So you really, honestly believe that if he'd answered the questions that the Swedish investigators wanted to ask, that he'd have been sent from Sweden, via some flavor of rendition, right to Gitmo? Assange's nearly Jobs-like reality distortion field is definitely getting to you. Or, you're just trolling in the interests of ... what, exactly?

According to the British Medical Bulletin, people racing mountain bikes experience 4 serious injuries per 100 hours of riding.

Shareholders also get paid by watching their shares become more valuable over time. They can sell them down the road, as they see fit. I don't get any Starbucks dividends, either - but what I own there is worth about 1000% more than when I bought. At some point, I'll cash it out, pay the long term capital gains taxes, and get one big ol' dividend for having owned a sliver of the company along the way. I don't feel the least bit troubled by the lack of a dividend in that stock.

I was hoping you could translate it into left wing moron speak, perhaps using a metaphor involving healing crystals and/or homeopathy. That'd be super, thanks. If that's too hard, perhaps just translate it into some sort of yoga-energy-manipulation example, or maybe use the interaction of wind turbines killing thousands of bats as an analogy to the sterile neutrons decaying.

This isn't about common sense, or safety. The deliberately visible, obstructionist cyclists here do what they do to make a point. It's the Occupy Travel Lane movement, essentially. If they want to use travel lanes, they use travel lanes. I'm not saying they don't have the right to, what I'm saying is that even when they have the option to easily let a column of cars get by at normal speeds, they don't. On purpose. Over and over again. There is the rare, sensible cyclist who gets it, and who isn't thinking that he'll make it better for future cyclists by making enemies of normal commuters.

Nice platitude, but again, completely unworkable. If a cop is already there, ahead of the cyclist in traffic and able to see him, run across multiple complete lanes of moving cars and physically stop him, then he has a chance at writing a citation. Otherwise, it's a lost cause, and the cyclists know it. This is the second worst commuting area in the country. The cops don't make a fuss in traffic unless people are on fire or shooting at each other, because pulling over a single person to write a citation will cause a backup that will last for 45 minutes. The Occupy The Travel Lanes douches know this, and revel in it.

I'm talking about middle-of-the-business-day road use in dense urban and suburban areas heavy with traffic. These are commuters, mostly. The road team and recreational guys who travel in packs are a completely different sort of problem, but at least they move a little faster.

As mentioned above, no. They won't, can't, don't.

Because I don't run red lights, or obstruct traffic. But that's the behavior we're talking about here. The guy going 50 in a 45 doesn't slow down dozens of other people. Are you insisting that the two things are equivalent - that moving along with everyone else at 5mph over the limit is the same as running a red light or holding up a long column of cars and trucks for no reason but Occupying?

Generally, here, that's not true. People falling more than 10mph below the posted speed limit while not behind some other obstruction are committing a moving violation.

Depends on the jurisdiction. Those are posted in places where (mostly) heavy trucks are notorious for slowing things down, and they post the minimum so that there's zero opportunity for argument in the case of a citation. Regardless, in some parts of this area, the cop can simply write a citation for "traveling at an unreasonable speed" - which they'll issue to, for example, someone stupid enough to move slow, heavy equipment (like a crane trailer, whatever) over the road during rush hour. That heavy trailer vehicle, unlike a guy on a bike who can hop a curb and disappear from traffic, is a lot easier to cite.

This morning, me and a row of about 20 other vehicles took about 12 minutes to climb a hill behind a single cyclist. So what should have been a 14 minute drive turned into a nearly 30 minute drive, complete with lots of extra fuel burned by many people. The long hill is a no passing zone, and he was slowly climbing it straight up the middle of the single travel lane. Of course there's a full-lane-width, paved shoulder on the right, and he could have moved over (without changing his pace for a moment) for the few seconds you're mentioning to allow an entire row of traffic to move past him and return to operating at an efficient speed, but no. Just another guy that thinks he'll get people to like cyclists more if he does everything in his power to make traffic move as slowly as possible, or is hoping that he can force others to pass on the right, risking a citation. Deliberate, purposeful douchiness, and completely unnecessary, as he had options that wouldn't have slowed him down a bit.

Again, since you you've chosen not to read, because most of the road construction/maintenance budget here comes from taxes levied on the fuel that cars and trucks (not cyclists) consume.

And report what? "There's a guy in a red and blue outfit riding a bicycle slowly in the middle of road!" No tag number, and fifteen minutes before a cop could show up to where the call had been made - or longer during rush hour. So that what, he can issue a citation for what someone described on the phone? Doesn't work that way. Cyclists are cited here when a cop happens to actually see them doing the usual red light violation that you're so pleased to do yourself. They'll also get a citation for weaving between cars, but only if the cop can actually catch them in traffic. It's rare, obviously, for all of the circumstances to line up just right and allow that to happen.

