That's great! Thanks for sharing this information :)

'Making my own lane' isn't a solution in those situations, because 'making my own lane' only works well on wide roads at nighttime. Tell me, what's the right solution?

The visible intent here is to give cyclists some safety space while they have to ride among the cars, especially at night. Cars tend to push that safety space to the limits (how many times have I almost been clipped by a car's mirror?), and any practical edge is worth it.

Who pays for the road is a question of how corporatist might makes right. The real, tangible question here is SAFETY. Is it safe for me to share the road with cars? Generally so, but how about doing the same, going up hills? Or in inclement weather, like wind, or heavy rain? That is why bicycle lanes are important.

I am responsible for my own safety, and moreso, because I don't have the protection that a car would afford me. I have to be able to say that it would be better for me to ride slowly on that sidewalk than it would be for me to ride among the cars in heavy, visibility-reducing rain, or when I'm riding into the sunlight at dawn or dusk (sunglare on windows and/or driver dazzle).

Bike riders may put themselves in danger by not following the rules, but pretending to be something I'm not (a car) has landed me in more potentially dangerous situations than taking comprehensive control of the situation in the first place. To my irritation, that also includes bending rules not meant to be bent. What is truly important here is that we be given a place (a bicycle lane) where they can both follow the rules and be safe 99% of the time.

The bike projector would give a similar reaction to a car driver.

Even a wobbly line would tell a driver "oh, i need to give him a little space if possible". Lines and space-giving are very much in a driver's mentality. Scoring points (+1 for that cyclist!) isn't reality.

I agree that most drivers tend not to care, and that's why we need things that work, even if they don't work perfectly. I seriously doubt that this would give a driver a "hunter mentality".

In many parts of the country, keeping off the pavement means riding through mud, grass, and people's property. Riding on sidewalks is not a safe solution, and is prone to finding that crack in the sidewalk that punctures your tire, but it's often (at least in my experience) a better solution than running along with thoroughfare traffic.

Lumping bicycles together with large vehicle traffic is an imperfect solution (30mph tops, sometimes on 50mph roads), and is a 'solution' that the highway department doesn't want to solve appropriately by actually building more infrastructure. Building appropriate lanes would also encourage proper rule-following.

We can hold bicyclists to the same rules as cars, but this is like expecting an oversize truck to share a road with a car on a narrow 2-lane road. Someone has to give, and it makes sense to avoid an accident in the first place. I'd rather face the ditch than to face (another) car who thinks that it's safe to tailgate me when the road is wet, very dry (sand drifts), or debris-ridden.

There is much more liability to a bicycle rider in an accident. Sure, carrying insurance helps, but it doesn't fix your broken back from when a car rear-ended you. We also know that insurance companies don't have your welfare in mind.

The problem isn't the rules; the problem is the way that we expect to put apples and oranges together and expect apple juice, when clearly it would be better separately.

Don't forget the new wardrobe, I hear they're 20 years behind as far as fashion and such.

No, I don't think they do the Big Hair of the 80's.

The parent post ignores the fact that there's a significant amount of red tape involved in any military action.

Just because there's a billeting office that controls this aspect of security doesn't reflect the fact that there's also a security screening involved. Furthermore, when there's not a well-documented good reason (i.e. more paperwork), why should they let you in at all?

I really think that access to salt isn't a priority.

As the articles state, the locations of existing power conduits was one of the largest deciding factors.

Camp Williams also has a lot more going for it than meets the eye, seeing as how it's on a river's cliffside. It wouldn't be that difficult to put most of the NSA's datacenter into the ground, and just cool it with the help of the local river.

Take for example Area 51.
It's secrets are kept secret because it's remote; its active security measures are second to that.

Then take for example the Pentagon.
It's secrets are kept secret because of higher quality active security measures.

Even if something is a million square feet, what goes on inside can still be a well-maintained secret. Protecting the infrastructure may seem important, until you start thinking that what goes on inside that infrastructure is more important.

Regardless of how we want to spin it, our world is changing. Managing those changes before they overwhelm us is important too.

Sure, polluted run-off and the diminishing of wetlands are important matters. Eventually, people will be more mindful of those effects. Perhaps keeping the "remember the environment" ball rolling may eventually address those matters closer to your mind.

Every little bit matters, right?

A cow that burps less will fart more. Unless the methane coming out of the rear is less than the methane coming out of the front, this won't work.

Personally, I think it would be a lot more effective (and it makes more sense) to genetically engineer the methane-producing bacteria in their digestive tract, solving the problem at the root of the cause. Of course, you'd have to make bacteria that are more efficient than their natural counterparts; but this can be done faster and cheaper than raising generations of genetically engineered cattle would be.

While your post makes sense, I simply don't see Google as being willing to join that group of people.

Google's policies are generally the "nice guy" approach to things. They might be powerful, but they don't like to put themselves in a situation of potentially big liability.

(just imagine, google's servers could be hacked, revealing who is where and what they're doing). Google has enough problems trying to fend off the litigation it feels it doesn't deserve; why add to that plate?

We are responsible for what happens within our own country. The DHS is responsible for knowing what happens within our own country.

I agree that domestic spying isn't the way to go; after all, we should be able to earn the trust of the people within our nation.

I'm not fond of police state policies. After all, it focuses too much power in one location, and power breeds corruption.

Thank you for the clarification.

you're surrounded by magnetic fields, whether it's from the power wiring in the house you live in or your wifi access point.

I'm guessing that the most significant reason why they have antennas that size is because they're trying to -not- have it interfere with things (well, your old microwave will still do that, but you can't do too much about that aside from replace it).

The threat from magnetic fields comes from strong magnetic fields (it polarizes the atoms). This is why magnets around CRTs is a bad idea, but that being said, it takes a SIGNIFICANT amount of power to make an amagnetic object behave in a magnetic fashion.