jamesb

As does absolutely everything else which doesn't restrict far more people than it should. It's the trade-off between allowing prats to get away with it by not getting caught, and locking us all in our homes with cameras in each room. At least makes them less likely to get away with it twice.

Actually I drive quite happily, though not short distances. I don't like bad driving at all, having had it put me at risk too many times, and also am not a fan of the Clarkson driving culture (I'm a driver, therefore more important than anyone else). You're perfectly right, most things can become a lethal device with intent. Cars can become one without intent. As to how many drivers go to work intending to kill, no idea, but in 2008 2,538 drivers went somewhere and did kill, with 26,029 causing serious injury. Immediate disqualification until a more advanced test is taken and confiscation of the vehicle until the user has demonstrated an ability not to drive like an idiot, rather than a caution, fine, or a few dots on a piece of card? Alternatively you could go for something like the GPS tags given to some people, monitoring driving practices of those involved for safety. If they don't drive safely, you penalise them more. Also has the potential benefit/drawback of making bad drivers unlikely to take other bad drivers as passengers - which speed racer would want to take a passenger who can get them caught just by sitting in the car?

Lethal device. Better?

Would you prefer the term lethal device? They are used to kill. Rarely deliberately, but it does happen. If a baseball bat is used to kill, it's a weapon. Does that mean it's no longer a weapon once the killing's done?

If you've got a Nokia, Sports Tracker will do the same thing free of charge, and I believe Endomondo will do the same for most phone platforms. If you want a GPS for directions you can find phone mounts around for most phones - just get the GPS working, plug it into the mount and go.

A kitchen knife? A car can become a lethal weapon through lack of awareness, judgment, control, or even just poor conditions. It is very easy for a car to turn from a mode of transport into a deadly device. A mouse lead would take rather more effort.

Yes, they are. And very effective they are too. Why, there must have been no deaths due to cars for years with all of those features built in! At 40 m.p.h you're more likely to kill a pedestrian than not in a car, regardless of safety features. Except that you are missing out on rather a lot there. The handlebar would not hit with the full force of the bike's mass and motion - it would hit with the force of the handlebar, stem, fork and wheel, as it is a separately mobile component of the bike. A car can be simplified as a solid mass in a collision, a bike can't. Even in a head-on collision you're pretty much looking at the same effect as a rugby player running head-on, full-tilt into the pedestrian. Nasty, but hardly the type of nasty you're describing. Yup. Again, I agree. Except maybe on the tired bit, I find a quick circuit on the cycle path by the river wakes me up no end in the morning.

I've not got a bow and arrow. I've got a BB gun. It could kill you, but it'd be a lot harder and much less likely than if you hold down the trigger on your uzi. So roads are designed for fast travelling vehicles, which you don't think includes bikes, but bikes should be allowed on our roads all the same? I'm sorry, but the roads are designed for vehicles. Motorways are designed for fast travelling vehicles (hence why they don't allow pedestrians, cyclists, horses and the like on them). Nope. I've given you general examples - hazard awareness is part of the driving test, meaning that drivers should be aware of hazards. If you're driving past a school and a child darts out from out of sight, behind a car, is it the child's fault if you run into them because you weren't anticipating the hazard? No, I started by condoning not driving when drunk. I realise that I didn't fully explain why a bicycle is better (the extra options it allows to those with poor judgment, who might be tempted to drive home to avoid a ticket/towed car/give their friends a lift), which was my mistake. Half-balancing doesn't really work for long. You balance, or you don't. I am using reasoning I'm afraid. Yes, I do apologise for not more clearly explaining my original position, but there ya go. I believe I have explained better now, if not, please let me know.

The point of the suggestion isn't really arresting and fining everyone because one person shot someone, it'd be more in line with instating gun control. Not that I agree with the idea of banning night driving for anyone (except bad drivers, who shouldn't be allowed to drive anyway), but your example didn't really represent the proposal.

Which is why a drunk person will, generally, get off the bike and walk. Too hard to control, too likely to fall off, don't take the risk. Or take the bus, or call a taxi and put the bike in the back. More options if you've got on a bike and realised you're unsafe than once you've got in a car. This is laughable. Yes, there have been multiple fatalities in cyclist/pedestrian collisions (though generally the worst consequences tend to be for the cyclist). There are about one every two years. How many car/pedestrian collisions with fatal consequences happen in that same period of time? Agreed. Yep, sensible suggestions which I'm fully in favour of.

It is illegal to cycle dangerously, yep. I'm not advocating cycling drunk, just suggesting that if you're popping out for a quick drink it's better to take the bike than the car. If nothing else because you can leave the bike locked up more easily than leaving the car parked where you may get a fine or towed. Or you can walk home with the bike. Or walk the dangerous bits, and cycle the rest. Your options are massively expanded over those available with a car, and the incentive to take the risk is much lower. What the? Sorry, but cycling is by far the safer alternative and claiming otherwise is complete nonsense. You can say all you want about safety measures, but they all protect the driver and provide only minimal protection to the victim. You can claim that bikes are of solid construction, which is partly true, but they are also only a few kilograms in weight compared to several tonnes, have a stopping distance which is less than the length of a car, travel at a much slower rate, and have a much lower impact area to actually hit someone with. Airbags outside the car would not help a victim in the slightest, since they are impact triggered. In fact they would worsen the impact rather than help.

So they're not an inconvenience to drivers, they just don't belong on the roads that they have a legal right to be on and should be relegated to cycle paths when the local council can be bothered to build them? Otherwise, obviously, they should simply be unable to travel. If a pedestrian walks into someone, it is very, very unlikely someone dies. If a cyclist runs into someone, it is very unlikely someone dies. If a car drives into someone it is fairly likely that someone dies. As for drivers being at fault - a study in New York revealed that drivers are at fault in around 90% of all pedestrian and cyclist deaths in collisions. I don't think it's unreasonable to then blame drivers for the majority of accidents. Hmm. So a driver who is following someone travelling slowly, too closely to stop, or passing at an unsafe distance, is not to blame should the worse happen and their lack of awareness of required safety margins cause a collision? If someone's tailgating you, obviously it's your fault if you have to do an emergency stop and they read-end you. Useful to know. I've never actually rear-ended a car while driving or cycling, but if I do I'll make sure to try and use that as a defense. A car is a potentially lethal weapon capable of killing people if not properly controlled. Thinking otherwise is foolish. Yes, they are. People are capable of, and have been, killed by baths as well. It's about risk assessment. The rate of pedestrian deaths caused by cyclists is around one every two years. If you can get the deaths caused by cars down to that sort of level, then you can start throwing stones. And yes, cyclicsts do have as much responsibility to ride in a sensible and controlled manner as everyone else, but there is a natural safety limit built in on a bike which doesn't exist on a car. On a bike, you have to balance. One of the first things to go when drunk is balance. If you cannot balance on your bike, you will fall off and injure only yourself. If you cannot balance in your car you will still be able to drive. Would it be better if I added the term 'in comparison' to the end of my statement?

So your are claiming that a drunk driver in charge of a multi-tonne vehicle capable of travelling at incredible speeds and killing people, is more dangerous than a cyclist in charge of one very light vehicle capable of travelling at the same speed as a very fast sprinter? I agree with you on the traffic lights, bikes on the road are a vehicle and have a legal duty to obey the laws of the road. As to cycle tracks, you may not understand how dangerous a supposedly 'safe' cycle path is. Debris, dirt, bad surfacing, all can be much more dangerous than drivers are aware of. A cyclist actually has a legal right to cycle on the road, and the highway code encourages use of cycle paths where the cyclist considers them 'safe'. Of course, I have seen plenty of cars jumping traffic lights, and blindly cutting me up at juctions and roundabouts, among many other offenses. I've experienced these both when driving and when cycling, as well as cars which jump pedestrian crossings while I was walking. I find it very hard to believe any claim that a cyclist is more dangerous than these morons.

I see this attitude a lot from car drivers, that cyclists are an inconvenience to them. It's the same sort of attitude that leads to car drivers claiming cyclists shouldn't be on the roads, or that they're only endangering themselves, and many other bits of vicious nonsense which lead to people being knocked off bikes by drivers with a sense of over-entitlement. I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous to cycle drunk, but the risks of cycling after one or two drinks compared to the risks of driving after the same are minimal. The danger on roads comes from drivers, not from pedestrians and cyclists. Trying to blame other road users for the failings of drivers is ignorant at the best. It's dangerous to walk home after a drink as well. Should we then start saying that people just shouldn't leave the pub after a couple of drinks? Again, trying to blame cyclists for bad driving. Are you genuinely trying to claim that someone running over a cyclist, whatever the state of the cyclist, is not the driver's fault? Would you say the same about a drunken pedestrian who's fallen into the road? Or a pedestrian who steps/staggers out unexpectedly causing a car to swerve? If you're not able to be aware of and apprehend the dangers of the unexpected, you shouldn't be driving a lethal weapon at all.

