The reason why there are unions – and their ultimate weapon the strike – is to get the workers to hand over part of their paycheck and make the union organizers rich.
1% 1% 1%
Re:I'm a cyclist too, and you're victim-blaming
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 0
It's an example of how 95% of cyclists in my city and many others ride. Experienced, educated cyclists tend to take sharp notice of this. It's not just hood rats either; you see people on high-end road bikes with lyrca shorts and compression gear and camelbaks and helments and clipless pedals just bluntly running stop signs without even glancing for traffic like the road belongs to them.
I am genuinely surprised when I see someone following traffic law on a bicycle, so much that I feel the need to acknowledge them directly in passing with a nod or salut. There are very few.
I feel that the high amount of visibility in such vehicles and the correct sensory input (it's an open vehicle, so you can use sound and your vision isn't distorted by more distracting shit in the way) makes them capable of safely and accurately judging whether or not they can make a clear intersection. This allows drivers to more quickly move on when the intersection is clear and the road ahead is not congested, which should reduce traffic congestion in some situations.
I also don't like that you have to just sit idle at a signal when you can see half a mile down the road in all directions and there's fuck-all going on.
No, you have the fewest risk contingencies when you are still. That doesn't mean you have the lowest risk; it means you don't have any answers for "what if...".
Think of it this way: Running through a stop sign into a blind intersection puts you at risk of being run over by a car. 1 in 10 times, you are at risk for being run over by a car. You can swerve out of the way 99 out of 100 times. That means 1 in 1000 times, you will get hit by a car running stop signs. (Numbers made up)
Now, standing at stop signs, cars will collide with you 1 in 2,600 times. You can only evade this 1 out of 10 times. That means you have a 9 in 26,000 chance of getting hit, or 1 in 2889 chance.
In the first situation, you run a higher probability risk but you have a good risk-reducing contingency (ability to take action). In the second, you run a lower probability risk but have very poor risk-reducing contingency. The numbers I gave shows that the lower probability is actually a lower risk than the higher probability with contingency in this imaginary case.
My numbers are made up. You however simply stated a lack of contingency without any sort of consideration for risk probability: you predicate that having a contingency always equates to lower risk. I have shown that in principle this is wrong, and thus that you have shown nothing except that there are different risks and some have better contingencies; you have not shown whether one overall risk is bigger than the other.
I bicycled to work for a year. I bicycled everywhere for a year. I also drive, and ride light rail. I've been on both ends of this. In a year's time with 70% of my transportation being by bicycle (I actually tallied up my total gasoline MPG at 288mpg combined when factoring in my bike with my car), I've been threatened by cars while stationary 0 times. In that same time, I nearly smashed a black guy who ran a red light on his bicycle at night while wearing dark clothes on an unlit street; I nearly turned a white kid into a speed bump when he came the wrong way down a street and just appeared from behind a building and straight in front of my car (this is a no-lawn situation: the sidewalk is against the building and the street); I've observed other cyclists nearly getting creamed on half a dozen occasions while I was waiting at a signal for busy traffic; and so on.
Your anecdotal experience does not match my anecdotal experience. I was never in any danger narrowly averted by a heroic application of fast brakes and fast steering; I have been suddenly placed in situations where my heroic application of fast brakes and fast steering have saved others from becoming speed tables, and I've observed other drivers doing the same.
Yes well. Considering I got to watch so much unsafe shit, and have been the subject of being behind the wheel of a vehicle when a bicycle pops out from behind a building 1/4 second before it's 3 feet from my front bumper (left turn from the left lane on a two-way street--coming the wrong way--running a red light), I'll say that doing exactly the right thing while in a car still gets me a lot of near-speedbumps from shitty bicyclists.
People laugh at me when I'm sitting on my bike, standing over the top tube, both feet planted on the ground, waiting for the light to change. Little openings I could skirt past pass me by. "You know you can go through that, right?" No, no I can't. And then some other jackass blasts past me on a mountain bike, swerves as a car brakes to avoid him, and continues on with one hand on the handlebars and the other dangling by his side. Wearing a baseball cap. Backwards.
I'm pretty confident that driving so fucking recklessly--on a bicycle, on a car, on a pair of fucking roller blades--makes you the deserving subject of Darwinization.
