I'm guilty of going through red lights on my bike when I deem it safe to do so, but I think the problem kind of fixes itself. People who cycle dangerously tend to learn quickly by their mistakes or are no longer around to repeat their mistakes.
No, I don't ride 3 abreast on roads, but I take up enough room so that I'm not forced into drains and pot-holes on the side of the road. I don't need to feel threatened by aggressive car drivers (why do people turn so aggressive whilst driving?), especially not ones that invoke their local violent in-breds.
Can I just ask why you think it was deemed necessary to enforce a 1 metre berth for cyclists? Why isn't it necessary to enforce a rule for cyclists to behave correctly?
This could go on for ages, so I'll just pick up on one point. Roads were not designed for cars - they were designed for horse and carts (think Roman times). Roads are for the use of multiple types of traffic and I wish that car drivers would be more tolerant of other road users.
I'll agree with your assessment of the cyclist overtaking a car in the snow - that does sound like the cyclist was at fault and the car dirver shouldn't be held accountable for that. However, in my experience, most accidents between cars and bikes are caused by cars turning without looking or generally not being aware of their surroundings..
You're also right about me not understanding where you live, but my point is that if there isn't room to safely overtake, then don't overtake. Why do you think you can endanger people's lives just so that you can get from A to B quicker?
I don't know what kind of bike chains you have where you live, but I've never heard of a chain snapping because someone is cycling uphill. Usually bike chains stretch as they wear out and cause problems shifting gear, so they tend to get replaced years before they can snap. I'm also puzzled as to why you criticise cyclist for going too slow uphill and also complain that they "whizz by" in snowy conditions - which is it? Too slow or too fast?
Also, for your information, it's often safer for cyclists to not "hide" at the side of the road so that cars can easily overtake them, but instead if they take up more room, it forces car drivers to notice them. It does infuriate car drivers, but I often take up more room than required if the road is a particularly dangerous one. I'd rather get into a shouting match with angry drivers than be in a hospital bed.
What is so wrong about giving another road user a 1 metre berth when overtaking them? If your car is too wide for the road, then either wait behind the slower vehicle or get a smaller vehicle that is better suited for your roads.
If you're stuck in a line of traffic that is incapable of overtaking due to being the wrong size for the roads, then either wait or use different roads - it's not the fault of the slow road user.
If a cyclist hits a chunk of ice and slides out - try using your brakes! If you can't stop in time, then you're too close and are rightly at fault for dangerous driving. Have some consideration for other road users - you don't have to drive as quickly as possible and as close as possible all the time.
Which country do you live in now? Just asking, as I'd like to keep away from pyschopathic idiots who think that death is a justified result of someone moving at a different speed.
Do erveyone a favour and please, don't drive anymore.
I cycle quite a bit and I have to say that I do deliberately try to impede cars that think it is their god-given right to overtake cyclists even if there is clearly no room or they're going round a blind corner.
By the way, here's a penny to compensate for all the damage my bike does to the roads.
By the way, do you think horses (with riders) shouldn't be allowed on the road? They don't pay any road tax either. Do you angrily overtake them without giving them enough room?
So, we're only allowed to have freedom and human rights if your children are getting fattened up? Doesn't make you sound like a complete asshat at all.
I get your point, but I originally specified using https to connect to websites. Any other protocol is best tunnelled through ssh as https is only relevant for websites.
Your ssh/sftp don't need any extra tunnelling, but your telnet certainly does and your email might if you're using something like POP3 or IMAP (not the encrypted versions).
If you're already using ssh, then you can just tunnel everything through that instead - how much hassle is that?
Open wifi isn't a problem if you always use https to connect to websites. https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere is an easy way to use https if it's available for a website.
That's what I do with mine - a hidden wpa2 network for private use and an unsecured public one (that only has internet access) for friends/neighbours/passer-bys to use. I hate the way people are trying to scare people away from altruistic behaviour - it's kind of like warning people against giving away free water in case someone drowns someone in it.
I don't understand how people can't understand the difference between "having a monopoly" and "abusing a monopoly".
I can't think of any pharmaceutical companies abusing a monopoly (e.g. you can only swallow our pills with our own brand bottled water) which is probably why they're not in trouble.
The problem that Microsoft itself acknowledged is that the browser choice screen wasn't being displayed in compliance with the 2009 ruling. What don't you understand?
Yes, phones usually come with a single charger. Most people I know also buy a charger for their car and often get an extra charger to use at home/work so that they don't have to keep carrying it around with them.
I tend to agree that the "waste" argument is a bit weak, but changing connectors is an asshat thing to do. I hated it when Nokia changed their connector size - it's a pain in the arse to have to worry about whether to use the new style or old style connector. I long for the day when you can charge all mobile devices with the same charger - maybe wireless charging will be the answer.
That's beside the point. If people want a new phone, they'll buy a new phone, whereas they would most likely re-use any chargers/cables that they'd already bought. This prevents any re-use of cables and chargers even if they choose to stick to the same platform.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guilty of going through red lights on my bike when I deem it safe to do so, but I think the problem kind of fixes itself. People who cycle dangerously tend to learn quickly by their mistakes or are no longer around to repeat their mistakes.
No, I don't ride 3 abreast on roads, but I take up enough room so that I'm not forced into drains and pot-holes on the side of the road. I don't need to feel threatened by aggressive car drivers (why do people turn so aggressive whilst driving?), especially not ones that invoke their local violent in-breds.
