Your username says a lot about your personality, and your comment only goes to further that statement.
1) You can't possibly think that in the event of an accident a motocycle offers you more protection.
I never said it did. I said it causes less collateral damage to others.
2) I wouldn't say that driving is a right, but driving with a license in a licensed vehicle is.
I'm glad you wouldn't say that. The second part of your statement is... wrong. It might make your life very convenient and seem like a necessity, but that doesn't make it a right.
3) Please, car drivers are not going out of their way to swerve into bike riders.
If they are assholes, then yes. I am a firm believer that most people are no better than savage animals. I've seen more irresponsible behavior involving deadly weapons than i'd have cared to.
4) If anything other drivers are trying to give them a wide birth.
Some... However these people sometimes compound the problem by being skittish and nervous around bikes.
5) The thing is, motorcycles are harder to see, and its harder to judge their distance.
Part 1 is pretty much false, as all bikes in the past 20 years have had always-on headlights. The distance thing is semi-valid.. BUT, you could always wait a second and see where the fuck the guy is instead of taking a chance.
6) Think of it this way, motorcycles in traffic are like lions runing in an elephant stampeed. Yeah, they accellerate faster and have more manuverability
There is a certain level of responsibility that every motorcyclist takes upon himself every day that he or she goes out on a bike. However, that is by no means an excuse for the 'elephants' to go ahead and stampede them.
7) , but they've chosen to run amongst larger, less responsive traffic.
No one is discussing the size of the vehicles in question. The responsiveness is a different issue in that your point would only be valid if the majority of motorcycle accidents involved mean motorcyclists slamming into cars for shits and giggles. In fact, many times, it's the other way around, that the car makes a move which hits the motorcycle.
Every bike since like 1976 has had a requirement for always-on lights... You are absolutely right.. If you can't see a fucking object that weighs in anywhere (including rider) from 400 to nearly 1000 pounds, and makes NOISE on top of it, you're a fucking moron.
I've never had someone deliberately do the look & try to kill me thing, but have had people act as if they didn't see me and just drift into my lane. I've had people pull out in front of me to go 20 miles an hour on a single lane road.. I've had tailgaters ride up my ass... Luckily, haven't had people open their doors into me yet..
On a positive note, if someone tries to run you off the road, you're legally (on a bike..) allowed to SHOOT AND KILL the fucking bastard, and it'll be deemed self defense, as you were assaulted by a deadly weapon / menaced (deadly weapon is implied by the charge of menacing.)
Simply 'paying into the system' doesn't mean that you are truly paying for all of the costs of utilizing increased resources. Just because [insert oil company here] is getting more $$ out of an SUV driver's pocket doesn't really mean that they've paid their penance in causing the upcoming fuel supply exhaustion.
It seems that i'm of a different mind than most on this board, but i dont think driving is a right, considering the responsibilities that come with doing so -- be it environmental, economic, social, whatever.
Motorcycles do not make the road a more dangerous place to drive. A disproportionately large percentage of assholes on bikes do.
When ridden safely, motorcycles are less likely to cause bodily harm / incidental damage than cars simply because they weigh so much less. Should everyone ride a motorcycle? no. Well, maybe for a short while so they can see what we have to deal with on a daily basis:)
You guys all agree that people should be allowed to do whatever they want whenever they want without regard to the common good?
What about emissions controls... minimum MPG requirements... Crash safety regulations, seatbelts, airbags? Are any of these ok to be required? What about my penchant for putting 2 foot spikes on the front of my car, and having my exhaust shoot 30 foot flames?.. Is that allowed? or... no.
You wouldn't want to stifle my independence and freedom right?
by 'their', i didn't mean the consumer, i meant the vehicle -- i think that's fairly obvious.
I have a right to disagree simply because (here comes the libertarian response...) we live in a society, and their actions affect the lives of everyone in the country.
So yeah, i have a right to disagree. The reasons SUVs exist with such abundance today is because they are able to exploit loopholes in govt regulations that will hopefully be plugged as soon as possible.
