharma companies...
Boston remains popular because of a steady supply of young, well-educated labor and living costs that are high but not astronomical like they are in SV. It's also a far more pleasant area to live in than NYC.
Verizon does offer DSL in Boston too but it is of course not FIOS but still adequate for most basic web surfers.
DSL is not competitive in an age when other technologies offer 10-15x the bandwidth. Seriously - when my comcast connection works and the stars align, I've seen download speeds of 5-10MBytes/sec.
RCN is a competitor to Comcast and I get my Internet through them.
It used to be that Comcast and RCN service areas in Boston don't overlap. One street might be RCN, another might be Comcast. I don't know if things have changed. If you plug in your address, does Comcast offer service in your area? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious.)
You do realize the article is about Boston, not New York City, right?
You do realize New York (the entire state) is NOT PART OF NEW ENGLAND, right? New York is part of the Northeast.
Seriously: did you just try to someone who lives in a region, what that region is?
The "free market" part comes from the bidding/negotiations process any cable company can engage in with the town. In MA towns, the franchise negotiations are handled by the selectmen (whose meetings are broadcast), and then approved at the annual town meeting. Yeah, you read that right. We have annual town meetings, where the entire town approves the budget. It's over the course of a couple of evenings, and anyone who is a resident can show up, speak, and vote on how the town spends its money. What do you expect from the birthplace of the American Revolution?
Fuck off.
Posted from Boston, plugged into 50MBps Verizon FiOS. I have no idea what this article is talking about.
Years ago, Verizon rolled out FiOS to a handful (literally) of customers in Boston, same as they did in Cambridge and other municipalities. It was probably done as some sort of token measure to claim they were offering the service everywhere, or justify commercials like these.
For all practical purposes Verizon does not, and has not ever, offered FiOS in Boston, Cambridge, or Somerville. If you don't believe me, plug in a friend's phone number and address into their "can I get FiOS?" tool. You won't succeed.
This is well documented in discussions on DSLreports and other forums if you just bother to plug in "Boston FiOS coverage". Go look at the DSLreports maps for self-reported service coverage. There are a couple of dots of FiOS customers in the Boston area, and a sea of them elsewhere.
Why did Slashdot choose this article? Do they like Marky Mark or something?
Because Verizon, a supposed common carrier, is refusing to offer services in a city that is a)one of two major tech capitals of the United States, an area with a long history of computer industry tech b)the largest city in New England.
There are a couple of factors at play. One is that Verizon wants an exemption from the state's requirements that TV cable providers secure franchise agreements with each town. The state basically forces cable companies to bid against each other. So that's why, for example, many MA towns have a cable studio in one of their schools, or at least some sort of community access station. That's important, but Verizon doesn't want to play ball against Comcast, RCN, Cablevision, etc. They just want to be able to offer TV services statewide.
The second factor: Verizon has studiously avoided low income (ie minority) areas in rolling out. They can run fiber down a street in Weston and get ~$200/household for internet, phone, and a fat TV package...and not need to feed that connection much in the way of data. In the city, people don't have as much disposable income, don't want phone service, and don't sit on their couch watching TV as much either because they're busy working or they're out taking advantage of more things the city has to offer...plus there's a LOT more internet connection sharing via wifi.
The end result is that we have only one real internet service provider in the city: Comcast. There's no competition, in a supposedly free market economy, in one of the oldest tech hubs in the country. Boston is the Silicon Valley of the East Coast; Massachusetts actually used to be as much or more of a tech powerhouse than SV was. DEC, Wang, HP, Sun, SGI, Oracle, Microsoft, and virtually every other major tech company used to have a massive presence here on either the Route 495 or 128 belts (495/128 and the spoke roads...93, 2, 3, 90, etc are why Boston is referred to as "The Hub")
All the tech elite/execs out in the burbs have awesomely fast internet and a choice in providers, but anyone in Cambridge, Somerville, or Boston don't. Similarly, if you head out to Needham you get 5-6Mbit/sec download speeds on your cell.
This is the explicit purpose of taxes. When the majority of people say that society would benefit from everyone chipping in to a cause. What is this world coming to when people resort to a website called "Crowdtilt" as a replacement for government?
This was entirely predictable when we allowed people to give money to a charity in lieu paying their taxes. IMHO, donations to charities shouldn't be tax-deductable.
Instead, we have rich people donating to NPOs for bullshit causes like Saving The Show Horsies (where their kids just coincidentally get instruction and riding time), there's a booster organization for their private school, etc. Hell, in my town, there was a swim and tennis club that was an NPO. It's absurd.
Then we have people in towns where the local (insert religious flavor here) school looks like a palace because people are donating up to the limits and the church isn't paying a dime in taxes...and the town library, public school, etc. are crumbling.
The professionalization of the police and fire fighting organizations are what allowed huge parts of the population to justify their abdication of personal responsibility.
There are some youtube clips out there of a small-town rural commercial fire department, one of two or three in the area. They're apparently infamous, and people in the area have been trying to get the state fire marshal to shut them down because they're so incompetent.
They don't have SCBA units. Their fire trucks break down enroute and on-scene. They fight fires with what appear to be slightly better than garden hoses. They appear to be a mom/pop/teenage-sons operation. There's one clip in particular of them trying to knock down a small fire. They finally call one of the other companies - well after the house has become fully engulfed and is a complete loss and might as well be left to burn - and the other company knocks it down in a few minutes.
Nothing stops you (legally) from helping your neighbor if their house catches on fire, and yes, the US firefighting community is extremely stubborn. That doesn't mean that overall a government-run fire department is a bad thing. The alternative is pretty terrifying.
Also, volunteer departments? They do great things with very little...and I romanticized living in a small town and helping out. Then I read the statistics for injuries and deaths in volunteer vs. professional departments, and said "pass."
I imagine the primary change will be around water.
Fraking is destroying aquifers everywhere, rendering water undrinkable in entire counties. It's absurd - despite clear warning signs that fraking is horrible, the industry is screaming "There's no PROOF it's all this crap we're pumping into the ground!" and the government is happy to march lock-step because it delays the energy crisis another day.
You could tip over a barrel of any of the dozens of chemicals in fraking fluid and the EPA would be all over you, but pump it down a well and it's A-OK...idiocy.