I have, in fact. Firsthand. It happened to me. No anecdotes will be recounted here, certainly not any made up; not worth my time as people like you will never be convinced. Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it never happens; as proof, I'll ask you two questions.
You are correct. However, "religionism" is not a common word; as a result, stereotyping or discriminating based on religion is commonly grouped in with racism. Further, in order to avoid confusion, I was simply using the term already introduced into the conversation by mrchaotica. Pedantry is counterproductive, my friend.
Simple. You have one circuit board with all your bomb logic on it, then only four wires. Battery positive (+ on the board), battery negative (- on the board) and a pair of leads for the blasting cap, which is not polarized. If you can't keep track of 4 endpoints on a board, you probably won't be making many bombs in the first place.
But, but, but, then someone could just cut the wires to the blasting cap to disarm the bomb!
Indeed. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out how to get around that. There are more than a handful of ways, some more effective than others.
That being said, unless you work for a military contractor hired to build bombs, or a demolition company, it's simpler to just not build them in the first place, so, that is what I suggest.
Racism is so rampant that it is impossible to discern whether this is, in fact, racism or if it's just a case of the administration covering their asses by ensuring this kid gets charged with something "that he would have gotten away with if we hadn't stepped in". By this, I mean to say that this may or may not be an instance of racism. Let's consider other possibilities, at least.
Inciting panic and causing public disturbances ARE crimes - the clock and its maker did both.
While the second half of your statement is correct, I would like to point out that these are crimes of intent. Lacking intent, there is no crime. Did this boy mean to incite panic and cause a public disturbance?
You do have a point and I'd like to spark a completely different debate with this (somewhat rhetorical) question: Would it be equally racist to assume that someone is Muslim because they are a terrorist?
I can see arguments on both sides of that question. On one hand, yes, it appears racist because it's still an assumption made based on bias; on the other hand, a large percentage of terrorists, historically, have been Muslim, so the bias may be justified.
Even if we assume you are correct, an unknown person may be either male or female. Let's call them a quantum person, as they've yet to be observed; they're simultaneously male and female. In this instance, neither "he" nor "she" ("his", "hers", "him", "her", etc, you get the point) are appropriate. However, given the dual nature of the unknown individual, "they" (or "their") is correct.
I'm just gonna let the fact that "'they' is correct" is also grammatically correct burn into your brain for a bit. Have a nice day.
Remember how forcing people to hand over their money to private companies via Obamneycare was supposed to make health insurance less expensive?
Actually, it was supposed to make health care less expensive. In my household, it's working out quite well.
Pre-ACA, my wife could not find a company willing to insure her at any level. Post-ACA, we pay $709/mo to cover both of us with a $3000 deductible and no copay. I don't use the coverage but, even having to pay to cover both of us at a cost of $8508/yr, plus her $3000 deductible (total $11508) we've spent over $20k less this year on her health care than we've spent in years past. The most we can spend on health care in a year is $14508 and that's if I actually use the coverage and meet my deductible for the year; at that point we're set to visit every doctor we can about every tiny nagging issue we have and it won't cost us a cent. In her case, though, it's giving her the freedom to pursue a $30k surgery there is no way we ever could have afforded otherwise, to resolve a chronic pain she's been dealing with for over a decade.
If that's not a good thing, then I guess you're right, Obama has failed us.
I don't disagree. They should also cite cyclists more frequently for breaking the law, as well. I'd say close to 90% of bay area drivers should have their licenses revoked. I tend to speed when I'm in traffic (on the freeway, where your bike shouldn't be anyway, so no, not a danger to you) only to get out of that traffic, because when I go with the flow of traffic I tend to have numerous close-calls, having to evade someone coming into my lane without a signal next to me or dodge out of the way of someone else doing something stupid. Of course, once I'm out of that cluster of traffic, I slow down to the prevailing speed of the next cluster I see ahead of me, so I don't end up catching up to them and having to do the dance all over again.
Most drivers are just horrible.
That's precisely why you, on your bike, and I, in my cage, need to be absolutely attentive and take responsibility for our own safety.
Even our massive noisy cages are covered in reflectors that can be see in daylight and now come with mandatory daytime-running lights.
