-cyclists can ride as 'close as practicable from the side of the road', meaning they do NOT have to ride within the boundary of the shoulder, especially if there is debris on the far side.
There are also laws usually against impeding the normal flow of traffic. So yes, the cyclist DOES have to move out of the way.
-motorists MUST obey all road laws when dealing with cyclists, including passing laws. It is against the law to pass cyclists with a solid yellow 'no pass' line on their side, just as it is when passing a car. Furthermore, motorists must use the same discretion when passing cyclists, say on a hill or around a curve, as they would when passing another automobile.
It is legal to overtake a slow moving vehicle on the left, and the slow moving vehicle MUST stay right.
cyclists have the right to ride 2x2 in the road, but must let traffic pass when appropriate
I call bull. Show me. Motorcycles can't ride side by side, why would bicycles be any different?
cyclists DO NOT have to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and they CAN travel through red lights. They have to make a concerted effort, however, to show responsibility and safety
Bullshit.
in general, a bicycle is just another vehicle on the roadway. The problem is not with MOST drivers or cyclists- both parties share ignorance when it comes to cyclists. The problem is with a few, but I would say that most drivers are not aware of, or refuse to acknowledge, the laws regarding cyclists.
This contradicts your assertion about stop signs and red lights.
Also, in my experience, its the cyclists that don't know the laws (see running of stop signs / red lights, but pretty much any rule you have they break).
Statistics say both are equally at fault.
So take the high road; when its 94% the fault of the driver for the accident with the bike, I'll bite. But as it stands now, its 47% driver fault, 47% cyclists fault.
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.
Perhaps that's because roads have been designed for motor vehicles, and NOT bikes? So maybe that's EXACTLY what cyclists are doing?
As far as sharing the road, thats nonsense. Bikes want cars to give up the roads totally to them, and ignore all the traffic laws the cars are for the most part obeying. Oh, and whenever convient, they ride the wrong way down the lane, and hope onto sidewalks. Cyclists where I live break far far more rules than drivers.
I don't know where cyclist got the idea that they should have the right to use a road build for a car with their bike anyway.
It's the cars that are using oil and gas, not the bicycles. Do you always blame all your problems on someone else?
If I'm eating popcorn, and an action you take causes some of that popcorn to be inedible, did you not just waste my popcorn? You know exactly whats going to happen, that YOU are causing problems with traffic INCREASING the amount of gas and oil used than would otherwise normally be used. So yes, it IS the cyslists fault... their actions are DIRECTLY wasting MORE gas and oil.
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?
Why should the same amount be spent on bike paths as roads? First, the bike paths are smaller, so of course less should be spent. The other side of the coin is that roads DIRECTLY benefit everyone, bike paths only the VERY small minority that choose to cycle. Yet you think we should invest as much for a small minority? That's just arrogant if you ask me.
Also, where do you think you have any RIGHT to ride a bike at all on public property?
The intolerance of American car drivers amazes me
Maybe its the self righteous, self centered, arrogant attitude that most cyclists have that turn off most Americans.
Cyclists are a huge pain in the ass, and then you wonder why people hate having them on the road?
Just like motorcycles, its illegal for cyclists to ride side by side in the lane of traffic.
If there's no other lane, then this is possibly obstruction by the cyclists, then again, a tractor would give you the same problems and no recourse for whinging.
And just like the tractor, if cyclists ARE impeding the flow of traffic, they MUST move off the road and let traffic pass. In most places impeding the normal flow of traffic is also illegal.
Most cyclists aren't exactly happy that they get stuck next to vehicles that weigh more and travel faster.
I think most drivers aren't happy with the situtation either, but it was the cyclists that pushed for it.
While most drivers are reasonable and respectful, it only takes a few to make life miserable for all cyclists.
As a driver, I'd be THRILLED if most cyclists were reasonable or respectful, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the case.
Cars that expect bikes to ride on the beat up shoulder (which is illegal in my neck of the woods, on top of being uncomfortable)
Without a dedicated lane, thats what they're supposed to do. Its illegal (using ANY mode of transportation) to interfere with the normal flow of traffic, and if you're impedding that flow, you MUST move and let traffic pass.
that want to 'share' a lane built for one vehicle (by share I mean nearly clip you with their mirror)
By "share," do you mean they are attempting to pass you? There's nothing wrong with that.