Re:"do not want to ride after seeing ... injuries"
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 0
Funny. A coworker tried to convince me to drive to work. I had to ride my bike around a car crash that involved three dead teenaged girls... at least I assume they were girls. They looked more like mangled bodies. The one in the back seat was okay for 17 going on dead, but the driver was crushed by her airbag followed by the steering column. The passenger didn't get an air bag, or a seat belt. The guy in the Dodge Ram was fine though.
That is pretty much when I decided car commuting was not for me.
I can't drive in 3 feet of snow. I can bicycle in the snow, but not 3 feet of it. I learned that merino wool is awesome this way; I've never been able to handle the cold before, since I never knew how to dress and just slapping on a huge fucking coat doesn't help!
Many people cycle to work in the rain. That's what goretex rain jackets and rain pants are for. In the hot summer, I find a warm rain much more pleasant; waterproof panniers to carry my dry clothes do well for me.
I biked around in 106F temperatures for hours while a coworker died walking around outside a shopping mall in it during the same time (half hour of exposure). She had water and long skirts; I had Nuun-adultered water and was wearing a Zensah compression shirt (UnderArmour Heat Gear feels like a balloon; Zensah actually makes me feel cold...). There are also ice vests, but I've never needed to go that far; however, when I'm driving the wheels hard, I quickly fatigue from the heat I generate on my own, which is why I love rain cycling--superior cooling means I never fatigue!
My employers have always had showers on-site; however, I shower before I leave and then change out into a completely new set of clothes--cotton undershirt included, rather than my compression baselayer. Becoming dry prevents the bacteria from feeding and producing stench. Shaving your armpits helps immensely as well. I give my hair a quick rinse in the sink (the salts clean it out anyway), comb the water out, then use two paper towels to dry it (it takes about 20-30 if I don't comb it out first). The whole process takes about 5 minutes; my fastest time changing was 89 seconds, then I had to pack up my bike clothes and wash my hair.
Urban sprawl layouts suck. In some places, the terrible layout doesn't present physical barriers--bicycling is easier than driving--while in others, the whole cul-du-sac bullshit fucks up transit in general. If you're less than 5 miles from work, though, bicycling is the way to go.
Funny thing is statistically bike lanes increase bicycling danger.
An individual cyclist is like 5.8 times as likely to get into a collision with a car if cycling on the sidewalk with the flow of traffic, because the cyclists tend to ride through WALK signs (as they should) but the drivers tend to only see down the road, not down the sidewalk, and only glance for corner pedestrians (who are slower than bicycles) before making a right turn. The problem here is nobody is doing anything they reasonably shouldn't be doing. Well, except that cycling on the sidewalk is itself unreasonable: the speed difference between a pedestrian and a cyclist is insane and dangerous; anything over 6mph doesn't belong on the sidewalk (some joggers are moving faster than this; they are dangerous as well).
An individual cyclist riding in the road with traffic correctly is something like 20%-50% more likely to be involved in a collision if riding on a road with a bicycling lane than riding on a similar road in the same urban area with what are called 'sharrows' (lane-sharing arrows painted onto the road to indicate to drivers and cyclist that the full lane is shared by both). These lanes tend to be 50% wider than regular lanes, not counting parking spaces, as per state highway regulations in most states that officially utilize them (often they're made too narrow in practice--against regulations!). That means they're wide enough for a car plus a bicycle, but that the car should assume the bicycle is a slow-moving vehicle in his lane and pass safely. With the same lane as a segregated bike lane, drivers tend to assume the bicycle is in another lane and just blaze past with no regard.
Weird right? Even totally barrier-isolated lanes increase danger because of cross-overs with highway and because of pedestrians (cyclists move FAST but pedestrians are on the path and boom...)
Bicycle helmets prevent skull fracture from impacts that would rupture the braincase through blunt trauma. They don't prevent brain damage (concussion); but I'm always on neuroprotectives and will take a 7mg sublingual dose of Noopept before a ride (I have 5g of powder) for additional resistance to brain damage from severe blunt trauma, chemical pressure (i.e. massive amounts of alcohol), and high-voltage electroshock across the skull. It'll take a lot more to do damage and I take a lot less damage.
I pretty much blew out a heart valve on my first ride. 7 miles all up-hill, the final climb was intense and when I got to work the nurse said I had developed a heart murmur--in the last mile I felt like my heart like... popped... and then it was beating weird. Recovered from that by the end of the day, but I've always had cardiac arrhythmia (I've gone down from that under heavy physical stress--heart stops, I collapse, heart starts again). I started taking piracetam, which corrects arrhythmia. That's basically my primary neuroprotective, but a little extra insurance doesn't hurt.