Well, lights and size. And running signs; most people who t-bone a car that blew through a stop sign without stopping say they didn't see the car failing to stop (even if they did see the car), which makes sense since most of the cars I see roll signs do slow down (as though they're going to stop) before rolling on through; the same is probably true for bikes.
On a bike, you are at a disadvantage. A natural disadvantage, not one caused by cagers (though inattentive cagers do compound the problem). Act like it.
I don't assume that there is no enforcement for bicycles, I know there is, I've seen one or two pulled over in 16 years of driving; I've also seen hundreds of cars pulled over in that time, on the very same streets. One might argue that there are hundreds of cars for every bicycle, and they would be correct; I would counter by arguing that disobeying traffic laws on a bicycle or motorcycle is much more dangerous than in a caged vehicle and, therefore, should be much more strictly enforced. Of course, then, you could argue that a caged vehicle not obeying traffic laws is much more dangerous to an uncaged vehicle than one which is obeying the law. Of course! And if you're an attentive and safe cyclist (motor- or bi-) who is obeying the law, you'll see the asshole in the cage and avoid him.
Until enforcement reflects the (personal) danger people are putting themselves in, community-policing is the best we have as a society. If you attempt to correct someone's incorrect and unsafe behavior and they ignore you, give you the finger, tell you to fuck yourself, or otherwise don't listen, that's on them. They'll continue the behavior until the inevitable happens, then they'll quite likely be unable to continue as they'll be dead or disabled. You did your part, that's all you can do.
There is bad blood on both sides here, and I'd like to attempt to clear the air. Most of us cagers aren't attentive enough, which is why you cyclists need to be; most of us don't see cyclists who obey the law, we only see the assholes who don't, and that makes us thing, when we see you, that you're an asshole. Of course, most cyclists aren't attentive enough either, despite knowing that most cagers don't care, "because it'll be the cager's fault, anyway." Yes, and you'll be dead anyway. I guess, if the cager doesn't care, neither should you, right?
Personally, I'm an attentive driver, I see the majority of cyclists obeying the law, I know you're not all assholes, and I know most of us cagers are; at least where I live. Even if these facts absolve you of any responsibility in an accident that was purely the fault of a cager, they won't absolve you of injury, hospitalization, disability, or death.
Should cagers pay better attention, in general? Yes! A fucking resounding HELL YES! It would make my life easier, also having to share the road with these assholes. But that's not the reality we live in, so you, on your bike, and I, in my cage, need to pay extra attention, for our own safety.
I'm sure those drivers drive in places other than your city, they'll get pulled over somewhere. Bikes? Not so much.
Figure something out, or don't, it's no skin off my back. It's your image at stake, here; I'm only providing general advice on how to correct the issue. The specifics are up to those actually affected.
You're joking, right? I use GIMP much more often than Photoshop, but I do keep Photoshop handy for all the times I need to do any *real* work. As a software developer, those are few and far between; my wife is the designer, here.
I don't understand calls for the cyclist community to "self police." What exactly do you expect me as a cyclist to do if I see another cyclist breaking the law? Try to pull him over?
Whatever you feel you need to do to let them know they're:
- In the wrong
- Endangering themselves directly
- Making all cyclists look like assholes (by way of being the only cyclists most people see, since those who follow the rules tend to go unnoticed)
- Endangering you indirectly, by making you all look like assholes (nobody cares if an asshole gets run over, after all)
I'm not suggesting you do it for my sake, but for your own. If you don't mind sharing the road with a bunch of people who think you're an asshole, keep doing what you're doing; whether you are or not is immaterial when the guy who assumes you are because you're on a bike has already run you down. Dead is dead, is it not? I don't need you to do it for my sake, because I'm an attentive driver and I know that assholes make up something like 1% of the cyclist population. Essentially, I'm the polar opposite of most drivers in that regard. The more you know.
Do you attempt to police drivers who break the law?
No need, the police do that already. If they actually did the same for cyclists, there would be no need for cyclists to self-police.
Indeed, I see. Yes, I did mention motorcycles so I see how you think my entire post would apply to you. However, I did limit the specific part you're attempting to counter to pedal bikes. You even quoted me doing so. And yes, pedal bikes should always stay to the side of the road because they are always slow traffic.