So please understand why cyclists feel the need to drive a little defensively
What about the reverse? If so many drivers are annoyed at you, why aren'tyou more understanding that you're causing a major amount of inconvience and stress for them (after all, I'm sure no driver wants to hit you either).
because when that collision happens, it sure as shit isn't going to be the guy in the car that dies
Yes... so you would think cyclists would think a bit harder about what they are doing, and may say "you know what, I'm not going to ride because I don't want to put MY life in danger." After all, most roads aren't designed for non-motor vehicles. You're the exception and CHOOSING to put yourself in harms way.
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.
So, wouldn't it be your responsiblity to decide that its not safe enough to bike under those circumstances? I mean at some point you say the environment is too unsafe in which to drive (say in a blizzard).. but you really think you should be able to ride your bike in ANY condition and then EXPECT saftey?
And I have a nuclear warhead on my handlebars rigged to go the first time some parallel parked idiot opens their car door into me.
Hmm... lets think about this. If a car takes off the door of a parked car, its the driver in the moving vehicle that would be in the wrong; they hit a parked car, and its the drivers responsiblity to avoid the accident.
So now why is it NOT the responsibity of you on a moving vehicle to ensure YOU don't hit a parked car? After all, its FAR easier for you to stop then a two ton car, and we expect the car in the lane to stop in time.
Ya... did you stop to consider the impact of your choice to bike? Don't inconvience others and then expect them to like you.
Where I live, bikers 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 its ok to ride on sidewalks (its not), ignore stop signs (they can't), ignore lanes clearly marked for them (why they DON'T right in the dedicated lanes that DO exist is beyond me) and ignore red lights.
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm all in favor of making it illegal from them to ride ANYWHERE except dedicated paths in city limits.
Though on second thought, as a cyclist, I'm not sure a deathly laser assault on drivers is completely unwarranted.
Bikers create their own problems. 47% of accidents are there fault, while 47% are the fault of the drivers. If it were largely the drivers fault, I could see sympathize with your statement, but it seems bikers have a lot to learn as well.
Of course where I live, I wouldn't be suprised if more of the accidents are the bikers fault. Even WITH dedicated lanes, they seem to NOT use them and instead ride in the street when there not supposed to.
That said, you don't get to create your own bike lane just because you happen to be riding somewhere. This projector is a horrid idea, as it will further make bikers believe they can do whatever they like without regard to the law (at least, that seems to be the attitude here). I mean, I can't just annex the sidewalk as my personal car lane just because I mount a project on my car, can I?
Huh? I thought the point of multiplayer was that the AI becomes predicable and tiresome, while human players have imagination and would try things the AI would never dream of.
They will never, ever do this because if you ticket all speeders, no one will speed. They will lose millions of dollars in fines, on top of creating massive anger and traffic clogs that would result in the speed limit being raised to the speed people actually go anyway.
No, there'd be massive outrage, and they'd be caught sacrificing saftey for revenues.
Odds are, however, you are using the 'crunchy shell' defensive practices that Windows requires. This is what I mean by 'incomplete'. You would not be as safe from Cornflicker without your perimeter because of the way WUS works.
Oh, you mean doing smart things like having a firewall, locking users down, stuff like that? Stuff that you should be doing regardless of the OS, BTW.
WSUS ensures that we can distribute patches easily, and force them to install if needed. Short of the patch not being available (which would be a problem for any linux exploit as well), I fail to see how "the way WSUS works" would be a problem.
Windows isn't anymore inherently insecure than any other OS, nor do you need to do anything beyond what you'd be doing for any other OS. The problems with Windows are with Windows; its 1) Windows widespread adaption makes it the target of choice and 2) there ARE alot of bad Windows admins out there who aren't properly securing their networks properly. Don't blame the software for people problems.
Oh, forgive me for simply stating my experiences... which also happen to match reality, BTW.
you're doing it with that "edgy" attitude that indicates you watched too much powerpuffgirls as a child.