As a cyclist, I'd like to weigh in that it's the cyclists' fault.
Many of us are quite aware that there are laws. In Idaho, a bicycle can stop at a traffic signal and then proceed if clear (I want this extended to motorcycles and small, high-visibility vehicles like top-down convertibles). In most states, bicycles are supposed to stop at stop signs, traffic signals, and other traffic control devices. They should ride with traffic--not against it--and exercise reasonable road safety.
Unfortunately, most people on bicycles are not the many of us; they are the many blunt dunderheads who got a $50 bike at Wal-Mart that will probably fall apart one day when jumping a ramp. They don't know or care about the law. Some of them think salmoning is safe and will ride blissfully head-on toward high-speed traffic. As a result, you have all of these retarded people running through intersections into traffic; I've seen a guy on a fixed gear bike run through a red light and turn left through oncoming left-turn traffic, just weaving between close-packed moving cars.
Think about how dangerous cars would be if we didn't train people to drive them and didn't issue tickets to lawbreakers. You run traffic signals, drive down the wrong side of the road, and generally behave unsafely on a bicycle? The police don't do shit. Legally they're empowered to fine you and even take away your fucking driver's license--they don't have direct recourse for a bicycle, but they can eventually argue that the bicycle is an enabler and legally take possession of it. Some of these people could be fined out of existence or outright arrested for their dangerous behavior--you think running through a traffic signal and swerving through dense moving traffic isn't arrest-worthy? Someone could have panicked and swerved his car straight into the other oncoming traffic to try to evade the cyclist, 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.
It's worse than letting gays into the Catholic church. They've polluted the purity of the Internet more than divorce has polluted the sanctity of Marriage.
Yep. You're going to have a hell of a lot of fuel loss. In transit, you need to refrigerate the hydrogen, and some will still leak. Then in storage (fuel station, car fuel tank) it's going to need refrigeration, and will leak. A lot of fuel will be lost to leaks; and a lot of energy will be put into refrigerating the fuel continuously. It's so bullshit.
You can't pocket a giant metal bomb casing containing 4,255 pounds of C4 explosives, a nuclear core, 37 safety mechanisms, guidance systems, sensors, and whatnot anyway. What happens if somebody does walk past the guards into the nuclear arsenal?
Yeah. CAPM you don't need the time in; but the actual information from the PMBOK5e, some of the practice standards (WBS, Program, Project), Tess Roeder's book on Stakeholder Management (INVALUABLE), and such things is really fucking useful.
As a sysadmin/sysengineer, I do a lot of risk analysis and management with ORM charts (plot Severity versus Probability) and come up with mitigation (prior action to reduce severity and/or probability, thus risk) and contingency (action plans for when a risk event occurs). Project Risk Management provides guidance on how to use these tools in the course of a project to come up with a list of risks (both negative and positive--opportunities are risks) and a Risk Management Plan filled with contingencies and mitigation strategies to control those risks as a matter of course.
Work Breakdown Structures are useful for defining repetitive complex task in terms of standard processes or templates (operational management, not project management). They're also useful for... breaking down the work you need to do for a project such as building a server or a piece of software, which is what WBS was created for anyway. New server. Hardware (Rack; Cabling--Power, Network, KVM, IPMI, SAN), OS (Installation; Configuration--Networking, Join to Domain/LDAP), Install Software, etc. On a team, you can hand out the work packages as pieces of manageable work that each get done by one individual.
Project Stakeholder Management is massive: people around you will meddle with your work by making noise at other people who have authority over you. There's a huge emphasis on identifying any stakeholder--any person or group who affects, is affected by, or perceives itself to be affected by the activities or outcomes of a project--and categorizing them in the stakeholder register. This includes their power (organizational), influence (involvement in a project), interest (level of concern), impact (ability to effect change in a project), their project knowledge, their support or opposition (unsure, resistant, neutral, supporting, leading) and required support, etc. These attributes are used to decide how to manage stakeholders--keep them informed so they don't make noise at high-powered individuals; keep them satisfied so they don't start wanting to effect change (satisfying an individual may mean changing a project: maybe it doesn't address the business' needs!); and so on. The stakeholder register even goes as far as to identify the communication needs of a stakeholder: do they prefer e-mail, phone, face-to-face, IM, etc.? And the register changes constantly as stakeholder involvement and disposition changes or is discovered.
