Regardless of whether it is sensible or not, you are behaving in a manner contrary to the rules of the road as well as the expectations of everyone else you share the road with.

If the "pause" or going through a red light is done the right way, and nobody is close enough so that me not coming to a complete stop requires anyone to change what they're doing then it's irrelevant. The only people who get angry at such things are busy-bodies who should find more important things to worry about. (Breaking traffic laws is much more dangerous for everyone when cars do it, so it doesn't apply to them).

As a cyclist I'm almost certain you don't come to a full stop at a stop sign you're going to turn right at, un-clip, wait, re-clip and start pedaling again. The countless tail-gaters I see when I'm driving my car are far more deserving of your sanctimonious ire and anyone else who likes to bitch about sensible cycling that doesn't follow the law to a T . For cyclists the ones who tick people off are the ones doing flagrantly dangerous things like zipping right through red lights or ignoring stop signs outright.

Go pound sand.

Well when I'm out cycling I make a point of pausing at those things. (Unless I'm turning right and am on a nice wide shoulder).

And "pause" is most fitting for the situation, imo. Dead stops at stop signs are only necessary when you're going through a potentially busy intersection or you need to wait for other cars at an all-way stop.

I'll stop at red lights (again except when turning right). But when I know the coast is clear I'm not waiting for it to turn green to start going again. You could potentially wait a long time if sensors are looking for other cars.

Not sure if this is the legal way to do things, but it makes sense so fuck 'em.

Not only that, but it would actually be a genuine examle of a Catch-22 - a phrase that is often misused...

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

It's easy to believe that you're happy with what you have when you haven't experienced any other options.

Hmmm, "social underachiever". I kind of like the sound of that. "Why no, I don't suck at social situations. I'd be great at it if I tried really hard. I'm just what you'd call a 'social underachiever.' Yeah, that's the ticket!'"

I should start using that. :)

If you think it's biased then it must be biased, amirite? It's purely biased and anyone who could disagree is mentally unstable. Because there's only one correct way to think.

Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations are not the only two out there, though they seem to be the only two discussed. I personally prefer objective collapse theory.

Here the wavefunction is an actual physical phenomenon, collapse is not subjective while still being non-deterministic and having no hidden variables. You also don't have to consider both alive and dead cats or many simultaneous worlds you have to take on faith.

Furthermore, if everyone cared about science, then you wouldn't be quite so special.

Well, true, but then there'd be a lot more people out there who would be interesting to talk to.

So cyborg cockroaches are smart enough to start up an ethics debate? These suckers are advanced!

Even though The Shield isn't as good as Breaking Bad (but still pretty damn good), I thought the season quality was pretty solid from year to year.

It also had a better ending than BB imo.

At least it wouldn't be another proxy war against China. Those things never work out.

True. But whether or not the kernel is a microkernel has nothing to do with whether or not it is a Unix kernel.

Linux is just as much of a Unix kernel as he intended to build.

But really, for any reasonable definition of the term, Linux is essentially a Unix kernel.

1) a surprising number of people actually commit suicide by decapitating themselves with a chainsaw.

I was going to reply with a "citation needed" to this one but, on second thought, if this is true then I really don't need to know.

Maybe...