RLJer gets nicked

Ian.B

But surely you can't have "many datum" (being pedantic!)?

cee

Ian.B wrote:

But surely you can't have "many datum" (being pedantic!)?

well, quite...many datum are called data.....but how to describe that without stating it incorrectly!

notice the wink?

Mr Sworld

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

Mel & Kim - mmmmm - always used to have a "soft" spot for them, even if their music was pop pap.

Now are you sure that 'spot' you're talking about was 'soft' when two nubile young women were on TV?

Porgy

Mr Sworld wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

Mel & Kim - mmmmm - always used to have a "soft" spot for them, even if their music was pop pap.

Now are you sure that 'spot' you're talking about was 'soft' when two nubile young women were on TV?

probably not...but i expect his penis was all long and hard.

Jay dubbleU

Data is a plural of datum, which is originally a Latin noun meaning “something given.” Today, data is used in English both as a plural noun meaning “facts or pieces of information” (These data are described more fully elsewhere) and as a singular mass noun meaning “information”: 'Not much data is available on flood control in Brazil'. It is almost always treated as a plural in scientific and academic writing.
In other types of writing it is either singular or plural. The singular datum meaning “a piece of information” is now rare in all types of writing. In surveying and civil engineering, where datum has specialized senses, the plural form is datums.

Ok chaps ?

Porgy

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Data is a plural of datum, which is originally a Latin noun meaning “something given.” Today, data is used in English both as a plural noun meaning “facts or pieces of information” (These data are described more fully elsewhere) and as a singular mass noun meaning “information”: 'Not much data is available on flood control in Brazil'. It is almost always treated as a plural in scientific and academic writing.
In other types of writing it is either singular or plural. The singular datum meaning “a piece of information” is now rare in all types of writing. In surveying and civil engineering, where datum has specialized senses, the plural form is datums.

Ok chaps ?

probably not....but i expect his penis was all long and hard.

Rockbuddy

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Data is a plural of datum, which is originally a Latin noun meaning “something given.” Today, data is used in English both as a plural noun meaning “facts or pieces of information” (These data are described more fully elsewhere) and as a singular mass noun meaning “information”: 'Not much data is available on flood control in Brazil'. It is almost always treated as a plural in scientific and academic writing.
In other types of writing it is either singular or plural. The singular datum meaning “a piece of information” is now rare in all types of writing. In surveying and civil engineering, where datum has specialized senses, the plural form is datums.

Ok chaps ?

Maybe that's why I've never used "Datum" as I always had loads of data

Mmm, apart from getting way off topic we are getting a little geeky, well except for Porgy who just wants to talk about his penis :P

Aguila

cee wrote:

one item...a dataset is a set (as in Set Theory) containing many datum

and aguila...being a pedantic, technically it would be these data, not this

Please accept my sincere apologies

Rockbuddy

I guess this thread has died then?

Porgy

Rockbuddy wrote:

I guess this thread has died then?

well it had :roll:

iainment

I love Idaho, they allow in law what I do.

"Idaho’s stop-as-yield statute lets you ride safely and efficiently—without breaking the law.

For 26 years, cyclists in Idaho have rolled through stop signs—legally. According to that state’s law, when a cyclist approaches an intersection controlled by a stop sign, the cyclist must slow to “a reasonable speed,” but is not obligated to stop unless doing so is “required for safety.” After yielding to any vehicle that has the right of way, the cyclist may proceed. There’s more: Cyclists are required to stop at red lights, but once stopped may then proceed without waiting for the light to change, after first yielding to vehicles that have the right of way. In effect, this law allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, and red lights as stop signs.

To many cyclists in other states, the Idaho law sounds like a dream come true. It legalizes what many riders already do in practice: roll safely through intersections, treating stops as yields and lights as stops. Furthermore, Idaho’s quarter-century of experience shows that the law works: There has been no uptick in cycling accidents in Idaho. So if “stop as yield” is safe, why not make it legal in other states? After all, shouldn’t traffic rules serve some purpose beyond simply ordering compliance with the law?

Traffic signs and signals came into existence only after 1914, and for one reason—to facilitate the flow of auto traffic. Stop signs do little to enhance cyclist safety; in fact, they reduce it by requiring cyclists to enter the intersection after a stop, with no momentum, which makes them less stable and poorly positioned to execute evasive maneuvers, if necessary.

In the rest of the country, cyclists face a three-way choice between safety, efficiency and legality, and can have only two of the three. For safety, many cyclists ride the less-traveled side streets, but then must choose between efficiency—rolling through the numerous stop signs on side streets—or legality.