Project Stakeholder Management ties into everything. It ties into scope management, because you need to make sure your stakeholders are satisfied and the scope doesn't change--or that it does change when it's inappropriate for the business. It ties into requirements generation: you're going to build your requirements by identifying key stakeholders and coming up with a description of all the things they need from this project so you don't do a bunch of unnecessary work and don't constantly change things because people start adding on new requirements. It ties into risk management, because any changes in stakeholder disposition are risks--dangers and opportunities. It's even used to build a team: some of your employees will be very disinterested in a certain project; others will be extremely interested; and in all cases you will need to assess their motivation and keep them motivated (a leadership skill--usually the only skill PHBs have, and they're usually poor at it because you need to apply a lot of OTHER skills to provide effective leadership; PHBs tend to be floundering egomaniacs applying leadership skills without any understanding of the needs and feelings of the people they're trying to lead or the work they're trying to accomplish).
I've been studying for my CAPM because I'm extremely interested in the act
A lot of university degrees in Project Management teach that a Work Breakdown Structure is a set of tasks; in 1978, the Project Management Body of Knowledge was replaced with the PMBOK Guide (first edition), which is also called the PMBOK (oddly enough). The new PMBOK1e specified that a WBS is a deliverable-oriented breakdown of work. Since the PMBOK1e in 1978, work breakdown structures have been all about the output of work: every Work Package or Roll-up Element is a deliverable--a tangible or intangible result of work, such as the assimilation of knowledge (intangible) or a program module (tangible)--represented by adjective-noun descriptions. Yet, now, over 30 years later, colleges teach that the WBS is a task-oriented breakdown of actions represented by verbs.
I hope you have a Project Management certification or the relevant learning (i.e. read the PMBOK5e published this year, some supplementary materials, maybe taken a course, whatnot). Those are the real useful skills if you're a programmer. Or sysadmin. Or anything else.
Catastrophic plans at the $200 range make no sense, is my point. It's a rather large expense for little benefit. I have a CDHP because I save money in my HSA and use that for everything; it costs me little, and the savings go toward covering my health care costs. $90 is more like it.
The long and short of catastrophic is that you want to manage your own low-impact high-probability risk (i.e. clinical care) with a safety net on your high-impact low-probability risk (i.e. major surgery, cancer, etc.). An HSA lets you save up money, which you siphon a small amount from to cover your high-probability low-impact risk; but you should retain some savings in there each year, and if you incur a high-impact risk event (i.e. cancer) you have the $3500 or $5600 or $10,000 in the bank to cover your per-annum out-of-pocket. The insurance company gives you some other balances ($1500 deductible, so in one shot you can't totally drain it) and hopes that they come under or just over (i.e. $1800, they pay $300; $7000 in one year, they wind up paying out some $1400; etc.).
You take most of the risk. Catastrophic events aren't supposed to happen often--you should be ancient before you wind up on diabeetus maintenance or radio-chemo, and then you've been paying in for 40 years so they got $50k or so off you already anyway. By then you should have a family plan with higher cost but better coverage--it costs you more with less return, but also better controls your risk so your expenses are more predictable--to handle a spouse and children, so they've got more positive benefit out of you anyway and that covers other people. Not everyone experiences a huge catastrophic event--injury from vehicular collisions and sports, major disease like diabeetus or cancer, etc. don't happen to everyone, and some of these are small (cancer is expensive; car and sports injuries are in the few thousand dollar range at worst, sometimes several hundred; diabeetus is maintenance and cheap)--so it balances out.
Thus I am bewildered by the high cost. It doesn't make sense to me.
It was a confusing error for me, as I had just learned Python and wondered why it wouldn't accept being given a new value. Turned out I was assigning an Int type from a String type without int() casting. CPython 2.5 on CentOS.
New term still counts as technical jargon. Remember when "Graphics Processing Unit" was a new, groovy layman's term when "video card" and "video chipset" had fallen out of style?
Slashdot Mirror
The reason why there are unions – and their ultimate weapon the strike – is to get the workers to hand over part of their paycheck and make the union organizers rich.
1% 1% 1%
It's an example of how 95% of cyclists in my city and many others ride. Experienced, educated cyclists tend to take sharp notice of this. It's not just hood rats either; you see people on high-end road bikes with lyrca shorts and compression gear and camelbaks and helments and clipless pedals just bluntly running stop signs without even glancing for traffic like the road belongs to them.
