Not really, free speech isn't a blanket license to offend people.
Funny, because non-offensive speech doesn't need protection.. so it seems to me that "offensive" speech is exactly what the first amendment is trying to protect.
The whole obscentity and community standards crap is just a run around the first amendment, nothing more. Why should my neighbors get to prohibit what I watch in my own home?
Sorry to break up your rant, but how do you know it wasn't the software built with.Net that wasn't at fault; that is, nothing is wrong with.Net, Sql Server or Windows... but anyone can build an application with those tools that is shit... or really good.
The sources cited in the article seem to indicate it was the custom software built.. not the platform it was built on that was at fault.
But please, don't let me interupt your MS bashing here.. especially when you've probably never seen code from Accenture. Your claims that.Net "isn't workable" aren't backed up by anything, and then you attempt to say Java is better? Please. I've done both... Java is the half baked attempt.
No, i demolished your argument. You see, while technically correct that some property tax does in fact go to roads, that doesn't mean it's even a significant source of revenue for which to build / maintain roads. I never said gas tax was the ONLY method of funding roads, I said it was the most significant, and by a long shot, as my 1/3 property tax is ALSO paying for those other expensive things, meaning roads aren't getting much of anything.
Of course the whole argument is flawed to its core, because it's the law which says bicycles can use roads, not misinformed internet asshats. Flawed logical arguments about pay-per use entitlement are not really relevant or useful except perhaps as entertainment
The law is wrong, pushed for by a bunch of self centered holier than thou spandex wearing asshats that apparently have nothing else do to but their their bike and annoy everyone else just trying to live their lives.
You can exercise your way out of a diet that simply has too many calories.
No, not really. If you're talking about a few hundred calories, maybe... but you can't exercise your way out of several thousand calorie overages, which are common. At least, not unless your Micheal Phelps, but lets be real, we're talking about the average person.
One, you burn more calories. Two, you build muscle.
Building muscle doesn't help too much. I believe you burn 4 more calories per day by adding one pound of muscle. So you're left with option one, whihc is actually USING muscle.
But just so you know I hate those red light running bastards just as much as you. I just overtook them on the straight and then they squeeze past me and are in the way when it turns green. Or, my favourite, just as the lights change and i accelerate , because they were planning on running the red light, they overtake me and turn right without signaling or looking, so I'll have to take a right turn so I don't bike right into them.
Glad to see you're on the right side of things. Please continue to help fight against them, because we have so many here they are giving all cylists a bad name.
Tylenol has never worked for me, even Tylenol with codeine (percocet?). If I'm prescribed Tylenol with codeine, I have to take an aspirin with it to make it work
I don't see (aside from advertising and bribing doctors and hospitals) why acetomenaphine needs to be on the market at all
Did you stop to think that maybe, there are people like who, for whom asprin doesn't work? Acetomenaphine is the only OTC painkiller that DOES seem to work with me.
You must be high. Acetaminophen will only damage your liver in too high a dosage. As far as labeling is concern... have you ever bought medication? The front is the ONLY part of the packaging NOT laced with warnings, ingerdient, dosage etc.
Its only easy IF YOU DON'T READ THE DRUG LABELS. I just finished needing some Nyquil, and it states clearly what it contains how much I should take and how often, and not to exceed a certain dose.
The problem is retards that think that just because something is OTC, it's not a "real" drug. Really, this is a problem with the whole controlled substance crap... people stopped thinking.
First, they're talking about an outright ban on acetaminophen. And yes, it means I must suffer with headaches and other pain because asprin or ibprofin do shit for me.
How about we leave it as it is, and let people read the warning labels.
I'm tired of not being able to get a decent decongestent because of some stupid war on drugs, and now the ONLY thing that works on my headaches might be banned? Fucking enough already.. if you're too dumb to know you can even pop over the counter pills without thinking, maybe you should die of liver failure.
Must be a west coast thing. In ever state i've been in (eastern only), motorcyles can't split lanes, ride side by side, or even actually share a parking space (that last one I personally feel is overboard, but I do believe it's the law in PA at least).
Sorry to hear you hit a fraudster.. thats the problem when creating laws like "tailgaters are always at fault." It takes any reasonableness out of the picture. Glad he got ticketed though.
I'm starting to see some reasonable bikers... although I strongly disagree that stop signs should be treated as yield for cyclists. Imagine the driver that starts, the bike runs the sign and hits the car. This is pretty much whats going on actually, and I've been in that situtation.