Conversely, cyclists prioritizing efficiency and legality sacrifice the safety of the side streets. Stop-as-yield laws make safety and efficiency legal.

With these points in mind, legislators introduced stop-as-yield bills this year in Arizona, Montana, Oregon and Minnesota. In Oregon, cycling attorney Ray Thomas led the effort; I was pleased to testify with Ray before the House Transportation Committee. Sadly, there were not enough votes to move the bill out of committee, and efforts in the other states also died in committee.

But this issue is not going away—in fact, it’s building momentum. Oregon considered a similar bill in 2007, as did Minnesota in 2008, and cycling advocates in California were debating whether to push for legislation last year. Oregon’s proponents promise to revisit the issue when the legislature reconvenes, in 2011. The stop-as-yield debate promises to remain heated, though, with motorists adamantly opposed, often due to a perception that cyclists are seeking special rights, and even cyclists are divided on the issue.

After careful consideration, I think that stop-as-yield is a good law. It would make most cyclists obey the law at intersections. Perhaps more important, it could help foster a spirit of more respect for the law. If it becomes commonplace for cyclists to follow the law, and unacceptable within our culture to disregard it, then public perception of cyclists would vastly improve. At the same time, law-enforcement officers would be able to focus their attention where it belongs—on unsafe cyclists and motorists. Visit BICYCLING.com/stopasyield to read the law and learn what you can do to raise the issue in your state.

Research and drafting by Rick Bernardi, J. D. "

Kieran_Burns

Oh fer.....

Look let's just let the Quibbler editor live in his fantasy land and get back to the serious issues of whether shaving your legs does in fact make you automatically gay.

spen666

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Oh fer.....

Look let's just let the Quibbler editor live in his fantasy land and get back to the serious issues of whether shaving your legs does in fact make you automatically gay.

it does apparently, but only if you use an epilator

Kieran_Burns

Now THAT is an interesting point, and one not covered in my memory on here (wait to be proven wrong)

Stop Signs.

You are required to Stop at them, but how many do? I don't, but this honestly due to it not occurring to me!!! i treat them (illegally I realise) as a Give Way...

Now that's an eye-opener. :?

Rockbuddy

Porgy wrote:

Rockbuddy wrote:

I guess this thread has died then?

well it had :roll:

Oh dear, hope we've not started it up again :shock:

Ok, so I'm a little bored (although have enough work to be getting on with :oops: ), just wondering if AT vs weardmire (and cameo others) are gonna give us a little entertainment this week

prawny

spen666 wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Oh fer.....

Look let's just let the Quibbler editor live in his fantasy land and get back to the serious issues of whether shaving your legs does in fact make you automatically gay.

it does apparently, but only if you use an epilator

Rats! I was going to give this a whirl, I'm notoriously slack at shaving even my face.

I let the wife epilate my back, my god that hurts, how she does her armpits I'll never know. :oops:

the_hundredth_idiot

prawny wrote:

I let the wife epilate my back, my god that hurts, how she does her armpits I'll never know. :oops:

:shock: :shock: :shock:

This is so much more interesting than talking about RLJing.

Why on earth would you let her do that? Does it happen regularly? Is this some sort of S&M relationship?

Once it stops being a kick having your back epilated (is that a verb?), is the next step for the epilator to move ever lower? Back, sack and crack as they say.

Kieran_Burns

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

prawny wrote:

I let the wife epilate my back, my god that hurts, how she does her armpits I'll never know. :oops:

:shock: :shock: :shock:

This is so much more interesting than talking about RLJing.

Why on earth would you let her do that? Does it happen regularly? Is this some sort of S&M relationship?

Once it stops being a kick having your back epilated (is that a verb?), is the next step for the epilator to move ever lower? Back, sack and crack as they say.

Don't. Go. There.

I mean that literally and figuratively. Have you seen the vid of the guy getting this done? :shock:

Oh, sweet Jesus - it's one of the funniest and most cringeworthy vids you will ever see.

Jay dubbleU

Kieran_Burns wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

prawny wrote:

I let the wife epilate my back, my god that hurts, how she does her armpits I'll never know. :oops:

:shock: :shock: :shock:

This is so much more interesting than talking about RLJing.

Why on earth would you let her do that? Does it happen regularly? Is this some sort of S&M relationship?

Once it stops being a kick having your back epilated (is that a verb?), is the next step for the epilator to move ever lower? Back, sack and crack as they say.

Don't. Go. There.