I am genuinely surprised when I see someone following traffic law on a bicycle, so much that I feel the need to acknowledge them directly in passing with a nod or salut. There are very few.
I feel that the high amount of visibility in such vehicles and the correct sensory input (it's an open vehicle, so you can use sound and your vision isn't distorted by more distracting shit in the way) makes them capable of safely and accurately judging whether or not they can make a clear intersection. This allows drivers to more quickly move on when the intersection is clear and the road ahead is not congested, which should reduce traffic congestion in some situations.
I also don't like that you have to just sit idle at a signal when you can see half a mile down the road in all directions and there's fuck-all going on.
No, you have the fewest risk contingencies when you are still. That doesn't mean you have the lowest risk; it means you don't have any answers for "what if...".
Think of it this way: Running through a stop sign into a blind intersection puts you at risk of being run over by a car. 1 in 10 times, you are at risk for being run over by a car. You can swerve out of the way 99 out of 100 times. That means 1 in 1000 times, you will get hit by a car running stop signs. (Numbers made up)
Now, standing at stop signs, cars will collide with you 1 in 2,600 times. You can only evade this 1 out of 10 times. That means you have a 9 in 26,000 chance of getting hit, or 1 in 2889 chance.
In the first situation, you run a higher probability risk but you have a good risk-reducing contingency (ability to take action). In the second, you run a lower probability risk but have very poor risk-reducing contingency. The numbers I gave shows that the lower probability is actually a lower risk than the higher probability with contingency in this imaginary case.
My numbers are made up. You however simply stated a lack of contingency without any sort of consideration for risk probability: you predicate that having a contingency always equates to lower risk. I have shown that in principle this is wrong, and thus that you have shown nothing except that there are different risks and some have better contingencies; you have not shown whether one overall risk is bigger than the other.
I bicycled to work for a year. I bicycled everywhere for a year. I also drive, and ride light rail. I've been on both ends of this. In a year's time with 70% of my transportation being by bicycle (I actually tallied up my total gasoline MPG at 288mpg combined when factoring in my bike with my car), I've been threatened by cars while stationary 0 times. In that same time, I nearly smashed a black guy who ran a red light on his bicycle at night while wearing dark clothes on an unlit street; I nearly turned a white kid into a speed bump when he came the wrong way down a street and just appeared from behind a building and straight in front of my car (this is a no-lawn situation: the sidewalk is against the building and the street); I've observed other cyclists nearly getting creamed on half a dozen occasions while I was waiting at a signal for busy traffic; and so on.
Your anecdotal experience does not match my anecdotal experience. I was never in any danger narrowly averted by a heroic application of fast brakes and fast steering; I have been suddenly placed in situations where my heroic application of fast brakes and fast steering have saved others from becoming speed tables, and I've observed other drivers doing the same.
Beer foam? Seriously?
It's well-known by homebrewers just how hard it is to get good head.
Yes well. Considering I got to watch so much unsafe shit, and have been the subject of being behind the wheel of a vehicle when a bicycle pops out from behind a building 1/4 second before it's 3 feet from my front bumper (left turn from the left lane on a two-way street--coming the wrong way--running a red light), I'll say that doing exactly the right thing while in a car still gets me a lot of near-speedbumps from shitty bicyclists.
People laugh at me when I'm sitting on my bike, standing over the top tube, both feet planted on the ground, waiting for the light to change. Little openings I could skirt past pass me by. "You know you can go through that, right?" No, no I can't. And then some other jackass blasts past me on a mountain bike, swerves as a car brakes to avoid him, and continues on with one hand on the handlebars and the other dangling by his side. Wearing a baseball cap. Backwards.
I'm pretty confident that driving so fucking recklessly--on a bicycle, on a car, on a pair of fucking roller blades--makes you the deserving subject of Darwinization.
Funny. A coworker tried to convince me to drive to work. I had to ride my bike around a car crash that involved three dead teenaged girls... at least I assume they were girls. They looked more like mangled bodies. The one in the back seat was okay for 17 going on dead, but the driver was crushed by her airbag followed by the steering column. The passenger didn't get an air bag, or a seat belt. The guy in the Dodge Ram was fine though.
That is pretty much when I decided car commuting was not for me.
