"We reject the view, ... that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."

I reject the view that your works have been published in a medium where copyright is applicable if the medium is specifically designed to have its own safeguards against copying. Such safeguards are their own form of copy prevention and, if used, should be considered a replacement, not augmentation, of the copyright protections afforded by law.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are no studies specifically compare stopping in traffic to lane-splitting, and thus no numbers. (unless you have a reference to some that I'm not aware of) But anecdotally, even the pro-splitting websites I see caution riders to be attentive because drivers aren't expecting you and won't necessarily notice you. As for blame, I don't actually care who causes the accidents, because that isn't relevant, the actual accident rate is what matters. The individual causes are helpful in reducing the incidence of accidents by knowing who to target for education, but ultimately the accident rate is what it is regardless who is at fault. The end result is that the practice has an elevated risk. Of course, knowing of the elevated risk can help riders make intelligent choices about the risk in a given situation and determine what the best and safest course of action is.

In short, I'm not saying "motorcyclists are teh evil when they lane split", I'm saying the practice has certain risk factors that need to be evaluated when deciding whether to lane split.

I actually don't care whether they'll get to their destination faster than me, though that seems to be a commonly held belief among the motorcyclists replying here.

50 * 50 * .3% = 2500 * .003 = 7.5, so yes 7-8 emails per day. 3% would be 75 false positives per day. Incidentally, the 70% success rate if every person got one spam for every good email means the company would still receive 750 spams per day, or 15 per person per day.

From the article, "The end result was a system capable of detecting spam 70 percent of the time, with a 0.3 percent false positive rate." The summary dropped an instance of the word "percent". I wasn't sure how to read it either so I specifically looked for the source of the 0.3 in the original.

It's not a black or white, either or situation.

Precisely, this is exactly what I'm trying to convey. As long as you are aware of the risk factors involved then you can mitigate those risks by engaging in the practice in as safe a manner as possible, just like any risky practice (such as the very act of driving itself). The question of whether it is legal or not is not nearly as relevant as the question you must ask yourself every time you engage in it: Is it safe, this time. If traffic is stopped and you have what looks like a pretty clear path between two lanes and proceed at a safe, modest speed, then the risks are as minimal as they're likely to get. If traffic is moving just fast enough for people to be irrationally jockeying for lanes and the weather is inclement, the risks are high and it probably isn't worth it. Just like when I go out in the morning to drive to work, if I see hail and snow coming down I'm pretty likely to ask myself is it safe, this time, and answer no.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean the decision to actually do it is obvious.

No, you're taking my comments to an illogical extreme. Technically speaking, any driving is questionably safe, but we're speaking of something which is well out of the norm. I'm used to seeing other cars passing me, it happens tens, even hundreds of times per drive on a highway, and I'm used to passing other cars, I do it tens, even hundreds of times per drive on a highway. With the familiarity of the event comes a particular measure of safety because I'm trained by rote to watch for it and be aware of it. The event becomes almost a situational reflex.

If someone makes a blatantly unsafe driving maneuver like changing lanes without signaling and without being aware that another vehicle is beside them, then the drivers around them have every right to be upset, and that person will likely be at fault for any resulting accidents. If traffic is moving slowly and a vehicle appears in an unexpected spot, such as out of a marked lane, then the vehicle in the spot where vehicles are not typically expected to be needs to be particularly vigilant. That extra vigilance is precisely because other drivers do not expect him to be there, and are monitoring the locations of the vehicles in the lanes around them.

In particular, in my personal experience as an automobile driver, I tend to track the locations of the vehicles around me and have a pretty good idea of where each one is at any given point in time even if I haven't specifically looked at them in the past few seconds. When a motorcycle comes up between two lanes they are traveling at a speed substantially higher than the rest of the vehicles around me and so can travel quite a bit farther than the other cars around me (all traveling at about the same speed) before my mental picture catches and includes them.

Why would I intentionally block someone's bike?

In which case yes, they've made the practice as safe as it is likely to get. Unfortunately, drivers in most areas are still not used to motorcycles engaging in lane splitting because it just doesn't happen all that often, and are unlikely to be specifically watching for it.

Its not lane splitting that I have a problem with, it is lane splitting followed by being upset when the potential consequences, which can be caused by drivers being unaware of this unexpected (and rare, where I am) occurrence, are manifest. Every example of the consequences becoming manifest that I've heard from a biker has outright blamed the driver for trying to stop the bike because they were upset the bike was lane splitting, yet I don't know anyone who would inflict injury on another plus thousands of dollars of damage on their own vehicle over a feeling of indignance. I'm sure it happens, as a variant of road rage, but I can't help but think that the problem of drivers actively attempting to injure a biker is overblown.

The fact that someone is driving a vehicle that can't handle the traffic conditions they encounter along their route without engaging in a questionably safe practice doesn't change the safety factor of the practice.

In some places, lane splitting is legal.

That doesn't mean its wise or safe. Don't go lane splitting on your motorcycle and then get pissed that someone who couldn't see you because you're moving at twice the speed of traffic tried to change lanes and you wrecked. You were engaging in an unsafe, if legal, maneuver.

I see Jessica Simpson as a freakishly stretched elf - on the verge of starvation.

an accident has just happened but there's no safe place for you to stop?

I've had that one on several occasions, typically where I observe an accident on the highway in the other direction and there's no realistic way for me to even get to the accident in a safe manner, nor would I be of any use or assistance if there were. In particular this happens with snowstorms, where someone runs off the road in a non-life-threatening way and it is very unsafe for a civilian vehicle to pull off the road to attempt to render aid.

Another difference is that the ATC knows when to shut the hell up and let the pilot do his job if something goes wrong, just like someone in the passenger seat would. But someone on the other end of the phone may not even know he is talking to a driver.

It is the job of the driver to make the other end of the line aware that he's driving, and may need to completely divert his attention unexpectedly for indeterminate periods of time. When I'm driving and have a reason to talk on the phone (usually to get directions, or to make a quick call to check if we need something at the grocery store on my way home) I inform the other person that I'm driving, and if something comes up I just say 'hold on' and ignore them completely until the relevant danger has passed. I've never had anyone even annoyed at this, and don't really understand why anyone has any difficulty with this. Part of learning to drive is learning that the road and the conditions around you, including other drivers, are your number one focus. Anything else, radio, passengers, phone, be damned. If conditions on the road require more attention than usual, the rest can all wait.

Anyway, although it does seem that his involvement, while not lowering quality imho, does seem to doom some shows. Why is that?

Because he seems to work for Fox a lot, and they seem to like to kill shows off whenever the execs shuffle offices.

Not a contradiction at all, it is deemed licensed to you as opposed to somebody else. That part means the license is non-transferrable. Looks to me like they violated their own license.