If they were smart, the New World Order would be a real thing instead of just a conspiracy theory.

A lot of our freedoms are owed to the idiocy and utter incompetence of the men and women serving in those intelligence agencies.

Yup, the all 'Merican Camaro is an Australian designed car made in Canada?

So basically you hate pedestrians doing to you just what you do to motorists.

Quite a few.

Every regular cyclist I know here in Perth doesn't have a car, in fact the only regular cyclist I know who does have a Class C drivers license makes it a point not to ride on roads as much as possible. I imagine it's worse in somewhere like London where you can live quite well without a car.

Do you have evidence that the majority of cyclists have licenses. If not your anecdotal evidence is only as good as my anecdotal evidence.

Now the only reason I want cyclists to be registered is so they can be identified and have their road using privileges revoked when they do something wrong, just like motorists and motorcyclists are. I've seen too many near accidents from cyclists pulling out into traffic without looking (and somehow motorists are the bad guy here). Of course cyclists are going to oppose being registered and having to wear an identifying number because they know they will have to start obeying the same traffic laws as the rest of us. Cyclists want equal rights on the road, fine, I agree but you must also have equal responsibility.

I'm a member of a race club, we take our driving very seriously and several times before when we've caught a member acting stupidly (especially off the track) we throw him to the wolves. We will report them ourselves then toss them out of the club. Cyclists on the other hand still refuse to admit that a cyclists is even capable of doing anything wrong and worse still, protect those who are endangering themselves and other road users out of some belief that motorists are always the bad guys. I've never seen or even heard of a cyclists dobbing in another.

First of all, we dont believe that you actually stopped at a red light.

Secondly, do what motorcyclists do and hit the pedestrian cross button. I dont ride a motorcycle either, that's just common knowledge.

Also, you're attempt to make up esoteric scenarios to justify running red lights in peak hour traffic is terribly transparent.

Funny thing is, motorists do the exact same things as cyclists. Yet, when a motorist does it, it is a bad driver. When a cyclist does it, it is a generalization that applies to all cyclists.

This is because a very, very small percentage of motorists regularly run red lights. Cyclists do it all the time.

Most motorists at least try to fit into traffic, all cyclists demand that traffic changes to accommodate them.

Even worse, when a purpose built cycle path or cycle lane is made to accommodate the special snowflake cyclists they refuse to use them quoting all kinds of silly reaons like there's dirt on the path they might slip on or they may hit a power pole.

But the thing that gets my goat is, when motorists do bad things the motoring community recognises this and seeks out the individuals breaking laws and making things unsafe. When a cyclists does bad things they cycling community circles the wagons around the perpetrators, denies that any wrong was done, blames the motorists for whatever they can and then claim that cyclists can do no wrong.

Cyclists have earned their bad name.

If you're making a left turn, it is far safer to take the left turning lane to prevent cars from passing you while making the turn

But yet it's perfectly OK for the cyclist to try to pass a turning car on the inside.

In Japan, it is required for a turning driver to pull into the curb precisely to cut off anyone on two wheels. The difference between you and the Japanese is that the Japanese wont make a huge song and dance over it because they know they shouldn't try to pass on the inside.

Olympic clay pigeon shooting occurs at ranges of 50 metres. Targets are thrown into the air 45-55 meters away from the shooter. Olympic trap targets are set at 76 metres.

A shotgun can easily shoot 50 meters and you dont have to do much damage to a drone to make it crash.

Seriously, read what happened. Yeah, BBC has done plenty of bone-headed things in the name of PC. This, however, is not one of those things.

This may not be about PC, in fact I highly doubt it but to say that this isn't politically motivated is bone headed.

Clarkson has been at odds with the BBC's director of TV, Danny Cohen since he became Director of TV. Cohen has been gunning for Clarkson for years but hasn't been able to do anything as Clarkson and Wilman owned a significant part of Top Gear as TG was originally a joint venture between the BBC and Clarksons/Wilmans production company. Months before the "fraccas", BBC acquired Wilmans and Clarksons stake in Top Gear.

