.... and?

Well, we could sit here and have an in-depth non-oversimplified conversation, but we'd still land on the point that cars sharing roads with bikes is more dangerous than roads only being for cars. Simple math and statistics willl bear that out regardless of how talented you make every driver in the world to be.

The people who think it's more complicated than that would do the world a great service by becoming organ donors.

Ummmmmm no. Just for clarification, do you understand why you only use the left lane for passing?

What, by making you respond?

I've heard that to. Having been both a driver and a pedestrian, I would MUCH rather dodge cyclists on a sidewalk than on a street. I'd happily take a broken arm if it meant I'd never collide with a cyclist in my car.

If it were me I'd tell him he needs to go the DMV and pass a test to get a license to ride his bike on the road like every car driver does. Then he'd have to be subject to all of the traffic laws and safety procedures (i.e. wearing a helmet and having lights installed on the bike with proper training on their usage) and he'd have to pay registration fees that help maintain the roads.

I'd love to hear all this talk about responsible driving from somebody who could get a ticket for not wearing a helmet or for running a red light.

Fact: Bicycles move slower than car traffic. This means more obstacles are on the road. This increases danger. I am correct. Sorry.

Uh, no. It's because you travel less than a quarter of the speed of the vehicles you're traveling with, you're likely to instantly die if you're involved in a collision with a car, and you think traffic rules don't apply to you. It doesn't matter how good all the drivers in the world become, you're still greatly increasing the chance of a tragedy by riding your bicycle on a road designed for cars.

You are willingly putting yourself into a dangerous situation, you really own up to it.

I haven't seen a Windows 7 BSOD yet. Is one of the new features of this OS that it brings back all apps I had running to the state they were in before the crash happened?

Well, I'm sorry to hear that the 0 in Raid 0 refers to the amount of data you'll get back when something goes wrong. :/

I did want to answer your question, though, as I've encountered this myself. I have too many gigs of data to easiliy back up. One of the things I've done is organize things a bit. For example, I have some data I'll likely not need for several years, if ever. I have that all compressed. I call this the 'Archive Data'. Every so often I dump all this data to a cheap external drive and throw it in the closet somewhere.

Then I've got data I need a little more urgently, I call it the 'Active Data'. It gets backed up once a week on a drive that stays on all the time. During this backup, the 'Archive Data' folder is skipped. This dramatically reduces how much space I really need for a backup, and it speeds the process up quite a bit so I'm more likely to do it frequently.

Finally , and I should have mentioned this sooner, but everything I do is organized by 'project'. That project could be "2009 taxes' or "Beach Photoshoot' and so on. That 2009 Taxes folder? Yeah I can compress that and throw that into Archive. The point is that you keep the actual amount of data you need to keep backed up in a much smaller space. I mean 6 TB won't even fit on one drive!

Oh, I do have one other suggestion. I have a few DVD rips myself. But I don't back those up provided I still have the original media. Yeah, it takes a long time rip them, but I don't care about them when I've got old bits of work I need to keep handy in case I go job searching again.

Since the days of your 256 meg had drive prices have gone down, USB enclosures were invented, and our computers became capable of doing more with whatever data we fed them.

Yes. The digital camera was invented as well.

The power of C is that you can use it to make your own language!

Well I'll put it this way: I do a lot of scripting, but I don't call myself a programmer. It wouldn't offend me if somebody who say, understood memory management, considered me a sissy.

Well, I'll put it this way: The express purpose of purchasing this content is to distribute it with ads so a profit can be generated. If the local carrier can't show local ads, there is zero reason for them to air any of the content.

Yes.

The spot where they dubbed it in was put there so the local ad could be inserted in. In other words: it's designed that way.

I always considered that the definition of scripting.

Is that all? My villagers always required 2 meat to make a bed.