In reality, lane sharing is the safest way to ride a motorbike. Two bikes next to each other in the lane means you are more visible to other motorists, particularly those who are looking in their mirrors for a lane change. When you're in the center of your lane (rather than to the right), you extend the distance at which a driver to your right can not see you in their mirrors; you also decrease that distance for drivers to your left. Of course, staying to the right of the lane increases that distance for drivers to your left and staying to the left does the opposite. You really should be reading the traffic ahead of you and adjusting your position within your lane based on who's most likely to change lanes ahead of you. Lane sharing, assuming you aren't riding alone, minimizes blind spot distance for drivers on both sides. Confusingly, though safer, this is actually illegal in a few places (or so I've heard, I've never actually lived anywhere where it is).
Of course, not riding next to my bumper helps; the only close call I've ever had with a motorbike was one guy who WOULD NOT GET OFF MY BUMPER. I signaled, I sped up, I slowed down, I sped up again, I slowed down again, I saw him there the whole time refusing to let me over (to the left, to exit). When my exit came into view I said fuck it; he got out of my way when I started getting over. Fortunately, that's an exceedingly rare occurrence with motorcycles; impossible with pedals because speeding up always works for them (and they shouldn't be on the freeway in the first place).
Now pedals, they seem to either follow the rules and go unnoticed or dare you to hit them. I had one guy blow a stop sign at a 4 way intersection with a 3 way stop, no stop on my side, turning left in front of my half-completed right turn, so I honked at him. For the next month, he was waiting there every weekday morning to do the same thing to me, so I progressively waited longer before braking each time. He stopped doing it after I got within an inch of him before braking. Would I have been at fault? Hard to say, I had 20+ videos of him doing it on a regular enough basis to show in court that he was riding recklessly, as I drive with a dash cam, so it really could have gone either way. Fortunately, I never saw him again after that (perhaps he did it to someone else and got taken out) because I probably would have nailed him the next time he did it.
And nobody sees you doing it. The reason everyone who sees you riding your bike thinks you're an asshole is because the only cyclists who disturb traffic enough to actually be noticed are assholes; literally the only cyclists most people ever actually notice (not see, but actually realize they are seeing) are assholes. Cyclists like yourself who, assuming you're being honest with us, obey traffic laws and don't disrupt the flow of traffic, largely go unnoticed. The end result is that you all look like assholes, even though the majority of you are not. If cops would start enforcing traffic laws equally, the problem would largely solve itself; short of that, though, the cyclist community is going to have to start self-policing before things improve.
I'll start and end it with this: The ones who follow the rules of the road don't get noticed. The ones who don't, the ones who blow the stop sign *AND* turn left in front of my half-completed right turn, the ones who shouldn't be on the road in the first place, those are the ones people see. So yes, they make you all look like assholes, evne though the majority of you are just trying to safely get form point A to point B. If you're in the former group and are tired of being called an asshole just for riding a bike, recognize that this is the fault of the latter group and do something about it. when you see it happen, catch up to the asshole, ride alongside them for a bit, and explain how the thing they just did is unsafe for them in the moment and, by enraging drivers against cyclists, makes ccling less safe even for those who do follow the rules.
I actively look for bikes, motorized, pedaled, or otherwise, so I see you guys, and I see most of you with pedals doing exactly what you should be doing, staying to the side of the lane (or in the bike lane if there is one and it is free of debris), stopping at signs and lights, and generally being safe. But I only see you guys because I am actively looking; most drivers only see the assholes, so do something about the assholes and you'll make all cyclists look better. Most motorbikes I see are doing all kinds of stupid shit like splitting lanes *at speed* which is against the law everywhere and very dangerous in any kind of traffic; I'm not sure there's any redeeming them, but I digress.
Slashdot Mirror
I have, in fact. Firsthand. It happened to me. No anecdotes will be recounted here, certainly not any made up; not worth my time as people like you will never be convinced. Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it never happens; as proof, I'll ask you two questions.
Have you ever won the lottery?
Has anyone ever won the lottery?