However with the loss in revenue the BBC will feel over this and the inevitable failure of the Chris Harris led Top Gear, I suspect that Cohen will be out of a job within a year.

This ended up being about the fact that the same rules need to be applied all through the pay scale.

That's a cop out.

The BBC is not above applying double standards and if this happened at a lower rank, you can bet your arse the person involved would be sent off for "anger management" and that would be the end of it... But as I said, the BBC is not above applying double standards.

if that had happened here in the US, he'd be facing a multi-quintillion-dollar lawsuit already.

Which would be settled for a fraction of a million instead of being the circus that it was in the UK.

He's talking about compassion.

Compassion is more about being aware of other people's emotions and changing/compensating with you own actions. The robots that deal with people dont need to understand anger, sadness or joy, but they should know how to react to it.

Might I suggest you next cut off funding to your statistics bureau. After all if no-one makes new statistics, they cant get worse.

I am also firmly in the physical keyboard camp, and I constantly hear that argument that screens are so big now,

I'm also in the physical keyboard camp. Physical KB's have one huge advantage that cannot be negated by big screens. You can type on them without looking at the keys.

Sadly it's very difficult to find a phone that has a physical KB and even though larger screens have helped its not really the same as using a physical KB as I'm constantly having to watch what letters I press rather than the output on the screen. You simply cant touch type on an on screen keyboard.

Getting a physical USB KB for my Nexus 7 was one of the best $12 I've spent in recent years.

Or you can buy an Android phone outright with the manufacturers image on it.

I know this concept may be foreign to many in the US, but it's quite a common occurrence to those of us in Europe, Australia, Asia... pretty much anywhere that isn't the US.

BTW, you shouldn't need to root the phone to get rid of carrier crapware, all you need is the signed base image from the manufacturer. I understand these aren't hard to find.

Ok. Everyone hates ads.

I dont hate ads, I hate being annoyed by ads. The only ads I see are the ones that are passive enough to get past adblock. This I dont really mind as they're almost always not interfering with the content.

When ads become more important than displaying the content people went there for is when people start to turn off, or in the case of the internet they start to use an adblocker. This is in response to advertising becoming more and more painful for the end user.

Few are suggesting that advertisement needs to be eliminated. This is entirely the product of your black and white thinking, that we must accept bad advertising or the entire system will fall apart. It wont.

What we are saying is that the advertising business model needs to change to be more accommodating to the end user, not hostile to it. As long as advertisers think that becoming more and more annoying is a good way to get eyeballs, more and more people will continue to use adblockers. Eventually they'll be forced to change, even if it results in most advertisers dying out and being replaced by companies with an adapted business model. Think about it, then reply.

However this is not how vaccines work. I suspect the fine article got a lot wrong.

The idea is that if you vaccinate people they have an increased immunity to the pathogen and have a greater chance of not becoming infected if exposed. This slows or stops the spread of the pathogen amongst a community.

What's the benefit for a pathogen to be more deadly? Killing the host is actually bad for it, since that ends spreading (with this host at least).

Our assumptions about evolution is that its driven by the need to survive. When a pathogen is faced with a change in their environment bought on by a pharmaceutical treatment it is possible for a pathogen to adapt to fight or avoid that treatment. This does not mean they'll automatically adapt (they're not the Borg), in fact in most cases the opposite can occur where the pathogen is completely (or nearly completely) wiped out such as the case of smallpox.

Evolution does not consider risks and benefits, changes are random. Sometimes these changes can cause a species to die out by destroying its environment. As for pathogens, killing the host is often required for a pathogen to spread, especially for pathogens that only spread through direct contact (not air, food or water borne), not killing the host by producing symptoms that allows the pathogen to spread is going to result in the pathogen dying out.

In nature, when there is a rapid change in the environment, most species end up dying. This is the bad part of anti-biotics as its a similar event on a mirco scale. They're indiscriminate, so they'll kill the micro-organisms in our body that aren't just benign but helpful. For this reason alone we should try not to not over subscribe anti-biotics, however anti-biotic resistant pathogens are also a consideration.