What's a matter, you don't have actual point? Not that its relevent, but I was already an adult by the time that show came out.
It's cool, I won't get in the way of your little crusade to take on facts while wielding your mighty ability to use the word fail as a noun.
Ok, so you have no point.
You can make up all the personal anecdotes you'd like about your uber-cheap uber-skillful programming, I'm just going to wander back over into the real world, where the malware problem is almost exclusively a Windows issue.
Ha, the real world is using Windows largely because it is cheaper. The reason malware isn't a problem in your little linux world is that its pretty much not being used. Apple runs more computers than Linux does.
Have fun with your "more productive" tools, and if you keep sprinkling that mixture of fairydust and powdered unicorn-horn your Windows installations will be secure forever.
Aww poor baby? Did I hurt your little feelings while you sit there in your mom's basement just wishing the world knew how really leet you are? Don't worry, reality will set it once (if?) you move out of her basement.
Oh, and regarding the lower cost of HDDVD discs... thats because the format is dead. Do you still buy VHS tapes because they are cheaper than the same DVD?
I'm sorry, but the savings you get from hiring inexpensive (read: incompetent) staff
Sorry, that's a fail. Inexpensive != incompent. A compentent Windows admin would have had the conflicker patch installed before it became widespread (as we did here).
I can develop software cheaper on windows not because I'm incompetent, but because the Windows platform offers more productive tools.
Yes... you include basic maintence. So including the cost of keeping the system up to date is fair in both Windows and Linux. Counting the cost when you DON'T (as in, the cost of cleaning up conflicker because you FAILED TO DO BASIC MAINTENCE) shouldn't be included in either.
When I write a piece of software that's it done. I don't expect to come back a week, or a month or even years later and find that it's seized up. It should work exactly the same as it did the last time.
See, this is where most of the people here go wrong. That's only true given the EXACT SAME IMPUTS. Personally, I don't see the value of a computer processing the exact same inputs day in and day out.. as that WILL give the same results, and why would we want THAT? No, we use computers to process NEW data all the time. New quotes, new engineering tasks, new radio signals, etc.
So yes, you can write it once and be done if there are no inputs. But most useful software operates on arbitrary data and that's where the complexity comes in. That's where the bugs show up. As an engineer, you can build a bridge that hold 100 tons, and KNOW it will hold less than 100 tons without any testing. Unfortunately, software isn't the same. A hidden edge case may present only for a small subset (or even single value) of data.
So yes, the bits don't rot, but the inputs are always changing and that's the challenge in building software. I'll also point out that invalid inputs are the very nature of exploits... that's where software typically fails.
Ah, well since software isn't a physical thing, there should never be a need to change the software. That's why we still have the Linux kernel at 1.0, right? Oh wait, we don't, because we found better ways to do things, we've added more features, and oh the internet is a hostile place and people make mistakes. THAT'S why software needs maintence. The notion that software for some reason should not require maintence, when every other man-made thing does, is stupid.
The problem today is people NOT KEEPING UP WITH PATCHES. Even the conflicker problem the patch had been available I believe for at least SIX MONTHS. Oh, and as I manage the patches here, I actually do read what they do. The overwhelming majority are LOCAL exploits.
Oh, and the "patches flying out" also include most MS products, not just the OS.
Finally... if you had a clue, you'd know that patch counts are a terrible way to measure the security / insecurity of a system, as they represent only known issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and that's the problem with people claiming we'd be healthier if everyone rode bikes.
Its a nonsense argument, and any doctor or nutritionist or even personal trainer will tell you, you can't exercise you're way out of a shitty diet.
Please don't think I'm picking on you personally or anything, I'm just sick of other cyclists saying people driving cars are fat and / or lazy.
I'm normally ahead of the cars when we get to the opposite side of an intersection.
That's because, unlike the cars which actually STOPPED at the red light, you likely ran it, based on my experiences.
-cyclists can ride as 'close as practicable from the side of the road', meaning they do NOT have to ride within the boundary of the shoulder, especially if there is debris on the far side.
