I don't own a 4k TV, but I've watched one, when fed a proper 4k source, the difference is, "holy crap, when can I get one of those?!?"

Only if you're looking at it too closely. At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect a difference in. Up close, yeah, it's obviously going to look astounding, and most people have "too large" a screen for their viewing distance, so in a way, I guess it works out :)

The problem with 4k monitors is that they have slow refresh rates (30hz?), slow response time, and all the usual non-IPS problems like poor viewing angle and color. None of which matters terribly for programming (save response time which might make scrolling a bit blurry.)

Steel bends, and bends back. Aluminum is the best example, being about three times lighter, but incredibly brittle. Carbon is also very brittle, just at the microscopic level. It'll fray, and slowly degrade until it comes a part -- like most fabrics.

I'm sorry, but you know not what you speak. Aluminum is used on millions of planes for, what, almost a century? There are very malleable forms of steel (like the springs in your car) and very brittle forms of steel (like some kitchen knives.) Go and look at the carbon fiber wings on thousands upon thousands of aircraft.

Go look at the carbon fiber rear seat/chain stays and front forks on millions of bicycles.

People commonly attribute specific qualities to broad material categories like "steel" or "aluminum" like you just did, which is completely ignorant of the fact that all these materials can be engineered for different properties.

Carbon fiber is the most engineer-able material available, just about. Choosing a fighter jet part was pretty stupid, given it was engineered for weight, very occasional use, and lots of airflow, etc. They could almost certainly have a proper ceramic rotor designed for them, but it's probably too expensive or they got sponsorship with AP (given the article etc. this seems likely.)

4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.

Youtube is full of examples of the idiocy - many videos of "awww look, he's playing with...*BANG* OH GOD OH GOD"

  Smart guns may not be perfect, but would they lead to 4,000 situations a year where someone's life was in danger and a gun owner couldn't activate it? Probably not, given that there are only about 230 justifiable homicides a year, and 60,000 cases where the gun is presented but not actually used: http://takingnote.blogs.nytime...

So, gun owners: either start being more responsible with killing devices, or face increasing regulation of said killing devices. You want to have your own kids shoot you, that's fine, and I welcome your genes coming out of the pool. The problem comes when my kid comes over to play at your house, you lied or didn't tell me you had a gun in the house, and your kid shoots my kid in the face.

But hey, keep on showing up at restaurant chains loaded for the apocalypse, freaking out people, and helping us pass more gun regulations!

I talk with almost every driver I ride with and ask them how Uber works for them. Some are clearly filtering, others quite honest and forthright. In general a lot of them seem to be reasonably pleased.

The near-universal complaint is the star rating system. For those who don't know: Uber requires drivers maintain a FOUR AND A HALF STAR RATING or they're "fired."

One driver described a guy who he picked up, he was cheerful and polite, the guy barked out the address, glowered in the back seat with his hoodie up, didn't say a word, got out, and gave the driver a 1 star rating.

Other drivers complained that many of their fares are drunk out of their minds and give them ratings that are, at best, a mistake. People can't dial a telephone when they're drunk, but uber wants them to give a subjective rating? Can't you imagine the drunk chick who's all "WEEEEELELLLLL I THOUGHT HE HAAAAAAD A FUNNNNNNAAAY NOSE. TWO STARS FOR YOU!"

Most of the drivers said that the star system just simply wasn't understood by passengers - or that passengers had a star-to-happiness scale the drivers thought was reasonable, but Uber's scaling was absurd; they don't fault the passengers at all. I've said to each driver that "One star means you did something horrible, or I felt unsafe, or the car was filthy, etc. Two stars means something was off. Three stars to me meant a fine ride, no complaints. Four stars meant something was above the norm/my expectations. Five stars meant singing angels descended."

Each nodded and said, basically: exactly, totally reasonable...but Uber expects that even if the ride was nothing special, you're giving drivers 4-5 stars.

I'm sure you've got some beautiful excuse for how this is just the way you're dealing with having so many people who want to drive for Uber. But really, with a ranking system none of the customers understand how you use, you might as well just be employing Russian Roulette.

Oh, and by the way: I'm fed up with the fact that I can't leave feedback/a complaint for drivers I have to cancel a ride with because a driver was dicking around for 10 minutes (I call these guys the Uber Couch Drivers - they're sitting on the couch withthe app open...get up, brush their teeth, make a sandwich, kiss the wife goodbye, take the dog for a walk, then get in the car, adjust their hair, punch in my address into the GPS, then make their way over). Fed up with the fact that there's no way to reach a person at Uber if there's a problem, like accidentally leaving something in the car, or having an immediate safety concern about a vehicle or driver. I'm fed up with the form replies to complaints via the app (I don't want $5, or even $10 off my next ride. I want to you to fix the problem I complained about), and I'm fed up with your marketing staff thinking they're just the Bee's Knees. Three times I've tried to get Uber to do a promo for an event that totally fits Uber's potential customer base, and each time, the best that you could offer was your standard $10 off a ride, only for new signups. Which as an event organizer, made me take a big, epic Polite Chuckle and delete the email. You might as well employ robots as your marketing staff, because they've got about as much freedom or creativity as one.

Public transportation is en expensive service, mostly subsidized through taxes, these hypocritical parasites help make it that much more expensive for everybody else.