The car companies are whores who will peddle to whatever hte market will buy. The market will buy whatever the car companies are selling, self feeding cycle.
I can't deny your logic, however i think if we sat around and tried to figure out how many people 'need' SUVs, it'd be much smaller than the # that own them.
Most people i talk to say they need them, but eventually cave and get trapped into saying it's an image thing.
Also, a lot of awd cars / wagons are rated for towing crap too, not sure of the ratings, but a Subaru legacy or forester can tow decent amounts
Ahh yes, the old 'car' analogy, so flawed, yet.. so overused.
1) Your point would be valid if:
a) You copied the car at your house, or your friend's house, not the dealership. (Do you go back to tower records or wherever and ask them to burn you a copy of your CD?)
b) The car was freely copiable at the cost for raw materials (paid by you once again). You pay for the CD-R you use to copy the music, no? (Or, pay for the HDD that the MP3 is on, and the internet connection used to transfer it.)
2) Unfortunately, your point is invalid.
a) See above
b) THe crux of the issue is that people are INFRINGING "intellectual property", which is quite different from STEALING "physical property". I'll repeat it again, stealing requires person a to deprive person b of the use of their property. All the RIAA is being deprived of, is $$. And, as we all know, t is quite difficult to successfully sue based on potential earnings based on conjecture.
Good responses -- you have corrected me with regards to the welfare system. If things are the way you say, then i have no qualms with it. We obviously agree on how it should be done, the only difference was that i wasn't aware that it had been changed to operate in such a manner.
Asians aren't the only minority to do well.. How about indians (from india)?
I have a good understanding of why it is that certain minorities fare better than others (chiefly a cyclical problem passed down by the generations).
one thing you are incorrect about, is racism. Racism affected nearly EVERY new nationality of people that entered the country -- be it italians (damn plumbers), irish (heavy drinkers -- do you remember when they were specifically not given jobs for years?), arabs (towel heads), asians (more derogitory terms than i care to list), etc etc. Immigrants in general are often told to go back to their country of origin, without regard to the fact that all of us, including the 'native' americans are immigrants.
I dont deny that many immigrants work harder than I do..but, that is the advantage of having an education, and a specialized skill.
OH, and gues what? i'm an immigrant too... from an eastern european country ruled by the USSR til around 10years ago no less.
i'm not sure what your deal is personally attacking me with comments such as 'try working two jobs, i bet you have never done it.'... Have you? or are you too busy posting essays to slashdot. Oh, and i'm on my way to my 9 to 5.. while my mom is on her vacation back to hungary for the 1st time in 13 years -- and she's done the two job thing quite often. BUT, she did it so that i could get an education and not have to.
So maybe i should work THREE jobs just to make you happy? To prove that i am "hard working" enough to speak about this issue?.. sounds pretty stupid to me.
In closing, i'd appreciate if you re-read my post, then before replying with your knee-jerk reactions, try to comprehend what i've said.. Much of it is in-line with what you are attempting to get at, thus rendering most of your response redundant, and only leaving a few decent points and a few personal attacks.
The key is to strike a balance between social help and helping oneself.
As far as who can and can't leave,... umm... these minorities were probably in a WORSE situation where they came from, and you guessed it, they left... they came here.. where people are willing to pay them to sit around and do nothing.
A much more fruitful application of social welfare would be something that has recently started to gain momentum -- workfare.. in other words, you still have to work for a living, but you get a little assistance in bringing you above the 'poverty line'.
The sentiment of the current welfare system is nice, however it was implemented by a bunch of people who would rather look nice for the camera than think about the implications of their actions. The current plan is rife with abuse, and i think that is common knowledge. It encourages people to be lazy, sit on their ass (if you work, you get less / no assistance?), it also encourages having more kids (more kids = more money), however it doesn't require that you spend this money on raising your kids, or planning for your future, etc. All in all, sounds like a poorly implemented system.