There are also laws usually against impeding the normal flow of traffic. So yes, the cyclist DOES have to move out of the way.
-motorists MUST obey all road laws when dealing with cyclists, including passing laws. It is against the law to pass cyclists with a solid yellow 'no pass' line on their side, just as it is when passing a car. Furthermore, motorists must use the same discretion when passing cyclists, say on a hill or around a curve, as they would when passing another automobile.
It is legal to overtake a slow moving vehicle on the left, and the slow moving vehicle MUST stay right.
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/veh/21750-21759.html
cyclists have the right to ride 2x2 in the road, but must let traffic pass when appropriate
I call bull. Show me. Motorcycles can't ride side by side, why would bicycles be any different?
cyclists DO NOT have to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and they CAN travel through red lights. They have to make a concerted effort, however, to show responsibility and safety
Bullshit.
in general, a bicycle is just another vehicle on the roadway. The problem is not with MOST drivers or cyclists- both parties share ignorance when it comes to cyclists. The problem is with a few, but I would say that most drivers are not aware of, or refuse to acknowledge, the laws regarding cyclists.
This contradicts your assertion about stop signs and red lights.
Also, in my experience, its the cyclists that don't know the laws (see running of stop signs / red lights, but pretty much any rule you have they break).
Statistics say both are equally at fault.
So take the high road; when its 94% the fault of the driver for the accident with the bike, I'll bite. But as it stands now, its 47% driver fault, 47% cyclists fault.
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.
Perhaps that's because roads have been designed for motor vehicles, and NOT bikes? So maybe that's EXACTLY what cyclists are doing?
As far as sharing the road, thats nonsense. Bikes want cars to give up the roads totally to them, and ignore all the traffic laws the cars are for the most part obeying. Oh, and whenever convient, they ride the wrong way down the lane, and hope onto sidewalks. Cyclists where I live break far far more rules than drivers.
I don't know where cyclist got the idea that they should have the right to use a road build for a car with their bike anyway.
It's the cars that are using oil and gas, not the bicycles. Do you always blame all your problems on someone else?
If I'm eating popcorn, and an action you take causes some of that popcorn to be inedible, did you not just waste my popcorn? You know exactly whats going to happen, that YOU are causing problems with traffic INCREASING the amount of gas and oil used than would otherwise normally be used. So yes, it IS the cyslists fault... their actions are DIRECTLY wasting MORE gas and oil.
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?
Why should the same amount be spent on bike paths as roads? First, the bike paths are smaller, so of course less should be spent. The other side of the coin is that roads DIRECTLY benefit everyone, bike paths only the VERY small minority that choose to cycle. Yet you think we should invest as much for a small minority? That's just arrogant if you ask me.
Also, where do you think you have any RIGHT to ride a bike at all on public property?
The intolerance of American car drivers amazes me
Maybe its the self righteous, self centered, arrogant attitude that most cyclists have that turn off most Americans.
Cyclists are a huge pain in the ass, and then you wonder why people hate having them on the road?
If they ride side-by-side
Just like motorcycles, its illegal for cyclists to ride side by side in the lane of traffic.
If there's no other lane, then this is possibly obstruction by the cyclists, then again, a tractor would give you the same problems and no recourse for whinging.
And just like the tractor, if cyclists ARE impeding the flow of traffic, they MUST move off the road and let traffic pass. In most places impeding the normal flow of traffic is also illegal.
Most cyclists aren't exactly happy that they get stuck next to vehicles that weigh more and travel faster.
I think most drivers aren't happy with the situtation either, but it was the cyclists that pushed for it.
While most drivers are reasonable and respectful, it only takes a few to make life miserable for all cyclists.
As a driver, I'd be THRILLED if most cyclists were reasonable or respectful, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the case.
Cars that expect bikes to ride on the beat up shoulder (which is illegal in my neck of the woods, on top of being uncomfortable)
Without a dedicated lane, thats what they're supposed to do. Its illegal (using ANY mode of transportation) to interfere with the normal flow of traffic, and if you're impedding that flow, you MUST move and let traffic pass.
that want to 'share' a lane built for one vehicle (by share I mean nearly clip you with their mirror)
By "share," do you mean they are attempting to pass you? There's nothing wrong with that.