Sometimes, if it's safe, sure. What I don't do is deliberately drive under the limit (say, 15mph in a 45mph zone) in a way that prevents all the traffic behind me from moving at the posted limit. Me driving 50mph in a 45mph doesn't impede the people behind me. You do get that, right? Maybe you don't.

Not generalizations. Specific observations from just the last two days, driving only 15 miles. What's the unfair part - saying it out where other people might see it?

Who are you talking to? I'm not putting anyone's life and limb at risk. Instead, I wait at green lights while cyclists running red lights cut in front me. Instead, I travel at 5mph up hills rated 40mph while I wait behind the cyclist who doesn't like using the bike lane that runs parallel to the main lane, two meters away. How am I risking someone's life by sitting in first gear crawling along behind the cyclist? Or are you fantasizing a vision of me passing them by swerving into oncoming traffic and then cutting back in right in front of them? That would be your imagination, not reality.

Here, roads are largely paid for by fuel taxes, something the bikes don't pay. But they also get their own special lanes, just for them, that I can't use as a car driver or as a pedestrian. All just for them, paid for with taxes on fuel that the bikes don't use.

I didn't say they weren't biking. I said that they're biking in the main lanes, mixed in with the long row of cars stacked up behind them. They're too cool for the special bike lanes, two meters away, made just for them. Mostly, they seem to enjoy using the main lanes specifically because it antagonizes the other drivers. This is visible in the form of shouted insults, giving the finger, etc., that they offer to the car drivers who ask them to move over to the dedicated bike lanes.

Again, you're fantasizing. Most of our roads have cameras on them. Car drivers behaving that way will have their plates photographed. The deliberately provocative cyclists, on the other hand, have no way to identify them, unless you can recognize the finger they're flipping at 10mph from the center travel lanes of a major road.

Should I try cycling around my neighborhood in a safe and sensible way, or should I do it like the countless idiots like the ones I described, who represent the vast majority of the cyclists I see on local roads? Please be specific.

Do you have any suggestions for what to do about cyclists who are jabbering on their phone via bluetooth while they ride? Or who are having their texts read to them? Or who are wobbling along at 10mph using an entire lane with a 45mph limit, as they fiddle with their handlebar-mounted smartphone's You Are Fabulous, Look How Fit You Are! app? Or those that weave through slow moving cars in order to beat them to a red light so they can scoot across the intersection against the light when they think they can make it? Most of the risk I see involving cyclists is completely self-inflicted. We have all sorts of bicycle lanes around here, paid for by all tax payers, but reserved just for those special snowflakes on bikes. And those lanes look just fantastic there, empty, while the guy on the road bike climbs a hill at 3mph in the middle of traffic in a main lane right next to it. So far, my sympathy continues to hover right around zero.

As can cheap retail multi-rotors. Complex ground-side mission planning and completely autonomous flights from take to landing.

They're all drones, and no matter what we all think, that's the media term now and there's no escape. So, we just need to run with it.

It's a lot simpler than that. They came right out and said they targeted the groups in question because of the political orientation of those groups. As other groups were processed in weeks, the conservative groups were asked questions about their personal reading lists as their applications lingered for months or years. What part of that are you not understanding?

The issue wasn't denial, it was the issuing of hugely onerous lists of harassing questions intended to delay the processing of these groups' applications, thus keeping them from being processed. Not denied, NOT APPROVED, either.

You can't say the groups were or weren't denied, because they were kept in limbo, on purpose, for months and sometimes years. As good as denied, but actually better, because they couldn't appeal that non-denial, limbo condition.

And you're making stuff up. Who said they were denied? They weren't denied their status as non-profits, they were denied the same level of access and service as their liberal counterparts. Deliberate, purposeful, and unconstitutional unequal treatment under the law.

Sure, that's unreasonable. But the actually unbelievable part is that investigators had six more people whose email they wanted to collect, and - shockingly! - there was also a failure of storage for those same people, and those records were also beyond reaching.

Unbelievable, but sure as hell convenient for the administration. Unbelievable, and completely predictable for "the most transparent administration in history."

Yeah, facts like six other failures of storage for emails for six other people's mail the investigators want to read? What a crazy coincidence. But facts are facts, right?

And please provide a list of hundreds of OWS-flavored groups that had their applications deliberately steered into limbo (not approved, not denied) using tactics like asking the organizers for lists of all of the people in their groups, what books they read, what they think about - you know, the same sort of stuff that was asked of the conservative groups whose applications were deliberately kept on ice past the election cycle in question. So, please - all of those OWS groups in the same status, and be specific. The IRS doesn't have such a list, because there isn't one (as there is with the conservative groups that were abused by that agency). So you must have a large list that nobody else does. Do tell! Specifically.