Libertarians are a little out-there with their everyone-for-themselves (almost republican?) attitude, however the liberals are just as bad with their bleeding hart b.s. that you should be guilted into paying for other's lack of motivation.
Also, i'd like for you to explain why leaving is a better alternative to voicing your opinion regarding the use of your tax dollars.
oh ok, so then you are in favor of accepting the status quo in 100% of cases, never wanting to change anything?...
"if you dont like it leave!"?... If it weren't for people who thought the exact opposite way, America wouldn't exist in the 1st place for you to spout off your point of view.
I think my intent wasn't clear (sorry, asshole first, correct myself later)..
Basically, i want to poitn out that 5-7 MB / sec is actually equivalent to 40-56 mega-bits / sec, whihc is still usb 1.1, so it can take advantage.
that's why you may think w/a USB2 hard drive, you'll never max it out, but that's not the case.. With a nice 7200rpm drive, you can theoretically out-do the wire's capacity. 480 / 8 = 60 megabytes / sec..
I didn't taunt them... I simply stated that considering that the french tend not to like americans as a whole (i'm assuming he's american..), and therefore they wouldn't like him.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad someone beat me to responding to you.
Your username says a lot about your personality, and your comment only goes to further that statement.
1) You can't possibly think that in the event of an accident a motocycle offers you more protection.
I never said it did. I said it causes less collateral damage to others.
2) I wouldn't say that driving is a right, but driving with a license in a licensed vehicle is.
I'm glad you wouldn't say that. The second part of your statement is... wrong. It might make your life very convenient and seem like a necessity, but that doesn't make it a right.
3) Please, car drivers are not going out of their way to swerve into bike riders.
If they are assholes, then yes. I am a firm believer that most people are no better than savage animals. I've seen more irresponsible behavior involving deadly weapons than i'd have cared to.
4) If anything other drivers are trying to give them a wide birth.
Some... However these people sometimes compound the problem by being skittish and nervous around bikes.
5) The thing is, motorcycles are harder to see, and its harder to judge their distance.
Part 1 is pretty much false, as all bikes in the past 20 years have had always-on headlights. The distance thing is semi-valid.. BUT, you could always wait a second and see where the fuck the guy is instead of taking a chance.
6) Think of it this way, motorcycles in traffic are like lions runing in an elephant stampeed. Yeah, they accellerate faster and have more manuverability
There is a certain level of responsibility that every motorcyclist takes upon himself every day that he or she goes out on a bike. However, that is by no means an excuse for the 'elephants' to go ahead and stampede them.
7) , but they've chosen to run amongst larger, less responsive traffic.
No one is discussing the size of the vehicles in question. The responsiveness is a different issue in that your point would only be valid if the majority of motorcycle accidents involved mean motorcyclists slamming into cars for shits and giggles. In fact, many times, it's the other way around, that the car makes a move which hits the motorcycle.
HAHAHAHAHA thank you so much for that.
Every bike since like 1976 has had a requirement for always-on lights... You are absolutely right.. If you can't see a fucking object that weighs in anywhere (including rider) from 400 to nearly 1000 pounds, and makes NOISE on top of it, you're a fucking moron.
I've never had someone deliberately do the look & try to kill me thing, but have had people act as if they didn't see me and just drift into my lane. I've had people pull out in front of me to go 20 miles an hour on a single lane road.. I've had tailgaters ride up my ass... Luckily, haven't had people open their doors into me yet..
On a positive note, if someone tries to run you off the road, you're legally (on a bike..) allowed to SHOOT AND KILL the fucking bastard, and it'll be deemed self defense, as you were assaulted by a deadly weapon / menaced (deadly weapon is implied by the charge of menacing.)
You ignore the following:
:)
Simply 'paying into the system' doesn't mean that you are truly paying for all of the costs of utilizing increased resources. Just because [insert oil company here] is getting more $$ out of an SUV driver's pocket doesn't really mean that they've paid their penance in causing the upcoming fuel supply exhaustion.
