"Almost everywhere has some rules that prevent cutting through private property to avoid a traffic control device."
Public roads aren't private properly, they are the roads you are to take to avoid "cutting through" private property.
"Some (but much fewer) have rules preventing cutting through public streets."
Indeed, "much fewer". So "much fewer" that it could be difficult to even list an example. Regardless, they aren't the same because public roads aren't private property. It is illegal to use private property as a public throughway, public roads ARE for use as public throughways.
So what? Is the road that is shut down "designed with heavy traffic flow" in mind? The resources are what they are and if there weren't problems then people wouldn't seek out alternatives.
Odds are that not one person using a residential road ever paid even a fraction of a "cent" to the construction of that road, including all the residents there. It's irrelevant. What matters is whether the road is public or not. Public roads are not reserved for the preferential use of certain citizens who deem their interests more important than others'.
It seems to me he understands completely. Roads are for shared use and are property of the government. The problem here is individuals thinking that they can lay claim to preferred use of public resources.
Everyone understands that different roads support different usage patterns and it takes a complete idiot, or an anonymous coward, to suggest otherwise.
"Besides, our roads weren't engineered to handle thousands of vehicles a day..."
I wonder how you know these things? These aren't even your roads at all, they are city property.
I'm confident the roads you talk about weren't "engineered" to handle traffic in any way, they were simply built to accommodate the developers plans and to meet city codes.
And then there's the "kids playing in the street" excuse. Keep the kids out of traffic. Streets aren't a playground for children, they are for cars driving places.
If you don't want public access to local streets, you should live somewhere where local roads are privately owned and you should pay extra for the privilege. As is, all you demonstrate is entitlement.
Not "many", and these roads should be marked as private. It is rare that such roads remain private since homeowners don't desire to carry the burden of maintenance costs.
"Modern neighborhoods" commonly have roads built with private funding to public standards with the funding paid off through the sale of individual properties and with the roads turned over to the public as quickly as possible. This serves the needs of the developer without long term costs burdened on the homeowners.
You're not only an a-hole but a moron. It's "perfectly fine" for you to "park a garbage truck in the middle of the road"? Really? Apparently you have no idea what a road is for.
Speed bumps ruin the utility of a road that was expressly paid for my the people using it and residential streets are every bit as much for "personal time trials" as they are for your private commuting needs. Public roads are for the public getting places, not for the individual's personal, selfish reasons.
He was responsible technically for HPFS, a colossal failure. He also did work in photography where he showed the same poor insights technically as non-technical photographers often do. He clearly has a huge ego and the ability to fool people; what beyond that is hard to say. Not impressed.
Perhaps you should look a little more carefully at their bogus numbers.
The battery in the Trayser is 42V 20Ah or 840 Wh. This is a largish battery capacity for an electric bike. The charger has a gross power input rating of 480W and a charge time of 5 hours.
The Raker has a 72V battery (twice the voltage) with a 5A charger (2.5x the power) and identical charge time. That would suggest a battery capacity of 1.25x the Trayser or 25Ah. The capacity listed is "25 kWh". Do you think they might have published the wrong units? 25Ah yields a capacity of 1.8KWh, not 25. That means a consumption of 36 Wh/mile or about 28 miles/KWh which reasonable for a bike not intended to be used pedal-assisted.
"How do you explain it to your kids when they see two women kiss at a public restaurant."
How do you explain it when they see a man and woman kissing? Do it the same way, no need for a double standard.
"Lastly just because something is natural doesn't mean it doesn't have a label."
Way to deliberate misrepresent the issue. Of course things have names, it's not a question of having a word for something, it's a question of labeling it as unsuitable for children.
Kids get exposed to sexual preferences and behavior all the time and not only is it accepted, it is deliberate. It is only considered OK because it it conventional.
Oil companies are the most profitable businesses on earth. They are all delighted that they are oil companies. They can be other things, too, just so long as the opportunity cost isn't too great.
Fingerprinting is not minor. It is an unjustified authorization to create database information that the government would not otherwise have. It is irrelevant how easy or cheap it is to perform.