You are correct. However, "religionism" is not a common word; as a result, stereotyping or discriminating based on religion is commonly grouped in with racism. Further, in order to avoid confusion, I was simply using the term already introduced into the conversation by mrchaotica. Pedantry is counterproductive, my friend.
Point me to a reference for that "standard" rule? Authoritative sources only, please.
But, but, but, then someone could just cut the wires to the blasting cap to disarm the bomb!
Indeed. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out how to get around that. There are more than a handful of ways, some more effective than others.
That being said, unless you work for a military contractor hired to build bombs, or a demolition company, it's simpler to just not build them in the first place, so, that is what I suggest.
Racism is so rampant that it is impossible to discern whether this is, in fact, racism or if it's just a case of the administration covering their asses by ensuring this kid gets charged with something "that he would have gotten away with if we hadn't stepped in". By this, I mean to say that this may or may not be an instance of racism. Let's consider other possibilities, at least.
Inciting panic and causing public disturbances ARE crimes - the clock and its maker did both.
While the second half of your statement is correct, I would like to point out that these are crimes of intent. Lacking intent, there is no crime. Did this boy mean to incite panic and cause a public disturbance?
You do have a point and I'd like to spark a completely different debate with this (somewhat rhetorical) question: Would it be equally racist to assume that someone is Muslim because they are a terrorist?
I can see arguments on both sides of that question. On one hand, yes, it appears racist because it's still an assumption made based on bias; on the other hand, a large percentage of terrorists, historically, have been Muslim, so the bias may be justified.
For the record, I don't hold a position on this.
normal, male behavior (biology people, not discrimination)
Careful! Most people here won't realize that you're saying "can and do" rather than "can and should", here.
Perhaps the AC you are replying to has not, but I have.
Even if we assume you are correct, an unknown person may be either male or female. Let's call them a quantum person, as they've yet to be observed; they're simultaneously male and female. In this instance, neither "he" nor "she" ("his", "hers", "him", "her", etc, you get the point) are appropriate. However, given the dual nature of the unknown individual, "they" (or "their") is correct.
I'm just gonna let the fact that "'they' is correct" is also grammatically correct burn into your brain for a bit. Have a nice day.
Remember how forcing people to hand over their money to private companies via Obamneycare was supposed to make health insurance less expensive?
Actually, it was supposed to make health care less expensive. In my household, it's working out quite well.
Pre-ACA, my wife could not find a company willing to insure her at any level. Post-ACA, we pay $709/mo to cover both of us with a $3000 deductible and no copay. I don't use the coverage but, even having to pay to cover both of us at a cost of $8508/yr, plus her $3000 deductible (total $11508) we've spent over $20k less this year on her health care than we've spent in years past. The most we can spend on health care in a year is $14508 and that's if I actually use the coverage and meet my deductible for the year; at that point we're set to visit every doctor we can about every tiny nagging issue we have and it won't cost us a cent. In her case, though, it's giving her the freedom to pursue a $30k surgery there is no way we ever could have afforded otherwise, to resolve a chronic pain she's been dealing with for over a decade.
If that's not a good thing, then I guess you're right, Obama has failed us.
Which one did you get? Does it come with a pair of lips?
I don't disagree. They should also cite cyclists more frequently for breaking the law, as well. I'd say close to 90% of bay area drivers should have their licenses revoked. I tend to speed when I'm in traffic (on the freeway, where your bike shouldn't be anyway, so no, not a danger to you) only to get out of that traffic, because when I go with the flow of traffic I tend to have numerous close-calls, having to evade someone coming into my lane without a signal next to me or dodge out of the way of someone else doing something stupid. Of course, once I'm out of that cluster of traffic, I slow down to the prevailing speed of the next cluster I see ahead of me, so I don't end up catching up to them and having to do the dance all over again.
Most drivers are just horrible.
That's precisely why you, on your bike, and I, in my cage, need to be absolutely attentive and take responsibility for our own safety.
Lights.
Rather, lack thereof.
Even our massive noisy cages are covered in reflectors that can be see in daylight and now come with mandatory daytime-running lights.
Well, lights and size. And running signs; most people who t-bone a car that blew through a stop sign without stopping say they didn't see the car failing to stop (even if they did see the car), which makes sense since most of the cars I see roll signs do slow down (as though they're going to stop) before rolling on through; the same is probably true for bikes.