So please understand why cyclists feel the need to drive a little defensively
What about the reverse? If so many drivers are annoyed at you, why aren'tyou more understanding that you're causing a major amount of inconvience and stress for them (after all, I'm sure no driver wants to hit you either).
because when that collision happens, it sure as shit isn't going to be the guy in the car that dies
Yes... so you would think cyclists would think a bit harder about what they are doing, and may say "you know what, I'm not going to ride because I don't want to put MY life in danger." After all, most roads aren't designed for non-motor vehicles. You're the exception and CHOOSING to put yourself in harms way.
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.
So, wouldn't it be your responsiblity to decide that its not safe enough to bike under those circumstances? I mean at some point you say the environment is too unsafe in which to drive (say in a blizzard).. but you really think you should be able to ride your bike in ANY condition and then EXPECT saftey?
I think you need to be hit with a reality stick.
And I have a nuclear warhead on my handlebars rigged to go the first time some parallel parked idiot opens their car door into me.
Hmm... lets think about this. If a car takes off the door of a parked car, its the driver in the moving vehicle that would be in the wrong; they hit a parked car, and its the drivers responsiblity to avoid the accident.
So now why is it NOT the responsibity of you on a moving vehicle to ensure YOU don't hit a parked car? After all, its FAR easier for you to stop then a two ton car, and we expect the car in the lane to stop in time.
Ya... did you stop to consider the impact of your choice to bike? Don't inconvience others and then expect them to like you.
Where I live, bikers 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 its ok to ride on sidewalks (its not), ignore stop signs (they can't), ignore lanes clearly marked for them (why they DON'T right in the dedicated lanes that DO exist is beyond me) and ignore red lights.
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm all in favor of making it illegal from them to ride ANYWHERE except dedicated paths in city limits.
Though on second thought, as a cyclist, I'm not sure a deathly laser assault on drivers is completely unwarranted.
Bikers create their own problems. 47% of accidents are there fault, while 47% are the fault of the drivers. If it were largely the drivers fault, I could see sympathize with your statement, but it seems bikers have a lot to learn as well.
Of course where I live, I wouldn't be suprised if more of the accidents are the bikers fault. Even WITH dedicated lanes, they seem to NOT use them and instead ride in the street when there not supposed to.
That said, you don't get to create your own bike lane just because you happen to be riding somewhere. This projector is a horrid idea, as it will further make bikers believe they can do whatever they like without regard to the law (at least, that seems to be the attitude here). I mean, I can't just annex the sidewalk as my personal car lane just because I mount a project on my car, can I?
Yeah, and they're also crap. Just because you know people that do doesn't mean its a good idea.
Huh? I thought the point of multiplayer was that the AI becomes predicable and tiresome, while human players have imagination and would try things the AI would never dream of.
They will never, ever do this because if you ticket all speeders, no one will speed. They will lose millions of dollars in fines, on top of creating massive anger and traffic clogs that would result in the speed limit being raised to the speed people actually go anyway.
No, there'd be massive outrage, and they'd be caught sacrificing saftey for revenues.
Odds are, however, you are using the 'crunchy shell' defensive practices that Windows requires. This is what I mean by 'incomplete'. You would not be as safe from Cornflicker without your perimeter because of the way WUS works.
Oh, you mean doing smart things like having a firewall, locking users down, stuff like that? Stuff that you should be doing regardless of the OS, BTW.
WSUS ensures that we can distribute patches easily, and force them to install if needed. Short of the patch not being available (which would be a problem for any linux exploit as well), I fail to see how "the way WSUS works" would be a problem.
Windows isn't anymore inherently insecure than any other OS, nor do you need to do anything beyond what you'd be doing for any other OS. The problems with Windows are with Windows; its 1) Windows widespread adaption makes it the target of choice and 2) there ARE alot of bad Windows admins out there who aren't properly securing their networks properly. Don't blame the software for people problems.
Now you're just shilling
Oh, forgive me for simply stating my experiences... which also happen to match reality, BTW.
you're doing it with that "edgy" attitude that indicates you watched too much powerpuffgirls as a child.