I can't drive in 3 feet of snow. I can bicycle in the snow, but not 3 feet of it. I learned that merino wool is awesome this way; I've never been able to handle the cold before, since I never knew how to dress and just slapping on a huge fucking coat doesn't help!
Many people cycle to work in the rain. That's what goretex rain jackets and rain pants are for. In the hot summer, I find a warm rain much more pleasant; waterproof panniers to carry my dry clothes do well for me.
I biked around in 106F temperatures for hours while a coworker died walking around outside a shopping mall in it during the same time (half hour of exposure). She had water and long skirts; I had Nuun-adultered water and was wearing a Zensah compression shirt (UnderArmour Heat Gear feels like a balloon; Zensah actually makes me feel cold...). There are also ice vests, but I've never needed to go that far; however, when I'm driving the wheels hard, I quickly fatigue from the heat I generate on my own, which is why I love rain cycling--superior cooling means I never fatigue!
My employers have always had showers on-site; however, I shower before I leave and then change out into a completely new set of clothes--cotton undershirt included, rather than my compression baselayer. Becoming dry prevents the bacteria from feeding and producing stench. Shaving your armpits helps immensely as well. I give my hair a quick rinse in the sink (the salts clean it out anyway), comb the water out, then use two paper towels to dry it (it takes about 20-30 if I don't comb it out first). The whole process takes about 5 minutes; my fastest time changing was 89 seconds, then I had to pack up my bike clothes and wash my hair.
Urban sprawl layouts suck. In some places, the terrible layout doesn't present physical barriers--bicycling is easier than driving--while in others, the whole cul-du-sac bullshit fucks up transit in general. If you're less than 5 miles from work, though, bicycling is the way to go.
Funny thing is statistically bike lanes increase bicycling danger.
An individual cyclist is like 5.8 times as likely to get into a collision with a car if cycling on the sidewalk with the flow of traffic, because the cyclists tend to ride through WALK signs (as they should) but the drivers tend to only see down the road, not down the sidewalk, and only glance for corner pedestrians (who are slower than bicycles) before making a right turn. The problem here is nobody is doing anything they reasonably shouldn't be doing. Well, except that cycling on the sidewalk is itself unreasonable: the speed difference between a pedestrian and a cyclist is insane and dangerous; anything over 6mph doesn't belong on the sidewalk (some joggers are moving faster than this; they are dangerous as well).
An individual cyclist riding in the road with traffic correctly is something like 20%-50% more likely to be involved in a collision if riding on a road with a bicycling lane than riding on a similar road in the same urban area with what are called 'sharrows' (lane-sharing arrows painted onto the road to indicate to drivers and cyclist that the full lane is shared by both). These lanes tend to be 50% wider than regular lanes, not counting parking spaces, as per state highway regulations in most states that officially utilize them (often they're made too narrow in practice--against regulations!). That means they're wide enough for a car plus a bicycle, but that the car should assume the bicycle is a slow-moving vehicle in his lane and pass safely. With the same lane as a segregated bike lane, drivers tend to assume the bicycle is in another lane and just blaze past with no regard.
Weird right? Even totally barrier-isolated lanes increase danger because of cross-overs with highway and because of pedestrians (cyclists move FAST but pedestrians are on the path and boom...)
It isn't. At least, not on roads shared with assholes.
Most drivers treat cyclists like pests (and in fairness, I see a lot of cyclists who completely ignore all traffic rules and deserve the reputation).
Fixed.
Bicycle helmets prevent skull fracture from impacts that would rupture the braincase through blunt trauma. They don't prevent brain damage (concussion); but I'm always on neuroprotectives and will take a 7mg sublingual dose of Noopept before a ride (I have 5g of powder) for additional resistance to brain damage from severe blunt trauma, chemical pressure (i.e. massive amounts of alcohol), and high-voltage electroshock across the skull. It'll take a lot more to do damage and I take a lot less damage.
I pretty much blew out a heart valve on my first ride. 7 miles all up-hill, the final climb was intense and when I got to work the nurse said I had developed a heart murmur--in the last mile I felt like my heart like... popped... and then it was beating weird. Recovered from that by the end of the day, but I've always had cardiac arrhythmia (I've gone down from that under heavy physical stress--heart stops, I collapse, heart starts again). I started taking piracetam, which corrects arrhythmia. That's basically my primary neuroprotective, but a little extra insurance doesn't hurt.