I agree many people on both can be bad.. but my experience (which I've taken to record, actually) is that cyclists are routinely not following the rules, and doing what they want. So given this, my thought is to ban them from roads outright.
In skiing, the right of way is given to the people downhill. Why? Because they can't see you coming, and you are probably going faster than they are. It is a similar reason why the responsibility is place generally on the driver, not the biker. Note: does not completely remove all responsibility from the biker. Also, look at rear-ending cases for precedent/similarities here
Um, to me that's totally the reverse. Since the faster, more dangerous skier can't stop on a dime, they have the right of way. To me, that suggests the CAR should have the right of way, not the biker.
Also, bicycles are regarded as vehicles (in the US), which means traffic laws apply to them as well. I hate to portray the stereotypical biker attitude, but you really should "share the road." The thing is, it goes both ways.
I agree, unfortunately bikers don't follow the rules. I wouldn't have a problem otherwise. But they commonly run stop signs / red lights, jump on and off of sidewalks at will, pass on the right while cars are stopped at the light or sign (the law is clear; they are to enter the lane just like a car when there's a line up). And on top of that they have an attitude with DRIVERS. Its not suprising there's a lot of hostility towards cyclists.
You claim that bikers are not reasonable, nor respectful. I strongly disagree. When biking, you have a very large amount of respect for the cars/trucks that could kill you in an instant's inattention.
Ya, unfortunately here that's not the case. And when you just barely miss hitting them because THEY ran the sign, they yell at YOU. Pedistrians are also bad for this.. they feel they have the right to enter the street to cross at ANY TIME ANYWHERE. Fortunately, police are going to crack down on bikers, peds and motorists as well. There's a Give Respect get respect campaign, aimed just as much at bikers.
I think this program shows its not just my imagination.
Lastly, regarding the shoulders, they are sometimes completely un-rideable, especially if you are using road tires instead of hybrid tires. The same reason why cars don't want to ride on shoulders (gravel, pot holes, tire fragments, roadkill, etc) are even more dangerous to a biker.
Legally cars aren't allowed to drive on the shoulder, unless directed to. But thats not the problem here; our streets are clean, and most of the potholes are in the lanes of traffic, not the shoulder.
Who said I passed you closely? You made that up. I'm talking about you evaluating risks and choosing to do something risky anyway. If the infrastrucure for biking sucks, AND YOU KNOW IT, yes, you're taking a calculated risk, just like if you choose to go skydiving.
Oh, if it were seconds, I wouldn't care, but it's not. At the end of the day, ya, you can say infrastructure sucks... but if you know it and STILL choose to bike, don't be suprised when people get upset. Instead of making it hell for everyone, push to get it changed and then bike.
If someone opens a door 3 feet in front of you when you're traveling 20-25mph, you don't have time to even apply the brakes in any vehicle. The difference is that roads with on-street parking are usually designed so that traffic is a safe difference from parked cars. But that's often not the case for bikes -- in many places marked bike lanes are right in the "door zone".
You would think, but this isn't the case. Plenty of roads in the area I live if the door is opened and I'm even all the way to the left of the lane as possible, I'll still t hem them. Literally, the right white line also doubles as the parking space line.
I personally try to avoid the door zone unless I'm moving very slowly, even though the law is on my side here.
I appreciate and thank you for your sense of personal responsiblity here.. its refreshing. Far too many cyclists feel they are entitled to do whatever they want, not matter how dangerous.
I agree, but I'm just arguing based on what is the current law / rational.
PA also has a law where if you rear-end someone, it's automatically your fault. All that did was give rise to a new way for insurance companies to be defrauded (incidently, this is good for them, because the few cases can be used to justify a rate increase for all drivers in the area...).
Often enough, car drivers will open their doors oblivious to whether or not a bike is passing them.
Funny, because just like its the responsibility of the driver of a MOVING car to avoid hitting a PARKED car, I expect cyclists to watch for car doors about to be opened.
Or do you think as a driver I never have to worry about someone opening their car door in front of my car? I hate to tell you, there are plenty of places where I have to watch for someone opening their door into traffic as well.
What? 2/3 of my property taxes are going to educate someone elses kids.. AND THATS IT. The REST of the 1/3 goes to NOT only roads, but any other city projects as well (parks, zoning, police, etc etc).
Sorry, most of the funding DOES come from costs associated with owning and operating a car.