What's a matter, you don't have actual point? Not that its relevent, but I was already an adult by the time that show came out.
It's cool, I won't get in the way of your little crusade to take on facts while wielding your mighty ability to use the word fail as a noun.
Ok, so you have no point.
You can make up all the personal anecdotes you'd like about your uber-cheap uber-skillful programming, I'm just going to wander back over into the real world, where the malware problem is almost exclusively a Windows issue.
Ha, the real world is using Windows largely because it is cheaper. The reason malware isn't a problem in your little linux world is that its pretty much not being used. Apple runs more computers than Linux does.
Have fun with your "more productive" tools, and if you keep sprinkling that mixture of fairydust and powdered unicorn-horn your Windows installations will be secure forever.
Aww poor baby? Did I hurt your little feelings while you sit there in your mom's basement just wishing the world knew how really leet you are? Don't worry, reality will set it once (if?) you move out of her basement.
Considering the cheapest BR player on that list has an ethernet port, its likely its easy enough to update the firmware, so yes.
Oh, and the extra specs aren't needed to play the movie, only for add-on content. Please try to know what you're talking about.
Oh, and regarding the lower cost of HDDVD discs... thats because the format is dead. Do you still buy VHS tapes because they are cheaper than the same DVD?
Ya, thanks for pointing that out after I already realized my mistake and posted the exact same thing.
Sorry, ~$140. For some reason some HDDVD players are on the list.
Why the hell would I pay $1000+ for a HD tv
Well, you are aware that HD content can come from sources other than BluRay, right?
$300+ for a blu ray player
Um, BR players can be had for as little as $75. http://electronics.pricegrabber.com/blu-ray-players/p/2065/st=sort/sortby=priceA
I'm sorry, but the savings you get from hiring inexpensive (read: incompetent) staff
Sorry, that's a fail. Inexpensive != incompent. A compentent Windows admin would have had the conflicker patch installed before it became widespread (as we did here).
I can develop software cheaper on windows not because I'm incompetent, but because the Windows platform offers more productive tools.
Yes... you include basic maintence. So including the cost of keeping the system up to date is fair in both Windows and Linux. Counting the cost when you DON'T (as in, the cost of cleaning up conflicker because you FAILED TO DO BASIC MAINTENCE) shouldn't be included in either.
When I write a piece of software that's it done. I don't expect to come back a week, or a month or even years later and find that it's seized up. It should work exactly the same as it did the last time.
See, this is where most of the people here go wrong. That's only true given the EXACT SAME IMPUTS. Personally, I don't see the value of a computer processing the exact same inputs day in and day out.. as that WILL give the same results, and why would we want THAT? No, we use computers to process NEW data all the time. New quotes, new engineering tasks, new radio signals, etc.
So yes, you can write it once and be done if there are no inputs. But most useful software operates on arbitrary data and that's where the complexity comes in. That's where the bugs show up. As an engineer, you can build a bridge that hold 100 tons, and KNOW it will hold less than 100 tons without any testing. Unfortunately, software isn't the same. A hidden edge case may present only for a small subset (or even single value) of data.
So yes, the bits don't rot, but the inputs are always changing and that's the challenge in building software. I'll also point out that invalid inputs are the very nature of exploits... that's where software typically fails.
Ah, well since software isn't a physical thing, there should never be a need to change the software. That's why we still have the Linux kernel at 1.0, right? Oh wait, we don't, because we found better ways to do things, we've added more features, and oh the internet is a hostile place and people make mistakes. THAT'S why software needs maintence. The notion that software for some reason should not require maintence, when every other man-made thing does, is stupid.
The problem today is people NOT KEEPING UP WITH PATCHES. Even the conflicker problem the patch had been available I believe for at least SIX MONTHS. Oh, and as I manage the patches here, I actually do read what they do. The overwhelming majority are LOCAL exploits.
Oh, and the "patches flying out" also include most MS products, not just the OS.
Finally... if you had a clue, you'd know that patch counts are a terrible way to measure the security / insecurity of a system, as they represent only known issues.