I have a video camera on the front fork of my bike and have clear evidence of who's at fault. I have clips of city buses crowding the bike lane, the mirror whizzing by inches from my helmet. Other great shots of cars cutting me off on right turns, including one truck that ran me onto the sidewalk with his trailer, ironically next to a sign that said Right Turns Yield To Bikes In Bike Lane. Even left turns, people who can clearly see me coming, cutting it so close I've had to slide to a stop.
Mixed in with the idiots are a far larger pool of considerate people. People who insist on waiting for me, even when they have the right of way, cars that cover for me on turns and those who change lanes to give me more space. The considerate and aware people far outnumber the idiots but the problem is it only takes one idiot to kill you.
In my experience the worst offenders are women. Of the top 10 close calls I've had, 7 were female drivers. Ironically the closest call I've ever had was a police car, typing on his computer and not paying attention. He ran me into the curb and just kept going.
I've also seen my share of bike riders doing the incredibly stupid. Cutting across turn lanes when the arrow is with the cars, riding the wrong way down sidewalks, ignoring right of way at intersections and at night with no lights. So I understand the frustration the other way.
When it comes to bikes and pedestrians on roads, especially in big cities, the people designing bike lanes and intersections are people driving to work. In most cases the problem is literally dictating the solution. The other problem are the righteously entitled who scoff at bike riders because they're not paying road taxes. They're the most deliberate when it comes to ceding the very minimum amount of space when moving over. Those are the only ones I'd really like to drag of their car and beat to a pulp.
By way of disclosure, I tried in 2009/2010 and wasn't able to do it at any reasonable cost. Our compromise was living in a campground and getting cable service. That worked surprisingly well.
While most campgrounds have wifi, not all campground wifi is reliable enough to run a business. During the season it will bog down during peak demand, some of the smaller campgrounds have time outs and bandwidth limiters.
Out in the twigs even wireless wasn't reliable enough to make work.
I can tell from the comments most of you don't live near the ocean. Down here in South Florida it's already making an impact. There are storm drains that flow water during high tide up and down the coast and boat docks underwater. Miami is worse. Hallendale Beach has five of their seven fresh water pumps closed because of salt water intrusion.
The real problem that no one is talking about is what happens when Miami gets nailed by a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane? We're going to have boats washing up on I-95. Do we spend the money to rebuild Miami just to have it flood 40 years later? Or when it gets nailed by another hurricane?
UC San Diego alleges that Aisen and at least eight colleagues (who have joined Aisen at USC) changed computer passwords to retain their custody and root control of the ADCS system, essentially locking out UCSD from administrative control of the Alzheimer’s study.
Courts have traditionally taken a dim view of that strategy. Hostage taking is almost never the answer, regardless of the nature of the dispute. Had he taken a copy of the database, that would have been more palatable. Something is always hinky when one person sets themselves up as the lone guardian of data purity.
Their front page has turned into a mud pit of ads, it's all content from other sites, I can't see any compelling reason to go there in the first place and then they become an attack vector.
That was a douche move. Thanks, Philly, for showing the world how classy we are.
Hillview Police detective Charles McWhirter of says you can't fire your gun in the city.
He wasn't charged for shooting a drone, he was charged to discharging a gun within city limits. Reckless endangerment doesn't have anything to do with drones it means he was being a risk to public safety.
Dozens of the emails provided by Hillary Clinton have been retroactively classified as part of the review of her emails as they are screened for public release.
Nice. Retroactively classify information, then open a criminal inquiry over the release of classified information.
Absolutely no political motivation behind this witch hunt-- I mean investigation.
A human will, for the forseeable future, be potentially far greater at this kind of improvisational disaster-avoidance than any computer when dealing with limited data in situations where no course of action is clearly favorable.
That is a completely bogus argument. Machines don't have to match humans in every ridiculous driving scenario. Self-driving cars only have to be +1 better than the average human driver to take over. Google's self-driving cars are better than 90% of drivers on the road and that's good enough.
The biggest obstacle to driverless cars isn't the technology, it's the arrogance of human beings with illusory superiority.
A human driver could easily make the decision to swerve up onto the sidewalk, or even to brake-check and nudge itself closer to the car in front, thus giving the car behind time to stop.
Baloney. The car was stopped at a red light. Thinking a human driver is going to pull some amazing shit to avoid getting rear ended is just retarded.
Machines are better drivers than humans. Get used to it.
Before NMCI came along, I was tasked with taking over a mapping application for the Navy and discovered the app was sending admin credentials in clear text in the URL string. Instead being of grateful I found the obvious sloppy coding they accused me of trying to pad my billing with make work and blaming the previous programmer. When I explained their application was crap and a giant security hole they would say, "Well, it works for us."
So I totally understand how apps like that make it online.
A segment of the population has views that are different from the average of the entire population.
You don't get a "view" on conclusions that are supported by an overwhelming weight of facts and data. You are also not entitled to a "view" that comes from a coordinated and deliberate effort to mislead by news outlets with a political agenda.
It boils down to the simple reality that one side of the debate thinks they're entitled to their own facts.
The 'purchaser' doesn't pay less, but the writer gets paid less because Amazon just wants to pay them less.
That's it right there. If the reader turns the pages and you end up getting more at the end of the book, then I can work with that. But that's not what's happening. If someone buys your book and doesn't read it, you get squat but Amazon still gets paid.
It's kind of a ripoff for authors.
Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly