You're sure it wasn't that they were merely paved then? Why would it have some unusually narrow right of way then? Were they 50 mph limits when unpaved? Are you sure it's not cars that are the newcomer? Do you research the history of every right-of-way on which you travel, so that you're sure you're only calling out cyclists when they're on the route "intended" for you and only you? I assume, of course, you admit to being the asshole here when bikes were likely there first.

I'm very relieved and do apologize. I thought you were trying to claim all roads for your car instead of a vanishingly small minority. I totally understand now- when you've got so few routes where you can drive without having to tolerate others, it's no wonder you can't.

Nice use of the word entitled. I think it betrays your own entitlement- you think roads are just for you, and cite those aluminum tablets dug up in someone's yard and posted alongside the road to prove your god-given right to travel that fast. No cyclist prefers to ride with faster traffic and no dedicated right-of-way, twerp. They're probably trying to get somewhere, just like you are. I understand how hard it would be for you to choose another route- you'd have to flex your ankle a few more times, maybe even move your arms across your body, not to mention spend a whole extra dollar or something on gas- and that clearly is more of a burden than the same distance self-propelled, and of course the extra distance doesn't expose them to any different risks nor make them late. They can't possibly be as busy as you are anyway, rushing from one responsibility to the next so stacked that a reduction from your divine right to travel the posted speed limit is an affront to reason.

Uh, actually, those roads sound unsafe for the *car* traffic already on them. There is nothing about a bike that makes it more dangerous than a stalled or stopped vehicle, a hitchhiker, a deer, a tractor, or anything else. If you're going so fast in low-visibility areas that a bike presents some undue hazard, so would all those other things. YOU are the hazard, based on how YOU are driving on those roads.

That could be true, if there were any conceivable way the dollar could actually become literally worthless. Unless Americans cease to use it entirely (in favor of what exactly?) it'll have a non-zero value. And thus the only question would be whether bonds support a real return.

I think international bond investors are probably pretty good at making inflation and currency exchange predictions, given that's the whole point of the market they're operating in. But cheers for disagreeing.

I think you should probably talk to actual farmers rather than judge the state of US agriculture based on the rural roads you take. Both corn and soybean acres under cultivation have risen since 1990, but roughly in the same proportion, so unless you're ancient, all you're seeing is a local preference likely driven more by the environment and productivity than the market. And I'm not kidding: everyone rotates corn and soybeans on a two-year cycle, unless they add a third year for fodder, which is pretty rare and wouldn't affect the corn/soy proportion anyway.

Because of rampant corruption.

Or because they also grow the you think they should be growing, there's a market for soybeans, and it's pretty much the ideal rotator crop. There are no "soybean" farmers.

Did the US Treasury start accepting other currencies while I was napping? Perhaps I'm just too stupid to understand how dollars buying future dollars can back the dollar. Pretty sure that's just leverage, until it collapses in "bullshit."

I remember both Pan Am and TWA. Pan Am's business effectively resides in Delta, founded three years before Pan Am. TWA, on the other hand, is now American Airlines , which was founded four years before TWA

What was that about new entrants?

Pfft. The statins are only going to make the fat and handicapped live longer.

I'm not convinced any bridgework could make it faster. As I recall, there are two tracks "southbound" out of New Haven, two tracks "northbound" out of Providence, and both those routes need sharing with commuter rail.

But the price of gold, or the value of a dollar, would be vastly different if we were still on the gold standard. At current prices, all the gold ever mined by humanity is around $30T. Do you really think there's that few dollars out there? That's not even enough to account for all the dollars the US government has borrowed.

Seems like excellent advice that you might care to take yourself. Unless, of course, you can point me to a post above, the summary, or any of the linked articles that mention the issue. No?

I guess I don't understand why, if $100 is such a big deal, you wouldn't just spend a few bucks on an external battery and dig into your drawer of otherwise-unused cables and spread them around your car, computer, etc.

I do understand that everyone's needs in a phone may be different. But why should we pay any attention to yours when it makes no reference to the typical target user? Just because you're not the consumer the product works for doesn't make the business of supplying it to that consumer "abusive."

My P9a is great and I love it- then again, it replaced a 7-year-old phone that was also "working fine." The difference here is that I'm not using that as an argument to say that everyone should give up their old phone, nor one for why the low-availability of replacement charge ports after all that time made Apple evil.

Do we really want to emulate that?

Which part? The GDP growth part or the totalitarian part? Ask plenty of people, and they'll say we're already getting the totalitarian part; it'd be a shame not to get some material benefit while we're at it, no?

Maybe because without a scope up your nose and down your throat while you're sleeping, your doctor would have no idea where the obstruction is happening, and a MAD addresses only a small portion of your airway.