On a bike, you are at a disadvantage. A natural disadvantage, not one caused by cagers (though inattentive cagers do compound the problem). Act like it.
I don't assume that there is no enforcement for bicycles, I know there is, I've seen one or two pulled over in 16 years of driving; I've also seen hundreds of cars pulled over in that time, on the very same streets. One might argue that there are hundreds of cars for every bicycle, and they would be correct; I would counter by arguing that disobeying traffic laws on a bicycle or motorcycle is much more dangerous than in a caged vehicle and, therefore, should be much more strictly enforced. Of course, then, you could argue that a caged vehicle not obeying traffic laws is much more dangerous to an uncaged vehicle than one which is obeying the law. Of course! And if you're an attentive and safe cyclist (motor- or bi-) who is obeying the law, you'll see the asshole in the cage and avoid him.
Until enforcement reflects the (personal) danger people are putting themselves in, community-policing is the best we have as a society. If you attempt to correct someone's incorrect and unsafe behavior and they ignore you, give you the finger, tell you to fuck yourself, or otherwise don't listen, that's on them. They'll continue the behavior until the inevitable happens, then they'll quite likely be unable to continue as they'll be dead or disabled. You did your part, that's all you can do.
There is bad blood on both sides here, and I'd like to attempt to clear the air. Most of us cagers aren't attentive enough, which is why you cyclists need to be; most of us don't see cyclists who obey the law, we only see the assholes who don't, and that makes us thing, when we see you, that you're an asshole. Of course, most cyclists aren't attentive enough either, despite knowing that most cagers don't care, "because it'll be the cager's fault, anyway." Yes, and you'll be dead anyway. I guess, if the cager doesn't care, neither should you, right?
Personally, I'm an attentive driver, I see the majority of cyclists obeying the law, I know you're not all assholes, and I know most of us cagers are; at least where I live. Even if these facts absolve you of any responsibility in an accident that was purely the fault of a cager, they won't absolve you of injury, hospitalization, disability, or death.
Should cagers pay better attention, in general? Yes! A fucking resounding HELL YES! It would make my life easier, also having to share the road with these assholes. But that's not the reality we live in, so you, on your bike, and I, in my cage, need to pay extra attention, for our own safety.
I'm sure those drivers drive in places other than your city, they'll get pulled over somewhere. Bikes? Not so much.
Figure something out, or don't, it's no skin off my back. It's your image at stake, here; I'm only providing general advice on how to correct the issue. The specifics are up to those actually affected.
You're joking, right? I use GIMP much more often than Photoshop, but I do keep Photoshop handy for all the times I need to do any *real* work. As a software developer, those are few and far between; my wife is the designer, here.
I don't understand calls for the cyclist community to "self police." What exactly do you expect me as a cyclist to do if I see another cyclist breaking the law? Try to pull him over?
Whatever you feel you need to do to let them know they're:
- In the wrong
- Endangering themselves directly
- Making all cyclists look like assholes (by way of being the only cyclists most people see, since those who follow the rules tend to go unnoticed) - Endangering you indirectly, by making you all look like assholes (nobody cares if an asshole gets run over, after all)
I'm not suggesting you do it for my sake, but for your own. If you don't mind sharing the road with a bunch of people who think you're an asshole, keep doing what you're doing; whether you are or not is immaterial when the guy who assumes you are because you're on a bike has already run you down. Dead is dead, is it not? I don't need you to do it for my sake, because I'm an attentive driver and I know that assholes make up something like 1% of the cyclist population. Essentially, I'm the polar opposite of most drivers in that regard. The more you know.
Do you attempt to police drivers who break the law?
No need, the police do that already. If they actually did the same for cyclists, there would be no need for cyclists to self-police.
as a motorcyclist
Indeed, I see. Yes, I did mention motorcycles so I see how you think my entire post would apply to you. However, I did limit the specific part you're attempting to counter to pedal bikes. You even quoted me doing so. And yes, pedal bikes should always stay to the side of the road because they are always slow traffic.