I mean that literally and figuratively. Have you seen the vid of the guy getting this done? :shock:

Oh, sweet Jesus - it's one of the funniest and most cringeworthy vids you will ever see.

I have to say no part of my body has ever been epilated except for medical reasons - surely wearing tights has the same effect as far as the drag co-efficient is concerned or is there a certain element of masochism amongst roadies ? :shock:

Jay dubbleU

prawny wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Oh fer.....

Look let's just let the Quibbler editor live in his fantasy land and get back to the serious issues of whether shaving your legs does in fact make you automatically gay.

it does apparently, but only if you use an epilator

Rats! I was going to give this a whirl, I'm notoriously slack at shaving even my face.

I let the wife epilate my back, my god that hurts, how she does her armpits I'll never know. :oops:

I think you'll find she uses hair removal cream - she just hasn't told you about it :twisted:

weadmire

I could not work out what was motivating the behaviour of what might be described as the well tyred fraternity so I asked one of my longest standing friends to read the thread and let me have her thoughts. She has a 1st class degree in Psychology. By the way she describes the subject as stats with some human behaviour thrown in. I reproduce her email below.

Hi Amy,

I have had a look at the traffic light thread you sent me.

I have kept in mind the questions you asked me to consider and I have probably answered some you have thought of but forgot to ask.

The two questions why do they want to believe it is not safe to jump traffic lights and why the frenzy of posting when they thought you were your father are linked. These guys, and although they act like adolescents, I think they are all men in their 20's, have a lot of emotional capital vested in what they see as their contributions to these forums. The people you asked me to consider have all recorded large numbers of posts over quiet long periods of time. They will think this gives them status and authority. It would have been quite shocking for them to have you, previously not having posted, challenge their views and what they see as their legacy and their perceptions authority . They would feel any acknowledgement of your arguments would diminish them, especially in the eyes of their peer group.

What do I make of them as individuals? Collectively they are afraid of challenging a consensus because the authority they think they have established in these forums is dependent on collective approval. But they will likely only involve themselves with topics where they perceive a consensus is established or at least where the consensus is predictable.

These people are quite well organised and precise by nature but basically they are compliant, risk averse and conventional. They like rules, it provides reassurance and reduces the amount of responsibility they have to assume. You can see this in their inclination to dismiss the evidence of traffic light trials. They do not want to believe a system that relied on judgement would work. There is plenty of evidence of the above, sometimes it is obvious. For example one of them asked you how you felt given that no one was apparently agreeing with you. Others deal in “white van man and chav” generalities to try and establish that British traffic is worse than that in the countries where these experiments have proved successful. I am not sure about the particular issue of cyclists but British traffic has some of the world's lowest accident rates. It is generally boring from a psychologist's point of view.

Basically they want rules because their lives have probably taught them the rules are generally there to protect the vulnerable and they are generally vulnerable. They are not particularly sociable. Although they act collectively and appear to be friendly to one another the probability is that they have not met and the bonds between them are quite weak.

Although they would not admit it they probably know their lack of what it takes to challenge a consensus will blight their careers. In time it will make them bitter. In terms of earnings you can expect them to be in the lower earning quartiles of their sectors. Should you consider dating them? Only if you want a house husband.

What shirts from your website would I recommend they wear? I think they should try The the Banksy: http://www.weadmire.net/product.aspx?productid=15860 and the Goethe: http://www.weadmire.net/product.aspx?productid=13092. One as an encouragement to take more risks and the other as encouragement to really speak their minds.

Love

Hans

Well well gentlemen, what an attractive proposition you are. Boring, conventional, risk averse and probably physically weak too.

Tyred, I do not know why you raised the question about hydrogen fuel cells. But it is a remarkable coincidence that you did. I can't say I have a particular opinion, but I am sure hybrid cars are not a solution. On the matter of hydrogen fuel cells the technology seems pretty daunting, but if methane is used in the production of hydrogen we are not likely to run out of raw material any time soon.

Should I assume you are something of an eco warrior? If so you are probably aware that mammals and rotting organic matter produce prodigious amounts of methane that would be a serious green house gas but for the fact it is very soluble in water. At high pressure and at the sort of lowish temperatures that exist in very deep water methane precipitates out of solution as a solid. There are huge amounts of the stuff on the ocean floor particularly off the eastern seaboard of the United States. To quantify huge I am told there is enough to meet all the energy needs of the USA for several hundred years in the Atlantic alone.