No, not really. If you're driving you are in charge of a tonne or more of metal propelled by powerful internal explosions at speeds of up to 120 m.p.h along roads. At even at a much lower speed the effects of an impact will not only likely kill you, but anyone else involved, or cause severe injury and damage. If you're cycling you're in charge of a few kilos of metal (at most) propelled by your own leg power at speeds of up to 20 m.p.h (if you're a very fit cyclist, more likely around 12 m.p.h). If you fall off you will most likely end up with a few grazes and bruises unless you are exceptionally unlucky. You will also find that if you are too drunk to control the bike properly, you will simply fall off as cycling requires much greater balance, alertness and concentration than driving. Someone too drunk to stand can climb into a car, start the engine and slam their foot onto the accelerator - try that on a bike and you'll end up lying on the floor, giggling. More importantly even at top speed on a bike you are likely to injure only yourself, and then not severely. If by some miracle you manage to hit a pedestrian (very difficult, the bar stewards dodge like you wouldn't believe possible) then you're still likely to cause only a bruise. So no, it's no more dangerous than walking home drunk - which is an option with a bike, since you can walk it home and lean on it for support.

How did you try to add the page through IIS? Which port is the console meant to be running on? I'm guessing that it's port 80. If you go into IIS Management Console you'll probably find that the default site is enabled, and has stolen VMWare's port. Disable the site and see if that makes a difference. Any more information about your IIS setup and the changes you made would help diagnose faster.

While I agree with the rest of your points, and agree that banning young people from driving at night would be a bad idea, this one's a different matter. Most of the time young people are going out at night to have a drink. If they're going out to have a drink it should be walkable, cyclable, a lift, taxi, bus, or something else that doesn't involve driving. Of course I'm also firmly of the belief that cars should be banned for all journeys under eight miles, and bicycles provided instead, but apparently I'm a bit of an extremist on that one.

Yep. Universities are educational environments too. When I was studying physics the whole department ran on Linux.

Now that I agree with you on. I grew up without television, as did my sister and a few others I know. It seems that those I know who grew up without the ever-present brain-washing idiot box tend to be much happier with what they are doing and how their life is going than those who were exposed to it non-stop. What's sad is that my sister, because of her husband, does now watch a lot of television. My nephew and niece are also exposed to it. I have actually seen her attitudes about what is important changing as time goes by.

Sorry, can't agree with you there at all. Yes, some young (and older) people do get bogged down with the lifestyle and money aspect of life. Others don't. I know many who will not take a job simply for financial gain (once they are earning enough to be independent), but will happily take a job if it offers them something interesting. And you're right on the last bit, might be right on the first few as well but I really don't know many people who are completely brainwashed by the media. A lot of people, particularly the young who don't have the responsibilities and dependents that older people might have, work for idealism rather than wealth. Even among those who do want money many will still take an enjoyable job over a painful one which pays more. Every job move I've made has involved increases in salary, but that has not been the principal reason behind them. I have been offered jobs with larger amounts than I am currently earning, but conditions which I would not enjoy. As was drilled into me when I was a child, "The most important thing in life is to be happy, everything else is secondary."

Apparently there is a point at which more money is pretty much meaningless. Some recent study placed this point at about £50 000. Above that, added money doesn't make you any happier. The theory goes that there is only so much you need to ensure all base needs are met, after that money really is just a way of keeping score. Obviously this varies from person to person, some are at their optimum happiness level on a lot less, some on more, but £50 000 is the average point. To put it in perspective, that's about £24/hour. Grass can most certainly be greener, and there's always the option of ignoring that boring grass and instead looking at the flowers, or the orchard, or something else. Even if the grass isn't greener there are people who prefer savannah to a perfect English lawn.

Eight minutes by car, twenty minutes cycling (thirty if I take the scenic route), only go by car when I have to (oversleep). I do know various people who commute around the same distance as you're planning to, so it does happen. All depends where you'll be commuting though and whether the increase in salary offsets not only the extra cost, but also the extra time you'll be spending.

On the other hand she's not going for any damages for emotional distress, or anything else along those lines - she's simply trying to get the extra to cover repairs. I've got a lot of sympathy for her, although I agree the laptop supplier should be the target rather than OFSTED.

The easiest way I found was to go to sites like this one: PowerShellCommunity.org > Home, grab code and have a look at it. Once you've got the basic concepts down it all sort of slots into place and starts making sense.

I have the very strong feeling spannerman2 didn't get on with the technical staff while he was a teacher/sysadmin. There're definite hints of an axe to grind, and a lot of vitriol against network managers/technicians being spouted.