He's not "blaming the victim," he's pointing out a safety tip for those of you who don't understand the basic physics of how our eyes work, you Fuck.

Yes, actually, the poster (we don't know it's a "he"...) is perpetuating victim-blaming of cyclists for their injuries and deaths. It's rampant in the US.

1)The cause is unknown (ie, it's not known that visibility was the problem, so how he was dressed is moot) 2)The onus is not on cyclists to dress in a particular way, the onus is on people with the very nice headlights on the front of a very deadly machine to operate that machine properly and be able to avoid a 6 foot tall, 3 foot wide object in the road traveling in the same direction as them 3)In stories like these, people (especially those who don't cycle) take it as an opportunity to condescendingly lecture those of us who do, about how to ride our bicycles. Seth, for example, was apparently an avid cycling advocate, which means he was damn well aware of how to ride "safely", probably knew the laws better than most drivers, and almost certainly had lights, which means he was plenty "visible."

In almost every story about cyclist injuries and deaths, the comments are hateful, vile, and portray the problem as being everything from cyclists merely being present, to how they behave (despite the fact that drivers are at fault in the vast majority of crashes, as numerous studies have proven), to, yes, how they dress. We're apparently at fault if we're not dressed like psycho day-glo clowns.

Let's take a look at some of the comments on TFA, shall we?

• "they don't belong on the roads."
• "Riding a bicycle at 9pm on a major road is a statistic about to happen. How many people are going to have to die before laws are changed concerning cyclists?"
• "Did the bike have lights? Was the man in night riding "bright" clothes?"
• "If a bicyclist is going to be riding at nights - you need some kind of reflective wear so that the vehicles can better see them - I'm not taking sides, but I've driven on roads at night and have passed bicyclists and could barely see them"
• "the car driver might not have been in the wrong...a bike, at 9pm is close to invisible, especially with glare of oncoming headlights."
• "he should have been wearing reflective clothing too..I didn't see anything in the article about him wearing reflective clothing..."
• "I hate seeing cyclists on the road! roads are too dangerous for bikes, period."

Now do you understand why the comment wasn't appropriate? The comparison to rape victims is quite accurate; rape victims used to be blamed for going out at night, or not having a "friend" (male) with them, to not carrying self-defense devices, to being dressed "like that."

I was just struck by a driver recently. The ER doctor finished up his exam by instructing me to "ride defensively" and "bike carefully." I had been operating legally and prudently, and the driver in a split second cut me off and stopped - blocking the road. There was nothing I could do. I was a victim. And the ER doctor was lecturing me, implying it was my fault for not being "careful" enough.

You should - vehicular assault is a serious offence, and if your video can be used to prove malice, those sociopathic pricks will be confined to a cell where they belong.

BWHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA. I had someone sideswipe me and then intentionally "brake check" me (looked in his mirror right at me, glaring, and slammed on his brakes, with nothing in front of him, no intersection, etc.) I gave the cops a complete plate and description and they said there was nothing they could do, because I hadn't been injured - even though the driver, in side-swiping me, had caused a "collision" and by leaving, a hit-and-run - and by stopping in the middle of the road, driven recklessly.

I've been wanting a dash cam for the opposite reason - a lot of the cyclists around here are either stupid or have a deathwish, judging by how flagrantly they violate right-of-way laws.

No, "a lot" of cyclists don't have deathwishes nor are they stupid. You just think they do, because they're a minority outgroup - so you exaggerate negative attributes. The vast majority of cyclist crashes are caused by drivers operating recklessly or illegally. And what right-of-way laws would those be, by the way? Let me guess: you think that you have a right of way over someone on a bicycle, right? Yeah, you don't, actually.

No, it's used as short-hand for the general bundle of sensibilities that give rise to the urge for a Nanny State approach to things. Collectivist thinking, where people born with or raised to have a work ethic are, by definition, slaves to those who aren't, won't, etc. It doesn't matter where you draw the line between Communism and Socialism, because they come from the same ideological place: they call for an elite group of people to spell out how the efforts of some people will be confiscated in order to dole them out to other people. Structurally, permanently. The harder you're willing to work, the more of a slave you are.

Right... because words have actual meanings, and we have entirely different words that mean "handling" or "loading" or "storing" or "testing" or "fumbling" or "cleaning," etc. Lack of precision in the language surrounding the nature and use of firearms is a non-trivial problem (see so-called journalists who interchangeably - and cluelessly - use "machine gun" and "assault rifle" and "semi-automatic" and the like).

brandish [bran-dish]
verb (used with object)
1. to shake or wave, as a weapon; flourish: Brandishing his sword, he rode into battle.

I don't know anybody who would refer to, say, handing someone else a gun (say, while out plinking cans in the woods) as "brandishing."

You typically wouldn't be handling a gun in public pretty much ever. But around strangers? Say, at the range? Loading, cleaning, etc., happens all the time around other people. As a range officer, I can assure you it happens all the time.

Maybe once. But if they keep calling them for no reason, they'll arrest the caller for wasting their time and harassing the legal gun owner. Most cops are very familiar with the habitual paranoids and whiners on their beats.

This is, as they say, so wrong it's not even wrong.

If you're worried about USB or any other device access you've already lost. Anyone who can SEE the screen can snap a pic of the screen. Or a few hundred screen pics. And even if you strip everyone naked as they enter the building, and you scan them for hidden devices hidden inside body orifices, the fundamental issue is that information can be carried out in someone's memory, and that person is capable of talking.

Compartmentalizing who can access what may limit the range of what any particular insider can release, and reduce the number of insiders able to release any particular thing, but fundamentally people need to see the information to do their job.

Threat of prosecution can keep people's moths shut to some extent, but if you're engaging in illegal or immoral activity then sooner or later some insider is likely to decide to "do the right thing" even if it means huge self sacrifice.

As others have indicated, maintain goodwill and loyalty. At a minimum maintain some level of respectability for organization, and some level of respect for your employees. That is the *only* thing that can protect you against the threat of a self-sacrificing insider trying to "do the right thing".

-

"Can i bring my reader to their store and walk out with an ebook loaded?"

I don't really disagree with what you've said, but I have no idea why you would want to go to a specific place to get an ebook. That's a use case I don't understand. Why would that be good?

True...absent monopoly interference.

That's a business decision by one business (who happens to be going out of business). So, yeah, not the same.

How quaint, assuming that U.S. laws and U.S. Law Enforcement still stay within U.S. borders.

-

Extra flies when you're fucking a horse.

-

QR Codes are 2-D barcodes. Each QR square can support 4k of (capitals-only) alphanumeric text, or nearly 3k of binary data. It has built-in support for error correction and spanning data across multiple QR Code blocks. And of course binary data can be encrypted.

-

I work with a man from Egypt, a Christian with family over there. I asked him what he thought about all this and his eyes lit up, "my family is finally free."

Great! So they can now start suppressing gays, abortion, science, etc just like they do here in the US!

Trading one form of hatred for another isn't progress.

The reality is that Chavez did more for social conditions in his country than any other president in living memory.

Yeah, except for those rampant human rights abuses. "Social conditions" includes things like free speech, whether you feel you can get justice, feel safe. Even if what you claimed were true - that his people were better off with him than without him - the ends do not justify the means.

Whether US government officials (not "USA"; don't confuse a country's government or leadership with its people) found him a threat and a risk (not "hated him viciously") is irrelevant to Chavez's power-grubbing, human-rights-abusing, autocratic ruling. That you use the word "vicious" to describe the US government's attitude towards him, instead of how he treated his own people, shows that you have a serious perspective problem.