It seems that i'm of a different mind than most on this board, but i dont think driving is a right, considering the responsibilities that come with doing so -- be it environmental, economic, social, whatever.
Motorcycles do not make the road a more dangerous place to drive. A disproportionately large percentage of assholes on bikes do.
When ridden safely, motorcycles are less likely to cause bodily harm / incidental damage than cars simply because they weigh so much less. Should everyone ride a motorcycle? no. Well, maybe for a short while so they can see what we have to deal with on a daily basis
Insightful eh?
I wasn't aware that everyone who rides a motorcycle until the day of their death will have their death result from a motorcycle accident.
Looks as though i've hit a nerve.
As a collective reply:
You guys all agree that people should be allowed to do whatever they want whenever they want without regard to the common good?
What about emissions controls... minimum MPG requirements... Crash safety regulations, seatbelts, airbags? Are any of these ok to be required? What about my penchant for putting 2 foot spikes on the front of my car, and having my exhaust shoot 30 foot flames?.. Is that allowed? or... no.
You wouldn't want to stifle my independence and freedom right?
Ok, so you may not 'need' it, but at least you use it for things that a geo metro is not capable of.
by 'their', i didn't mean the consumer, i meant the vehicle -- i think that's fairly obvious.
I have a right to disagree simply because (here comes the libertarian response...) we live in a society, and their actions affect the lives of everyone in the country.
So yeah, i have a right to disagree. The reasons SUVs exist with such abundance today is because they are able to exploit loopholes in govt regulations that will hopefully be plugged as soon as possible.
Perhaps....
People don't seem to be wise enough to see past the hype being pumped into their brains 24/7..
(Not that we aren't already subject to federal regulation of automobiles..)
Whoah whoah whoah....
I doubt many people can find fault with the CR-V, or the Toyota RAV-4, etc.
They strike a balance between the SUV image, SUV ability, carlike agility, etc etc.
The SUVs people are bitching about are the mid-teen MPG, overpriced, megasized wastes of space / resources.
Note the quotes around 'intended'. :)
The car companies are whores who will peddle to whatever hte market will buy. The market will buy whatever the car companies are selling, self feeding cycle.
I can't deny your logic, however i think if we sat around and tried to figure out how many people 'need' SUVs, it'd be much smaller than the # that own them.
Most people i talk to say they need them, but eventually cave and get trapped into saying it's an image thing.
Also, a lot of awd cars / wagons are rated for towing crap too, not sure of the ratings, but a Subaru legacy or forester can tow decent amounts
You're denying the fact that a vast majority of SUVs aren't used for their 'intended' purpose?
I see many SUVs with 1 person in them on their commute to work.
Thanks! :)
Ahh yes, the old 'car' analogy, so flawed, yet.. so overused.
1) Your point would be valid if:
a) You copied the car at your house, or your friend's house, not the dealership. (Do you go back to tower records or wherever and ask them to burn you a copy of your CD?)
b) The car was freely copiable at the cost for raw materials (paid by you once again). You pay for the CD-R you use to copy the music, no? (Or, pay for the HDD that the MP3 is on, and the internet connection used to transfer it.)
2) Unfortunately, your point is invalid.
a) See above
b) THe crux of the issue is that people are INFRINGING "intellectual property", which is quite different from STEALING "physical property". I'll repeat it again, stealing requires person a to deprive person b of the use of their property. All the RIAA is being deprived of, is $$. And, as we all know, t is quite difficult to successfully sue based on potential earnings based on conjecture.
the borg do not make typos
L O L
the price you pay lies in the risk of being sued for thousands of dollars.
i did all of that, and it wouldn't work.
:(
SX6000 controller... hot swappable drive bays
ANTEC BIG BLACK server case (1280 something or other model)
redhat linux 7.2, 7.3, 8.0... none worked with the card and the software they gave me.
promise sucked -- they gave me 'updated' drivers.. also didn't work
turns out there was some sort of compatibility issues with AMD / SX6000 / Linux / Tyan MPsomethinorother motherboard..