Until you start paying a toll box at the end of your driveway, stop bitching about people fare-evading or the cost of public transit projects.

If it's "mostly subsidized through taxes", then why are there (rather significant) fares, and why is fare evasion such a massive issue? It's either "public" or it isn't, and it's either "mostly subsidized" or it isn't. In my city, a monthly bus+subway pass costs $70/month. That's cheaper than owning a car, but not by much, and the system is, among other things, clearly laid out to isolate rich neighborhoods from poor ones, and service ends around midnight. It's also hobbled significantly by the massive amount of traffic, namely all the selfish assholes sitting in their cars, alone, clogging up the streets so the busses, which take up about 3-4 cars worth of space, hold 30-60 people.

Nevermind that in many countries - the US for example - public transit spending is a fraction of the spending on roads (and airports), and drivers do not even remotely come close to paying for their share of the maintenance costs of roads, just like airlines and their passengers do not even remotely come close to paying for airports and related infrastructure. In my particular state, the various fees and taxes collected from drivers equates to about a third of the total cost of our roads.

It's particularly infuriating since those road costs are predominantly out in rural areas, where few people use them. Those rural areas tend to be full of "fiscal conservatives" who don't like "handouts." Their elected representatives consistently vote down public transit projects, declaring them a "waste." The cities are the economic engines, generating the most tax revenue. They're also the most efficient places to live, in terms of utilities and transportation. And the places which most desperately need, and benefit from, solid public transit.

" but if it gets a crack or gouge in it, the frame can't be mended... it has to be tossed"

Calfree has been repairing CF frames and components for over a decade. I have no idea why you're claiming it's not repairable.

Cyclists take "the middle of the lane" in areas where they know there isn't enough space for them to be passed safely. In many states and countries, this is procedure recommended by officials, and codified in law.

If cyclists pulled over to let traffic by, they'd spend all day simply standing at the side of the road.

The white line denotes the start of the road surface. Cyclists are not required to ride to the right of it, particularly since there's debris such as glass and metal that will destroy tires.

Rural one-lane roads are not "highways", especially if there is no shoulder.

A cyclist on a bike is not a "tour de france wannabee" any more than you in your car are an "Indianapolis 500 wannabee."

You're the one who seems righteous (and selfish) thinking you're the only one allowed to use the road, or that you're given some sort of magical preference over other road users.

Are you talking about the southern california driver who started a confrontation with two cyclists, then ended it by pulling around them and then slamming on the brakes, gravely injuring one of them? Then told a police officer he did it to "teach them a lesson"? He was convicted of multiple felonies, 6, I think, by a jury.

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

I laughed when I saw the comment about cyclists being "provocative" right after the commenter says "you tell them to get out of your way."

Your comment shows the same bias. The reason they get their cars kicked and spit on is because they "buzz" a group of cyclists to "teach them a lesson" or honk at them to "get them out of my way" or scream "GET OUT OF THE ROAD" out their window.

You think we're second class, subservient road users. You think roads "are for cars." You fly into an absolute rage at the sight of two people riding their bicycles next to each other instead of one behind the other. You endanger our lives, and then when finally we have enough and stop being silent, you scream blue-bloody-murder about it.

As a pedestrian, I fail to see why having two-wheeled idiots blasting through red lights is safer for me.

Strawman. Nobody is suggested legalizing the behavior you describe. Also, drivers are blasting through those same lights, at equal or greater speed, presenting far more danger - but you already accept them doing so.

Second: In NYC, 99.9% or so of pedestrian injuries are due to motor vehicle drivers. The remainder are due to collisions with cyclists. The city does not track fault in such collisions. Ride a bike in the city and you'll learn quickly that pedestrians will step out into the road relying on their ears, right into the path of a cyclist doing 15mph. And then get angry when you manage to avoid not hitting them.

As cycling has exploded in popularity in NYC - increasing by an order of magnitude - pedestrian injuries from collisions with cyclists have fallen. Roads in NYC which have bike lanes added become safer for all road users (people in cars, people on bicycles, people on foot.)

Especially since their view (if they were looking) and mine are likely to be obstructed by the cars & vans they're overtaking (usually on the wrong side).

An average-height adult male riding a bicycle is substantially higher than the roofline of most passenger cars. Our ability to see around us is unmatched by any other road user; most drivers have a viewpoint that's around my waist. And then they're inside a box, where they have roof pillars and other objects obstructing their view.

The right to pass traffic on the "wrong" side aka the righthand side in the US, is a specifically codified right in many states. In my state, we are allowed to pass on the right, and there is even a specific section that specifies that it is not an excuse for a collision with a cyclist that they were passing other traffic on the right.

. They're a group of professionals.... who act like professionals.

First off, "study for a test that's hard" is not "professional." A professional is someone who spends years training in skills specific to their vocation (navigating a city, and driving a passenger car, is not a vocation-specific skill) in order to do it.

Second, calling london cab drivers professionals is a laugh. Fire up youtube and search for "london cyclist attack" and note video after video of cabbies attacking cyclists. If they're such professionals, why do they not understand the rules of the road (that allow the cyclist to be where they are), break the rules themselves, endanger the cyclist, and then attack them?

I've been using linux since 1998. I don't need a lecture on open source licensing.

Charging for access to data is fundamentally incompatible with claiming it's "open source" by many people's definitions.