Broken bones heal. Broken brains don't.
World? You mean Association? As in you associate your foot with a retarded-looking ball?
That's going to be the national sport of Hell when I take over.
As a cyclist, I'd like to weigh in that it's the cyclists' fault.
Many of us are quite aware that there are laws. In Idaho, a bicycle can stop at a traffic signal and then proceed if clear (I want this extended to motorcycles and small, high-visibility vehicles like top-down convertibles). In most states, bicycles are supposed to stop at stop signs, traffic signals, and other traffic control devices. They should ride with traffic--not against it--and exercise reasonable road safety.
Unfortunately, most people on bicycles are not the many of us; they are the many blunt dunderheads who got a $50 bike at Wal-Mart that will probably fall apart one day when jumping a ramp. They don't know or care about the law. Some of them think salmoning is safe and will ride blissfully head-on toward high-speed traffic. As a result, you have all of these retarded people running through intersections into traffic; I've seen a guy on a fixed gear bike run through a red light and turn left through oncoming left-turn traffic, just weaving between close-packed moving cars.
Think about how dangerous cars would be if we didn't train people to drive them and didn't issue tickets to lawbreakers. You run traffic signals, drive down the wrong side of the road, and generally behave unsafely on a bicycle? The police don't do shit. Legally they're empowered to fine you and even take away your fucking driver's license--they don't have direct recourse for a bicycle, but they can eventually argue that the bicycle is an enabler and legally take possession of it. Some of these people could be fined out of existence or outright arrested for their dangerous behavior--you think running through a traffic signal and swerving through dense moving traffic isn't arrest-worthy? Someone could have panicked and swerved his car straight into the other oncoming traffic to try to evade the cyclist, 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.
There's your danger.
It's worse than letting gays into the Catholic church. They've polluted the purity of the Internet more than divorce has polluted the sanctity of Marriage.
Yep. You're going to have a hell of a lot of fuel loss. In transit, you need to refrigerate the hydrogen, and some will still leak. Then in storage (fuel station, car fuel tank) it's going to need refrigeration, and will leak. A lot of fuel will be lost to leaks; and a lot of energy will be put into refrigerating the fuel continuously. It's so bullshit.
Uh, you're not going to make off with an atomic bomb. Or detonate it. Do you know how hard it is to set off nukes?
You can't pocket a giant metal bomb casing containing 4,255 pounds of C4 explosives, a nuclear core, 37 safety mechanisms, guidance systems, sensors, and whatnot anyway. What happens if somebody does walk past the guards into the nuclear arsenal?
He's Bruce Schneier. Bruce Schneier will flex his pecs and encrypt your brain.
85% shit. I heard 10%.
Yeah. CAPM you don't need the time in; but the actual information from the PMBOK5e, some of the practice standards (WBS, Program, Project), Tess Roeder's book on Stakeholder Management (INVALUABLE), and such things is really fucking useful.
As a sysadmin/sysengineer, I do a lot of risk analysis and management with ORM charts (plot Severity versus Probability) and come up with mitigation (prior action to reduce severity and/or probability, thus risk) and contingency (action plans for when a risk event occurs). Project Risk Management provides guidance on how to use these tools in the course of a project to come up with a list of risks (both negative and positive--opportunities are risks) and a Risk Management Plan filled with contingencies and mitigation strategies to control those risks as a matter of course.
Work Breakdown Structures are useful for defining repetitive complex task in terms of standard processes or templates (operational management, not project management). They're also useful for ... breaking down the work you need to do for a project such as building a server or a piece of software, which is what WBS was created for anyway. New server. Hardware (Rack; Cabling--Power, Network, KVM, IPMI, SAN), OS (Installation; Configuration--Networking, Join to Domain/LDAP), Install Software, etc. On a team, you can hand out the work packages as pieces of manageable work that each get done by one individual.
Project Stakeholder Management is massive: people around you will meddle with your work by making noise at other people who have authority over you. There's a huge emphasis on identifying any stakeholder--any person or group who affects, is affected by, or perceives itself to be affected by the activities or outcomes of a project--and categorizing them in the stakeholder register. This includes their power (organizational), influence (involvement in a project), interest (level of concern), impact (ability to effect change in a project), their project knowledge, their support or opposition (unsure, resistant, neutral, supporting, leading) and required support, etc. These attributes are used to decide how to manage stakeholders--keep them informed so they don't make noise at high-powered individuals; keep them satisfied so they don't start wanting to effect change (satisfying an individual may mean changing a project: maybe it doesn't address the business' needs!); and so on. The stakeholder register even goes as far as to identify the communication needs of a stakeholder: do they prefer e-mail, phone, face-to-face, IM, etc.? And the register changes constantly as stakeholder involvement and disposition changes or is discovered.
