What's with your attitude? As far as anyone can tell, you're the asshole for all your presumption.

In any case, I do signal before moving from the edge of a lane to the middle, and I do assess if it's OK to do so.

Also, where I live (California), drivers may only pass when there is three or more feet between a cyclist and a driver.

Why don't you take your sanctimoniousness someplace where it's warranted?

Where I live, as in many municipalities, motorists must yield to cyclists who may be avoiding hazards that motorists cannot see such as roadside debris, potholes, opening doors, etc.

Additionally, in major metropolitan areas, it's safer to yield to bicyclists who will pass through traffic once they've done taking the full lane as they need.

With regard to cycling safety: when I drive, I think like a bicyclist and when I bike, I think like a motorist.

Not to mention that when one cycles, a mirror doesn't provide the same kind of "rear view" as a rear view mirror does while driving.

That's ridiculous.

Just as when driving your blind spots are at 7 o'clock and 5 o'clock. And just as when driving, one compensates by turning one's head or using a mirror.

I cycle in a major metro area and started wearing a highly visible helmet camera for liability reasons.

I also noticed (anecdata!) that the camera tended to have a calming effect on motorists near me as I would (for example) turn to look over my shoulder and the camera profile was visible.

Not all motorists are calmed when they see my camera, but it seems many are (for example, they'll ease off tailgating me and shadowing my blind spots).

I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.

YMMV

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it does....

It's actually a tragedy and missed opportunity, that Jackson has so little talent as a director, and so little discipline in telling a story.

I was appalled by how little he regarded the audience - and proportionally insulted his actors - in "Desolation". Huge musical cues 'instructing' the audience of the drama or character development that was supposed to be on screen, at all times. This seems to be because he cannot elicit real performances from his actors.

I might muse that this is because to Jackson, they are not actors - but merely the armatures on which he templates his green-screen composited glory... But to assume that this is the root of his deficiency, rather than another symptom of of his artlessness, would be to succumb to curmudgeonly urges.

The lesson to be taken away is that Jackson should be designing games, not ruining popular cinema.

It appears that - despite the contempt it provoked in my teenaged self - Rankin and Bass actually produced the best ever adaptation of Tolkien, with the greatest respect and truth towards the source text in feel and substance. Perhaps, when we have destroyed the concept of copyright as a tool of corporate greed, another - more thoughtful - filmmaker might use this as a point of departure for a loving and well-crafted "Hobbit".

The wireless tools complicate everything. Otherwise? Yes. I'd just edit the interface descriptions in /etc/network/interfaces ...

Microsoft used to give all customer facing employees 5 of these, too. Ingratiating.

I missed one word, an "is" between "news" and "likely".

I called no one dumb, though I did insinuate it by calling people a subset of people who don't get their news from cable TV "smart ones". I stand by that assertion, that people who get their news through the Internet are more literate, skeptical, and open to evidence-based claims than those who get their news through cable TV.

I have no data for my claim, which I admit is a stereotype.

Finally, I don't hate the audience I characterized, though my political differences with that audience may be great.

The people still glued to their TV sets and cable television in the US in 2014 are very likely politically and educationally uniform.

Admittedly with no data to hand, the demographic who watches FOX as a source of news likely anti-intellectual, science-denying, god-fearing, economically disenfranchised, and socially regressive.

But even if I'm mistaken in my gross stereotype of the audience for FOX News, judging the "merits" of a TV network according to the size of the TV audience misses the forest for the trees which is that in 2014 the smart ones aren't really watching any cable TV at all.

One guess where those smart people are getting their news. (Hint: the Internet has many, many sources of information where even single individuals can reach millions of people pretty much in real time.)

No Net Neutrality for YOU! Pay EXTRA for Hulu!

does this mean that this Calculus text will finally stabilize, stop being updated, and the prices would drop?

Ahahahaha. *cough cough* Sorry, excuse me hahahaha

Did you ever see Christopher Walken in "Pulp Fiction"? ;-)