The remarkable fuel cell coincidence comes from the fact we have recently been asked to consider producing shirt designs for engineers. You may have noticed that we ask our customers to tell us who they admire. One of the engineers mentioned was Sachito Fujimoto. This man is interesting because he challenged the fuel cell engineering consensus in a way that transformed the efficiency of the cell used in the Honda's FCX car. Every aspect of the performance of the cell was transformed: much more power, less weight and volume and much cheaper to manufacture. Essentially he changed the orientation of the cells from the horizontal to the vertical. Hitherto the cell was placed under the cars' floor pan and now it sits between the front seats. For the reasons detailed above this sort of challenge to a consensus is something you and your fellows are not likely to do. But remember it is never too late, you can change as Mr Obama has demonstrated.

Capo

weadmire wrote:

I could not work out what was motivating the behaviour of what might be described as the well tyred fraternity so I asked one of my longest standing friends to read the thread and let me have her thoughts. She has a 1st class degree in Psychology. By the way she describes the subject as stats with some human behaviour thrown in. I reproduce her email below.

SNIP

Up till now, I've lurked on this thread, but honestly.

Get. An. Effin'. Life.

Rockbuddy

Wow, what amazing insite your friend has

Looks like they'll give just about anyone a degree now-adays, was her degree a B.Sc. or B.A., just out of interest

Anyway, back to reality, still waiting for the data you keep promising? Did Hans have a look at the stats for you? Did she agree with your conclusion?

Looks like you are kinda clasping at straws with the Pop culture - Psyc assessment but I'm sure it made you feel better

Bassjunkieuk

I'd be interested to read the friends assessment of the SCR thread after they've spent 6 months reading it end to end ;-)

blu3cat

Hi, I've been lurking as well, interested in the debate. Just a quick question:

Well well gentlemen, what an attractive proposition you are. Boring, conventional, risk averse and probably physically weak too.

Weadmire, how does this support your claim that jumping red lights is safer than not?

Wallace1492

To me a Psycology degree is overated. However, I would agree with a lot of the deductions in the analysis. It doesn't take a genius to work that all out, I thought that what these sort of forums were all about - people who never meet, swapping thoughts and ideas, and there is a general "norm" to conform to. However, some step outside it and get "told off". But there is a rich spread of ideas, tips and (mostly) well thought opinions. I for one welcome all opinions, whether I agree with them or not.

However, getting back to the point, the psycologist did not express a view on whether RLJing was safer or not, therfore has nothing to add to the debate.

My personal opinion is that it can be safe, and at times safer than not RLJing, but stopping is in most cases the correct thing to do.

Mr Sworld

Wallace1492 wrote:

However, getting back to the point, the psycologist did not express a view on whether RLJing was safer or not, therfore has nothing to add to the debate.

Of course not! This thread is just about mud-slinging and the 'spitting out of dummies' now! No matter how 'highbrow' the relative arguments become. And it will continue to be as long as the mythical 'evidence' is not produced.

It is, however, very funny to read! :twisted:

Jay dubbleU

Psychology is pseudo-science for people who can't do maths. 8)

By the way - thanks for assuming I'm in my twenties

always_tyred

Actually, WeadMire, this suggests to me that you are personally troubled by the responses you have received. I apologise for descending into ridicule. You have brought it on yourself for the most part, but I apologise anyway, because the forum is not supposed to bother people when they aren't on it.

I assure you that the banter is (I hope) intended to be forgotten about the second after leaving the website.

I love to debate. In my opinion, you are wrong about RLJing, not necessarily in principle, but certainly in practice. I believe that your (collective RLJers') beheviour makes my life more diffucult than it shoud or could be.

I would love to debate each point with you and I am happy to do so, but please at least attempt to understand the points being put to you, and please try not to be so defensive and rude.

Btw - I have a chemistry Masters and PhD and my fuel cell comment was bait.

You failed, I'm afraid. (The by product of reforming methane is CO2, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe so supply is not a problem, fuel cells themselves are highly efficient.... you missed my point entirely, but confirmed that your brand of wisdom does not begin with the statement, "I do not know.")

Wallace1492

Mr Sworld wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

However, getting back to the point, the psycologist did not express a view on whether RLJing was safer or not, therfore has nothing to add to the debate.

Of course not! This thread is just about mud-slinging and the 'spitting out of dummies' now! No matter how 'highbrow' the relative arguments become. And it will continue to be as long as the mythical 'evidence' is not produced.

It is, however, very funny to read! :twisted:

I think there will be evidence that is is safer, and evidence that is is not safer. Each traffic light, each road and weather situation, each new day and new driver/rider and their behaviour all goes into the pot and makes each situation unique, and some will prove that RLJing is better, others that it is not. There is no correct answer here.