That's actually a myth:

https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/

You're talking about this study by Ian Walker:

http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf

The problem is that it was horribly flawed.

It was conducted by a single guy (who was both subject and researcher), who is an "anti-helmet" activist (seriously). It was a sample size of 1, and it didn't control for the behaviour of the cyclist himself, or any controls at all for that matter (obviously couldn't be double-blind!).

It's completely bogus. There's no way to tell if the difference in distance was caused by the behaviour of the driver or the behaviour of the cyclist.

Additionally, he used the shady "truncated axis" technique to visually exaggerate the difference between the distances observed in the two conditions. This might be ok if the data was significant and it was pointed out that this was being done to highlight the significant difference. However, while he claimed the difference was big, he never said it was significant and he didn't provide any statistical methodology or significance metrics (e.g. p values). If the differences were significant, then why would he have not said so and included the metrics? I don't know a single scientist that would omit that. This is the kind of thing I would have failed students for when I was grading papers in grad school. There is precisely *zero* reason to visually exaggerate differences on a graph, while simultaneously omitting statistical significance analyses, unless you are being deliberately deceptive.

Check out the following link for some better information and meta-analyses:

https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/

Actually, the majority of collisions between cars and bikes are because the motorist was not following the law, not the cyclist.

Here's some data from the City of Toronto pulled from police collision reports. Something like ~83% of bike-car collisions were found to be because of driver negligence:

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/

The same basic findings have been replicated in many other cities (you can find the data online). IIRC it was even worse in NYC, with motorists being the cause of 90%+ bike-car collisions.

Are you sure?

I mean they might be mostly graphite, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that there are more hydrocarbons in the asteroid belt than on the entire planet. Sadly, wikipedia is rather thin on the detail for C-Type asteroids.

My question is why are they focusing on M-Type instead of C-Type asteroids?

Sure metal is a useful building material, but the world's energy demand is far outstripping the supply.

Bringing back a couple of carbonaceous asteroids would very likely satisfy most of our global energy requirements for the foreseeable future.

Agreed. At the company I work for we are constantly looking for new developers, and it's not because we don't get enough people applying. We get swamped in resumes. There are tons of unemployed software developers out there.

Sadly, once we interview them, we realize why they are unemployed. Most of them are basically incompetent. Finding a developer with *real* talent amidst the hordes of people claiming to be developers is very challenging.

I mean he deserves to be as well known as they are. Here's a simple test: Ask a random non-scifi fan who Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke are. I'm willing to bet they can tell you (at least to the tune of: "scifi writer"). If you asked them who PKD was, I highly doubt they would have a clue.

Simply producing a volume of brilliant work doesn't mean you're going to get the recognition you deserve for it.

Anecdotal

First, I said "almost unknown" not "unknown". Second, prove it.

I cannot find any references to sales figures for PKD's books, but in his own words (from this interview):

...there is also the very real possibility that if I tried to do the cheapo novelization I would actually fail to do it, literally could not write a commercial novel that would be something that would sell millions of copies

That interview was done in 1981 (a year before he died), "The Man in the High Castle" was published in 1962 and it's one of his most popular and known books. If it had sold "millions of copies ... worldwide", you think he might have known about it. Sure, there's a slim chance it has sold millions since then, but I can't find any evidence of that and we are talking about "while he was alive". It seems you are making things up.

Thus, I really think my "almost unknown" statement (adequately supported, I believe you will find, by PKD's wikipedia entry) and PKD's own words trump your anecdotes and made up figures.

Yes

False

2012 - 30 (three decades) = 1982

Release date of "Blade Runner" = 25 June 1982

Three decades ago (1982) is precisely when Blade Runner was released, it is most definitely NOT "long before Blade Runner was filmed"

For shame moderators, for shame. Modding me down for making a factual statement?

Seriously?

I can only surmise I was modded down for the sin of simply mentioning "communism", which the moderator obviously doesn't like.

The sad thing is, I never said I did either, but I'm guessing the moderator thought so and modded me down for it.

Ironically, I don't actually like communism, but it's a simple fact that communism is an economic system, whereas democracy is a system of government. They are not the same type of thing. And therefore not mutually exclusive.

It's sad to see the day when moderators down vote someone stating the truth for simply using a word they don't like.

I get mod points at least twice a week, and for this, I am going to dedicate my next 5 mod points to modding up any positive mention of communism I see, even though I don't like communism.

Ooh! Wish I could mod this up!

One of my pet peeves is people that claim communism and democracy are mutually exclusive. They're not, for the same reasons you just gave.

Under != Not

He was virtually unknown while alive, spent most of his life in poverty and even though Hollywood types have been making bank off his ideas since his death, the majority of non-scifi fans still don't know his name, where they do know the name of Asimov etc...

However, even if I did accept that he was wildly successful by your definition, it doesn't change the fact that he's not appreciated as much as he should be, given the quality of his writing.

Thus, he is still very much under-appreciated.

"Sentient" just means the ability to have sensations. Chickens are most definitely sentient. I believe you likely meant "self-aware".