"I've never had a bug caused by indentation changing the logic. Python code is usually succinct enough with small enough methods that things like that are immediately obvious."
How would you know if you've never had one?
It's sad when you contradict yourself in consecutive sentences. LOL
Just because you run into a slower moving car doesn't mean you are driving too fast, there can be all sorts of reasons. Meanwhile, unusually low speed limits create speed differentials that are unsafe.
It's funny how so many people's logic on this topic, when carried to its natural conclusion, would result in a speed limit of 0.
Driving as safely as possible is not defined as obeying the speed limit when the limit is unreasonable. Safely as possible, frankly, has little to do with arbitrary laws.
If you want to be as safe as possible, get off the road entirely.
You are wrong. Drivers naturally determine appropriate speeds for conditions and will drive those speeds. When speed limits are consistent with what the road allows, drivers do not naturally speed. In the US, speed limits are set unreasonably low to create a steady pool of speeders to draw from. That is not the case in other countries.
HFCS tastes like sugar, only morons would claim it "tastes like ass". It is also engineered to have a balance of fructose to glucose similar to sucrose specifically so it would taste the same.
Apparently people can quote articles but can't comprehend their contents.
The key in the article is the evidence that fructose is unhealthier than glucose. That's not proof that HFCS is worse than cane sugar but it suggests that fruit juices are worse than sodas.
In addition to all the stupid stuff that others have already responded to, I'll point out that ARM is also very old. It clearly upsets you that x86 competes successfully on a level playing field...but the news gets worse, your fresh architectural savior in ARM is a dinosaur as well.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have to ask this question then you've never used SMS.
You are suggesting it's Apple's fault that PCs and Android tablets do not have cellular radios?
In what way is this a failing of iMessage?
"Almost everywhere has some rules that prevent cutting through private property to avoid a traffic control device."
Public roads aren't private properly, they are the roads you are to take to avoid "cutting through" private property.
"Some (but much fewer) have rules preventing cutting through public streets."
Indeed, "much fewer". So "much fewer" that it could be difficult to even list an example. Regardless, they aren't the same because public roads aren't private property. It is illegal to use private property as a public throughway, public roads ARE for use as public throughways.
So what? Is the road that is shut down "designed with heavy traffic flow" in mind? The resources are what they are and if there weren't problems then people wouldn't seek out alternatives.
Odds are that not one person using a residential road ever paid even a fraction of a "cent" to the construction of that road, including all the residents there. It's irrelevant. What matters is whether the road is public or not. Public roads are not reserved for the preferential use of certain citizens who deem their interests more important than others'.
It seems to me he understands completely. Roads are for shared use and are property of the government. The problem here is individuals thinking that they can lay claim to preferred use of public resources.
Everyone understands that different roads support different usage patterns and it takes a complete idiot, or an anonymous coward, to suggest otherwise.
"Besides, our roads weren't engineered to handle thousands of vehicles a day..."
I wonder how you know these things? These aren't even your roads at all, they are city property.
I'm confident the roads you talk about weren't "engineered" to handle traffic in any way, they were simply built to accommodate the developers plans and to meet city codes.
And then there's the "kids playing in the street" excuse. Keep the kids out of traffic. Streets aren't a playground for children, they are for cars driving places.
If you don't want public access to local streets, you should live somewhere where local roads are privately owned and you should pay extra for the privilege. As is, all you demonstrate is entitlement.
Not "many", and these roads should be marked as private. It is rare that such roads remain private since homeowners don't desire to carry the burden of maintenance costs.
"Modern neighborhoods" commonly have roads built with private funding to public standards with the funding paid off through the sale of individual properties and with the roads turned over to the public as quickly as possible. This serves the needs of the developer without long term costs burdened on the homeowners.
You're not only an a-hole but a moron. It's "perfectly fine" for you to "park a garbage truck in the middle of the road"? Really? Apparently you have no idea what a road is for.
Speed bumps ruin the utility of a road that was expressly paid for my the people using it and residential streets are every bit as much for "personal time trials" as they are for your private commuting needs. Public roads are for the public getting places, not for the individual's personal, selfish reasons.
How is that different than the overloaded streets that motivate alternative routes in the first place? Oh yeah, your entitlement.
Keep your children out of the streets.
"The easiest fix..."
Fix? That alone shows you're on the wrong side of the problem.
"...but does that mean that MS should be able to force me to use one that they consider "strong"?"
Yes, of course it does, and your use of "they consider" demonstrates your bias here. Password strength is an objective measure.
"... You do know that, don't you?"
Don't pretend to be in possession of the facts here after your previous comments.
He was responsible technically for HPFS, a colossal failure. He also did work in photography where he showed the same poor insights technically as non-technical photographers often do. He clearly has a huge ego and the ability to fool people; what beyond that is hard to say. Not impressed.
Perhaps you should look a little more carefully at their bogus numbers.
The battery in the Trayser is 42V 20Ah or 840 Wh. This is a largish battery capacity for an electric bike. The charger has a gross power input rating of 480W and a charge time of 5 hours.
The Raker has a 72V battery (twice the voltage) with a 5A charger (2.5x the power) and identical charge time. That would suggest a battery capacity of 1.25x the Trayser or 25Ah. The capacity listed is "25 kWh". Do you think they might have published the wrong units? 25Ah yields a capacity of 1.8KWh, not 25. That means a consumption of 36 Wh/mile or about 28 miles/KWh which reasonable for a bike not intended to be used pedal-assisted.
"How do you explain it to your kids when they see two women kiss at a public restaurant."
How do you explain it when they see a man and woman kissing? Do it the same way, no need for a double standard.
"Lastly just because something is natural doesn't mean it doesn't have a label."
Way to deliberate misrepresent the issue. Of course things have names, it's not a question of having a word for something, it's a question of labeling it as unsuitable for children.
Kids get exposed to sexual preferences and behavior all the time and not only is it accepted, it is deliberate. It is only considered OK because it it conventional.
Oil companies are the most profitable businesses on earth. They are all delighted that they are oil companies. They can be other things, too, just so long as the opportunity cost isn't too great.
Oil produces more than just energy.
Fingerprinting is not minor. It is an unjustified authorization to create database information that the government would not otherwise have. It is irrelevant how easy or cheap it is to perform.
"I've never had a bug caused by indentation changing the logic. Python code is usually succinct enough with small enough methods that things like that are immediately obvious."
How would you know if you've never had one?
It's sad when you contradict yourself in consecutive sentences. LOL
Just because you run into a slower moving car doesn't mean you are driving too fast, there can be all sorts of reasons. Meanwhile, unusually low speed limits create speed differentials that are unsafe.
It's funny how so many people's logic on this topic, when carried to its natural conclusion, would result in a speed limit of 0.
Driving as safely as possible is not defined as obeying the speed limit when the limit is unreasonable. Safely as possible, frankly, has little to do with arbitrary laws.
If you want to be as safe as possible, get off the road entirely.
You are wrong. Drivers naturally determine appropriate speeds for conditions and will drive those speeds. When speed limits are consistent with what the road allows, drivers do not naturally speed. In the US, speed limits are set unreasonably low to create a steady pool of speeders to draw from. That is not the case in other countries.
More of your religious bullshit. Corn is just not that good for you in large amounts because...?
HFCS and cane sugar are equally bad for you. It's you that has fallen for nonsense.
HFCS tastes like sugar, only morons would claim it "tastes like ass". It is also engineered to have a balance of fructose to glucose similar to sucrose specifically so it would taste the same.
Apparently people can quote articles but can't comprehend their contents.
The key in the article is the evidence that fructose is unhealthier than glucose. That's not proof that HFCS is worse than cane sugar but it suggests that fruit juices are worse than sodas.
Fruit juices contain a different balance of simple sugars than sodas and that balance makes them worse. Fructose is a liver killer.
"The x86 architecture is very old..."
In addition to all the stupid stuff that others have already responded to, I'll point out that ARM is also very old. It clearly upsets you that x86 competes successfully on a level playing field...but the news gets worse, your fresh architectural savior in ARM is a dinosaur as well.