Oh well, using win2k now..
Good responses -- you have corrected me with regards to the welfare system. If things are the way you say, then i have no qualms with it. We obviously agree on how it should be done, the only difference was that i wasn't aware that it had been changed to operate in such a manner.
Asians aren't the only minority to do well.. How about indians (from india)?
I have a good understanding of why it is that certain minorities fare better than others (chiefly a cyclical problem passed down by the generations).
one thing you are incorrect about, is racism. Racism affected nearly EVERY new nationality of people that entered the country -- be it italians (damn plumbers), irish (heavy drinkers -- do you remember when they were specifically not given jobs for years?), arabs (towel heads), asians (more derogitory terms than i care to list), etc etc. Immigrants in general are often told to go back to their country of origin, without regard to the fact that all of us, including the 'native' americans are immigrants.
I dont deny that many immigrants work harder than I do..but, that is the advantage of having an education, and a specialized skill.
OH, and gues what? i'm an immigrant too... from an eastern european country ruled by the USSR til around 10years ago no less.
i'm not sure what your deal is personally attacking me with comments such as 'try working two jobs, i bet you have never done it.'... Have you? or are you too busy posting essays to slashdot. Oh, and i'm on my way to my 9 to 5.. while my mom is on her vacation back to hungary for the 1st time in 13 years -- and she's done the two job thing quite often. BUT, she did it so that i could get an education and not have to.
So maybe i should work THREE jobs just to make you happy? To prove that i am "hard working" enough to speak about this issue?.. sounds pretty stupid to me.
In closing, i'd appreciate if you re-read my post, then before replying with your knee-jerk reactions, try to comprehend what i've said.. Much of it is in-line with what you are attempting to get at, thus rendering most of your response redundant, and only leaving a few decent points and a few personal attacks.
The key is to strike a balance between social help and helping oneself.
... umm... these minorities were probably in a WORSE situation where they came from, and you guessed it, they left... they came here.. where people are willing to pay them to sit around and do nothing.
As far as who can and can't leave,
A much more fruitful application of social welfare would be something that has recently started to gain momentum -- workfare.. in other words, you still have to work for a living, but you get a little assistance in bringing you above the 'poverty line'.
The sentiment of the current welfare system is nice, however it was implemented by a bunch of people who would rather look nice for the camera than think about the implications of their actions. The current plan is rife with abuse, and i think that is common knowledge. It encourages people to be lazy, sit on their ass (if you work, you get less / no assistance?), it also encourages having more kids (more kids = more money), however it doesn't require that you spend this money on raising your kids, or planning for your future, etc. All in all, sounds like a poorly implemented system.
Libertarians are a little out-there with their everyone-for-themselves (almost republican?) attitude, however the liberals are just as bad with their bleeding hart b.s. that you should be guilted into paying for other's lack of motivation.
Also, i'd like for you to explain why leaving is a better alternative to voicing your opinion regarding the use of your tax dollars.
oh ok, so then you are in favor of accepting the status quo in 100% of cases, never wanting to change anything?...
"if you dont like it leave!"?... If it weren't for people who thought the exact opposite way, America wouldn't exist in the 1st place for you to spout off your point of view.
The answer is,
.... minus 1.
the number of casualties had you always fired first and asked identified later
I think my intent wasn't clear (sorry, asshole first, correct myself later)..
Basically, i want to poitn out that 5-7 MB / sec is actually equivalent to 40-56 mega-bits / sec, whihc is still usb 1.1, so it can take advantage.
that's why you may think w/a USB2 hard drive, you'll never max it out, but that's not the case..
With a nice 7200rpm drive, you can theoretically out-do the wire's capacity. 480 / 8 = 60 megabytes / sec..
very wrong.
:)
those are Mega-Bits, not Mega-Bytes
Divide by eight!!
I didn't taunt them... I simply stated that considering that the french tend not to like americans as a whole (i'm assuming he's american..), and therefore they wouldn't like him.