Ya... did you stop to consider the impact of your choice to drive a car? Don't inconvenience others and then expect them to like you.
Shut it. American life is built around using a car as one's primary transportation, as is the road built for said cars.
Where I live, car drivers seem to be their own worst enemy; there are laws about what they may and may not do, and yet they seem to feel that it's ok to drive faster than the speed limit (it's not), ignore stop signs (they can't), turn without signalling (nope), harass other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians (assault and sometime battery), talk on the cell phone (illegal here), text message or work on computers (I'm not kidding about this), read books, put on make up, and ignore red lights. Ever see someone stop right in the middle of road just to talk to their passenger oblivious to the traffic they are stopping? Every year, car drivers kill thousands of people and do millions of dollars of property damage.
If the vast majority of drivers were driving like that, we'd see Death Race daily on our streets. Fortunately, the reality is that most drivers are responsible and do obey the rules. The fact that some rule breakers exist doesn't mean all drivers are like that.
The same cannot be said of cyclists, who routinely violate pretty much ALL the rules, to the point when I'm shocked when one does obey them (see the difference.. I'm not shocked when a driver obeys the rules, I'm shocked when they don't).
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm in favor of making it illegal for them to drive ANYWHERE except on the freeways.
If your basic road was built for bikes, you'd have a point... but the roads you're trying to say you have a right to ride a bike on where BUILT FOR CARS. So sorry, it doesn't work both ways.
I dunno, I guess maybe the people you know are still using sets from the 1970s, but the rest of the world has moved on. At this point, might as well say reading is adequate entertainment, why watch a movie at all? You've lost your point.
I was trying to make my way from my parents house to knoxville, a minor 10 mile ride, and at one point found myself forced to take an interstate... holding to the shoulder of course but it was rocky and all... worthless and dangerous.
You were NOT forced to take an interstate. There's always another road to use. Its actually illegal to ride a bike on ANY interstate.. which is probably why you found it dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
Then there is the entire creating a public panic over a danger that doesn't exist.
Oh, you mean like the whole war on terror thing? Or the war on drugs thing? Or is it only ok for the government to do that?
Not really, free speech isn't a blanket license to offend people.
Funny, because non-offensive speech doesn't need protection.. so it seems to me that "offensive" speech is exactly what the first amendment is trying to protect.
The whole obscentity and community standards crap is just a run around the first amendment, nothing more. Why should my neighbors get to prohibit what I watch in my own home?
So, do you have proof for you statement, or did McDs start offering healthier items because customers were demanding it?
Sorry to break up your rant, but how do you know it wasn't the software built with .Net that wasn't at fault; that is, nothing is wrong with .Net, Sql Server or Windows... but anyone can build an application with those tools that is shit... or really good.
The sources cited in the article seem to indicate it was the custom software built.. not the platform it was built on that was at fault.
But please, don't let me interupt your MS bashing here.. especially when you've probably never seen code from Accenture. Your claims that .Net "isn't workable" aren't backed up by anything, and then you attempt to say Java is better? Please. I've done both... Java is the half baked attempt.
No, i demolished your argument. You see, while technically correct that some property tax does in fact go to roads, that doesn't mean it's even a significant source of revenue for which to build / maintain roads. I never said gas tax was the ONLY method of funding roads, I said it was the most significant, and by a long shot, as my 1/3 property tax is ALSO paying for those other expensive things, meaning roads aren't getting much of anything.
Of course the whole argument is flawed to its core, because it's the law which says bicycles can use roads, not misinformed internet asshats. Flawed logical arguments about pay-per use entitlement are not really relevant or useful except perhaps as entertainment
The law is wrong, pushed for by a bunch of self centered holier than thou spandex wearing asshats that apparently have nothing else do to but their their bike and annoy everyone else just trying to live their lives.
You can exercise your way out of a diet that simply has too many calories.
No, not really. If you're talking about a few hundred calories, maybe... but you can't exercise your way out of several thousand calorie overages, which are common. At least, not unless your Micheal Phelps, but lets be real, we're talking about the average person.
One, you burn more calories. Two, you build muscle.
Building muscle doesn't help too much. I believe you burn 4 more calories per day by adding one pound of muscle. So you're left with option one, whihc is actually USING muscle.
Then I wouldn't be accelerating, would I?
You could have slowed prior to the light.