Project Stakeholder Management ties into everything. It ties into scope management, because you need to make sure your stakeholders are satisfied and the scope doesn't change--or that it does change when it's inappropriate for the business. It ties into requirements generation: you're going to build your requirements by identifying key stakeholders and coming up with a description of all the things they need from this project so you don't do a bunch of unnecessary work and don't constantly change things because people start adding on new requirements. It ties into risk management, because any changes in stakeholder disposition are risks--dangers and opportunities. It's even used to build a team: some of your employees will be very disinterested in a certain project; others will be extremely interested; and in all cases you will need to assess their motivation and keep them motivated (a leadership skill--usually the only skill PHBs have, and they're usually poor at it because you need to apply a lot of OTHER skills to provide effective leadership; PHBs tend to be floundering egomaniacs applying leadership skills without any understanding of the needs and feelings of the people they're trying to lead or the work they're trying to accomplish).
I've been studying for my CAPM because I'm extremely interested in the act
A lot of university degrees in Project Management teach that a Work Breakdown Structure is a set of tasks; in 1978, the Project Management Body of Knowledge was replaced with the PMBOK Guide (first edition), which is also called the PMBOK (oddly enough). The new PMBOK1e specified that a WBS is a deliverable-oriented breakdown of work. Since the PMBOK1e in 1978, work breakdown structures have been all about the output of work: every Work Package or Roll-up Element is a deliverable--a tangible or intangible result of work, such as the assimilation of knowledge (intangible) or a program module (tangible)--represented by adjective-noun descriptions. Yet, now, over 30 years later, colleges teach that the WBS is a task-oriented breakdown of actions represented by verbs.
Five years out of date? They still teach Java.
I hope you have a Project Management certification or the relevant learning (i.e. read the PMBOK5e published this year, some supplementary materials, maybe taken a course, whatnot). Those are the real useful skills if you're a programmer. Or sysadmin. Or anything else.
Catastrophic plans at the $200 range make no sense, is my point. It's a rather large expense for little benefit. I have a CDHP because I save money in my HSA and use that for everything; it costs me little, and the savings go toward covering my health care costs. $90 is more like it.
The long and short of catastrophic is that you want to manage your own low-impact high-probability risk (i.e. clinical care) with a safety net on your high-impact low-probability risk (i.e. major surgery, cancer, etc.). An HSA lets you save up money, which you siphon a small amount from to cover your high-probability low-impact risk; but you should retain some savings in there each year, and if you incur a high-impact risk event (i.e. cancer) you have the $3500 or $5600 or $10,000 in the bank to cover your per-annum out-of-pocket. The insurance company gives you some other balances ($1500 deductible, so in one shot you can't totally drain it) and hopes that they come under or just over (i.e. $1800, they pay $300; $7000 in one year, they wind up paying out some $1400; etc.).
You take most of the risk. Catastrophic events aren't supposed to happen often--you should be ancient before you wind up on diabeetus maintenance or radio-chemo, and then you've been paying in for 40 years so they got $50k or so off you already anyway. By then you should have a family plan with higher cost but better coverage--it costs you more with less return, but also better controls your risk so your expenses are more predictable--to handle a spouse and children, so they've got more positive benefit out of you anyway and that covers other people. Not everyone experiences a huge catastrophic event--injury from vehicular collisions and sports, major disease like diabeetus or cancer, etc. don't happen to everyone, and some of these are small (cancer is expensive; car and sports injuries are in the few thousand dollar range at worst, sometimes several hundred; diabeetus is maintenance and cheap)--so it balances out.
Thus I am bewildered by the high cost. It doesn't make sense to me.
It was a confusing error for me, as I had just learned Python and wondered why it wouldn't accept being given a new value. Turned out I was assigning an Int type from a String type without int() casting. CPython 2.5 on CentOS.
New term still counts as technical jargon. Remember when "Graphics Processing Unit" was a new, groovy layman's term when "video card" and "video chipset" had fallen out of style?
I already have the solution anyway. Yawn.