In reality, lane sharing is the safest way to ride a motorbike. Two bikes next to each other in the lane means you are more visible to other motorists, particularly those who are looking in their mirrors for a lane change. When you're in the center of your lane (rather than to the right), you extend the distance at which a driver to your right can not see you in their mirrors; you also decrease that distance for drivers to your left. Of course, staying to the right of the lane increases that distance for drivers to your left and staying to the left does the opposite. You really should be reading the traffic ahead of you and adjusting your position within your lane based on who's most likely to change lanes ahead of you. Lane sharing, assuming you aren't riding alone, minimizes blind spot distance for drivers on both sides. Confusingly, though safer, this is actually illegal in a few places (or so I've heard, I've never actually lived anywhere where it is).
Of course, not riding next to my bumper helps; the only close call I've ever had with a motorbike was one guy who WOULD NOT GET OFF MY BUMPER. I signaled, I sped up, I slowed down, I sped up again, I slowed down again, I saw him there the whole time refusing to let me over (to the left, to exit). When my exit came into view I said fuck it; he got out of my way when I started getting over. Fortunately, that's an exceedingly rare occurrence with motorcycles; impossible with pedals because speeding up always works for them (and they shouldn't be on the freeway in the first place).
Now pedals, they seem to either follow the rules and go unnoticed or dare you to hit them. I had one guy blow a stop sign at a 4 way intersection with a 3 way stop, no stop on my side, turning left in front of my half-completed right turn, so I honked at him. For the next month, he was waiting there every weekday morning to do the same thing to me, so I progressively waited longer before braking each time. He stopped doing it after I got within an inch of him before braking. Would I have been at fault? Hard to say, I had 20+ videos of him doing it on a regular enough basis to show in court that he was riding recklessly, as I drive with a dash cam, so it really could have gone either way. Fortunately, I never saw him again after that (perhaps he did it to someone else and got taken out) because I probably would have nailed him the next time he did it.
Sadly, they can afford to make it the other person's fault in court, even if it was their own.
That's precisely what it is. It's legal here, too, when traffic is stopped . Note that I said "at speed", that's legal nowhere.
Rarely do I ever see a cyclist (or a pedestrian) display even the slightest bit of situational awareness.
That's because the ones who do go unnoticed. When I'm actively looking for cyclists, they appear to be in the majority.
Ummm, excuse me, but I fucking do obey the law.
And nobody sees you doing it. The reason everyone who sees you riding your bike thinks you're an asshole is because the only cyclists who disturb traffic enough to actually be noticed are assholes; literally the only cyclists most people ever actually notice (not see, but actually realize they are seeing) are assholes. Cyclists like yourself who, assuming you're being honest with us, obey traffic laws and don't disrupt the flow of traffic, largely go unnoticed. The end result is that you all look like assholes, even though the majority of you are not. If cops would start enforcing traffic laws equally, the problem would largely solve itself; short of that, though, the cyclist community is going to have to start self-policing before things improve.
the number of cyclists who break the laws vs motorists is really unbalanced
If we ignore speeding, sure. And I don't even own a bike,
I'll start and end it with this: The ones who follow the rules of the road don't get noticed. The ones who don't, the ones who blow the stop sign *AND* turn left in front of my half-completed right turn, the ones who shouldn't be on the road in the first place, those are the ones people see. So yes, they make you all look like assholes, evne though the majority of you are just trying to safely get form point A to point B. If you're in the former group and are tired of being called an asshole just for riding a bike, recognize that this is the fault of the latter group and do something about it. when you see it happen, catch up to the asshole, ride alongside them for a bit, and explain how the thing they just did is unsafe for them in the moment and, by enraging drivers against cyclists, makes ccling less safe even for those who do follow the rules.
I actively look for bikes, motorized, pedaled, or otherwise, so I see you guys, and I see most of you with pedals doing exactly what you should be doing, staying to the side of the lane (or in the bike lane if there is one and it is free of debris), stopping at signs and lights, and generally being safe. But I only see you guys because I am actively looking; most drivers only see the assholes, so do something about the assholes and you'll make all cyclists look better. Most motorbikes I see are doing all kinds of stupid shit like splitting lanes *at speed* which is against the law everywhere and very dangerous in any kind of traffic; I'm not sure there's any redeeming them, but I digress.