But just so you know I hate those red light running bastards just as much as you. I just overtook them on the straight and then they squeeze past me and are in the way when it turns green. Or, my favourite, just as the lights change and i accelerate , because they were planning on running the red light, they overtake me and turn right without signaling or looking, so I'll have to take a right turn so I don't bike right into them.
Glad to see you're on the right side of things. Please continue to help fight against them, because we have so many here they are giving all cylists a bad name.
Um, the label will tell them exactly that. And we have people you can go to that know all about drugs. There are plenty of resources, and no excuses.
Tylenol has never worked for me, even Tylenol with codeine (percocet?). If I'm prescribed Tylenol with codeine, I have to take an aspirin with it to make it work
I don't see (aside from advertising and bribing doctors and hospitals) why acetomenaphine needs to be on the market at all
Did you stop to think that maybe, there are people like who, for whom asprin doesn't work? Acetomenaphine is the only OTC painkiller that DOES seem to work with me.
You must be high. Acetaminophen will only damage your liver in too high a dosage. As far as labeling is concern... have you ever bought medication? The front is the ONLY part of the packaging NOT laced with warnings, ingerdient, dosage etc.
Its only easy IF YOU DON'T READ THE DRUG LABELS. I just finished needing some Nyquil, and it states clearly what it contains how much I should take and how often, and not to exceed a certain dose.
The problem is retards that think that just because something is OTC, it's not a "real" drug. Really, this is a problem with the whole controlled substance crap... people stopped thinking.
First, they're talking about an outright ban on acetaminophen. And yes, it means I must suffer with headaches and other pain because asprin or ibprofin do shit for me.
How about we leave it as it is, and let people read the warning labels.
I'm tired of not being able to get a decent decongestent because of some stupid war on drugs, and now the ONLY thing that works on my headaches might be banned? Fucking enough already.. if you're too dumb to know you can even pop over the counter pills without thinking, maybe you should die of liver failure.
Must be a west coast thing. In ever state i've been in (eastern only), motorcyles can't split lanes, ride side by side, or even actually share a parking space (that last one I personally feel is overboard, but I do believe it's the law in PA at least).
Sorry to hear you hit a fraudster.. thats the problem when creating laws like "tailgaters are always at fault." It takes any reasonableness out of the picture. Glad he got ticketed though.
I'm starting to see some reasonable bikers... although I strongly disagree that stop signs should be treated as yield for cyclists. Imagine the driver that starts, the bike runs the sign and hits the car. This is pretty much whats going on actually, and I've been in that situtation.
I agree many people on both can be bad.. but my experience (which I've taken to record, actually) is that cyclists are routinely not following the rules, and doing what they want. So given this, my thought is to ban them from roads outright.
In skiing, the right of way is given to the people downhill. Why? Because they can't see you coming, and you are probably going faster than they are. It is a similar reason why the responsibility is place generally on the driver, not the biker. Note: does not completely remove all responsibility from the biker. Also, look at rear-ending cases for precedent/similarities here
Um, to me that's totally the reverse. Since the faster, more dangerous skier can't stop on a dime, they have the right of way. To me, that suggests the CAR should have the right of way, not the biker.
Also, bicycles are regarded as vehicles (in the US), which means traffic laws apply to them as well. I hate to portray the stereotypical biker attitude, but you really should "share the road." The thing is, it goes both ways.
I agree, unfortunately bikers don't follow the rules. I wouldn't have a problem otherwise. But they commonly run stop signs / red lights, jump on and off of sidewalks at will, pass on the right while cars are stopped at the light or sign (the law is clear; they are to enter the lane just like a car when there's a line up). And on top of that they have an attitude with DRIVERS. Its not suprising there's a lot of hostility towards cyclists.
You claim that bikers are not reasonable, nor respectful. I strongly disagree. When biking, you have a very large amount of respect for the cars/trucks that could kill you in an instant's inattention.
Ya, unfortunately here that's not the case. And when you just barely miss hitting them because THEY ran the sign, they yell at YOU. Pedistrians are also bad for this.. they feel they have the right to enter the street to cross at ANY TIME ANYWHERE. Fortunately, police are going to crack down on bikers, peds and motorists as well. There's a Give Respect get respect campaign, aimed just as much at bikers.
I think this program shows its not just my imagination.
Lastly, regarding the shoulders, they are sometimes completely un-rideable, especially if you are using road tires instead of hybrid tires. The same reason why cars don't want to ride on shoulders (gravel, pot holes, tire fragments, roadkill, etc) are even more dangerous to a biker.