Can I just ask why you think it was deemed necessary to enforce a 1 metre berth for cyclists? Why isn't it necessary to enforce a rule for cyclists to behave correctly?
This could go on for ages, so I'll just pick up on one point. Roads were not designed for cars - they were designed for horse and carts (think Roman times). Roads are for the use of multiple types of traffic and I wish that car drivers would be more tolerant of other road users.
I'll agree with your assessment of the cyclist overtaking a car in the snow - that does sound like the cyclist was at fault and the car dirver shouldn't be held accountable for that. However, in my experience, most accidents between cars and bikes are caused by cars turning without looking or generally not being aware of their surroundings..
You're also right about me not understanding where you live, but my point is that if there isn't room to safely overtake, then don't overtake. Why do you think you can endanger people's lives just so that you can get from A to B quicker?
I don't know what kind of bike chains you have where you live, but I've never heard of a chain snapping because someone is cycling uphill. Usually bike chains stretch as they wear out and cause problems shifting gear, so they tend to get replaced years before they can snap. I'm also puzzled as to why you criticise cyclist for going too slow uphill and also complain that they "whizz by" in snowy conditions - which is it? Too slow or too fast?
Also, for your information, it's often safer for cyclists to not "hide" at the side of the road so that cars can easily overtake them, but instead if they take up more room, it forces car drivers to notice them. It does infuriate car drivers, but I often take up more room than required if the road is a particularly dangerous one. I'd rather get into a shouting match with angry drivers than be in a hospital bed.
So, you're stating that car drivers will (accidentally?) kill other road users if their own speed is curtailed?
Seems like a nice bunch of people.
That made me chuckle. The funny thing is that car drivers do behave like they are deliberately trying to hurt cyclists.
I don't understand why ordinary, polite, considerate, peaceful pedestrians change their behaviour as soon as they get behind a steering wheel.
How can you tell that the helmet made a difference to them without forcing them through the exact same accident a second time without one?
What is so wrong about giving another road user a 1 metre berth when overtaking them? If your car is too wide for the road, then either wait behind the slower vehicle or get a smaller vehicle that is better suited for your roads.
If you're stuck in a line of traffic that is incapable of overtaking due to being the wrong size for the roads, then either wait or use different roads - it's not the fault of the slow road user.
If a cyclist hits a chunk of ice and slides out - try using your brakes! If you can't stop in time, then you're too close and are rightly at fault for dangerous driving. Have some consideration for other road users - you don't have to drive as quickly as possible and as close as possible all the time.
Which country do you live in now? Just asking, as I'd like to keep away from pyschopathic idiots who think that death is a justified result of someone moving at a different speed.
Do erveyone a favour and please, don't drive anymore.
I cycle quite a bit and I have to say that I do deliberately try to impede cars that think it is their god-given right to overtake cyclists even if there is clearly no room or they're going round a blind corner.
By the way, here's a penny to compensate for all the damage my bike does to the roads.
By the way, do you think horses (with riders) shouldn't be allowed on the road? They don't pay any road tax either. Do you angrily overtake them without giving them enough room?
So, we're only allowed to have freedom and human rights if your children are getting fattened up? Doesn't make you sound like a complete asshat at all.
I get your point, but I originally specified using https to connect to websites. Any other protocol is best tunnelled through ssh as https is only relevant for websites.
Your ssh/sftp don't need any extra tunnelling, but your telnet certainly does and your email might if you're using something like POP3 or IMAP (not the encrypted versions).
If you're already using ssh, then you can just tunnel everything through that instead - how much hassle is that?
WPA2 isn't at all easy to crack, but it's definitely easy to spoof MAC addresses.
Open wifi isn't a problem if you always use https to connect to websites. https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere is an easy way to use https if it's available for a website.
That's what I do with mine - a hidden wpa2 network for private use and an unsecured public one (that only has internet access) for friends/neighbours/passer-bys to use. I hate the way people are trying to scare people away from altruistic behaviour - it's kind of like warning people against giving away free water in case someone drowns someone in it.
What's the main difference(s) between a ruling and a contractual settlement?
I don't understand how people can't understand the difference between "having a monopoly" and "abusing a monopoly".
I can't think of any pharmaceutical companies abusing a monopoly (e.g. you can only swallow our pills with our own brand bottled water) which is probably why they're not in trouble.
The problem that Microsoft itself acknowledged is that the browser choice screen wasn't being displayed in compliance with the 2009 ruling. What don't you understand?
Wouldn't a project be removed before it reaches funding and thus no money is taken?
Yes, phones usually come with a single charger. Most people I know also buy a charger for their car and often get an extra charger to use at home/work so that they don't have to keep carrying it around with them.
I tend to agree that the "waste" argument is a bit weak, but changing connectors is an asshat thing to do. I hated it when Nokia changed their connector size - it's a pain in the arse to have to worry about whether to use the new style or old style connector. I long for the day when you can charge all mobile devices with the same charger - maybe wireless charging will be the answer.
That's beside the point. If people want a new phone, they'll buy a new phone, whereas they would most likely re-use any chargers/cables that they'd already bought. This prevents any re-use of cables and chargers even if they choose to stick to the same platform.
There's no such thing as a full bin; you can always fit in one more bit of rubbish.
A better solution is to aways drink coffee the way it's meant to be drunk: black, no sugar.
Yes, absolutely, 100% indemnity.