Legally cars aren't allowed to drive on the shoulder, unless directed to. But thats not the problem here; our streets are clean, and most of the potholes are in the lanes of traffic, not the shoulder.
Who said I passed you closely? You made that up. I'm talking about you evaluating risks and choosing to do something risky anyway. If the infrastrucure for biking sucks, AND YOU KNOW IT, yes, you're taking a calculated risk, just like if you choose to go skydiving.
Oh, if it were seconds, I wouldn't care, but it's not. At the end of the day, ya, you can say infrastructure sucks... but if you know it and STILL choose to bike, don't be suprised when people get upset. Instead of making it hell for everyone, push to get it changed and then bike.
If someone opens a door 3 feet in front of you when you're traveling 20-25mph, you don't have time to even apply the brakes in any vehicle. The difference is that roads with on-street parking are usually designed so that traffic is a safe difference from parked cars. But that's often not the case for bikes -- in many places marked bike lanes are right in the "door zone".
You would think, but this isn't the case. Plenty of roads in the area I live if the door is opened and I'm even all the way to the left of the lane as possible, I'll still t hem them. Literally, the right white line also doubles as the parking space line.
I personally try to avoid the door zone unless I'm moving very slowly, even though the law is on my side here.
I appreciate and thank you for your sense of personal responsiblity here.. its refreshing. Far too many cyclists feel they are entitled to do whatever they want, not matter how dangerous.
I agree, but I'm just arguing based on what is the current law / rational.
PA also has a law where if you rear-end someone, it's automatically your fault. All that did was give rise to a new way for insurance companies to be defrauded (incidently, this is good for them, because the few cases can be used to justify a rate increase for all drivers in the area...).
Often enough, car drivers will open their doors oblivious to whether or not a bike is passing them.
Funny, because just like its the responsibility of the driver of a MOVING car to avoid hitting a PARKED car, I expect cyclists to watch for car doors about to be opened.
Or do you think as a driver I never have to worry about someone opening their car door in front of my car? I hate to tell you, there are plenty of places where I have to watch for someone opening their door into traffic as well.
You're right; it's about the vast majority that drive cars and NOT the minority trying to ride bikes everywhere.
property taxes
What? 2/3 of my property taxes are going to educate someone elses kids.. AND THATS IT. The REST of the 1/3 goes to NOT only roads, but any other city projects as well (parks, zoning, police, etc etc).
Sorry, most of the funding DOES come from costs associated with owning and operating a car.
Ya... did you stop to consider the impact of your choice to drive a car? Don't inconvenience others and then expect them to like you.
Shut it. American life is built around using a car as one's primary transportation, as is the road built for said cars.
Where I live, car drivers seem to be their own worst enemy; there are laws about what they may and may not do, and yet they seem to feel that it's ok to drive faster than the speed limit (it's not), ignore stop signs (they can't), turn without signalling (nope), harass other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians (assault and sometime battery), talk on the cell phone (illegal here), text message or work on computers (I'm not kidding about this), read books, put on make up, and ignore red lights. Ever see someone stop right in the middle of road just to talk to their passenger oblivious to the traffic they are stopping? Every year, car drivers kill thousands of people and do millions of dollars of property damage.
If the vast majority of drivers were driving like that, we'd see Death Race daily on our streets. Fortunately, the reality is that most drivers are responsible and do obey the rules. The fact that some rule breakers exist doesn't mean all drivers are like that.
The same cannot be said of cyclists, who routinely violate pretty much ALL the rules, to the point when I'm shocked when one does obey them (see the difference.. I'm not shocked when a driver obeys the rules, I'm shocked when they don't).
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm in favor of making it illegal for them to drive ANYWHERE except on the freeways.
If your basic road was built for bikes, you'd have a point... but the roads you're trying to say you have a right to ride a bike on where BUILT FOR CARS. So sorry, it doesn't work both ways.
I dunno, I guess maybe the people you know are still using sets from the 1970s, but the rest of the world has moved on. At this point, might as well say reading is adequate entertainment, why watch a movie at all? You've lost your point.
I was trying to make my way from my parents house to knoxville, a minor 10 mile ride, and at one point found myself forced to take an interstate ... holding to the shoulder of course but it was rocky and all ... worthless and dangerous.
You were NOT forced to take an interstate. There's always another road to use. Its actually illegal to ride a bike on ANY interstate.. which is probably why you found it dangerous.