Exile all cyclists

Why would it?

If there is zero chance of him getting hit and impeding anyone then why would anyone care?

I assume its not legal and wouldn't care if cyclist was caught and fined either, fwiw. He takes his chance its on him.

Cyclists are out there taking their lives in their hands even if they follow the rules so if they occasionally break them it doesn't bother me much.

A few days ago I was stopped at a light, having just come off a freeway. There are signs saying "No Right On Red," so I dutifully wait to turn even though there is no traffic at the moment. The guy behind me is not pleased and lets me know by honking and gesturing. This doesn't make me less inclined to be a driving nit, so I point at the sign and make him wait. He gestures more wildly and does some more honking and when the light finally changes, he drives his nondescript piece of **** as fast as it will go past me and into the turn lane for the local Indian casino. This casino doesn't offer poker so I guess he was in a hurry to put money into a slot machine, or had to pee or something.

Summing up, *******s on bicycles < *******s in cars.

Motorist/bicyclist relations are bad enough already, and I don't think blowing through red lights is likely to improve them.

So you get mad?

Personally? No, not really. I'd just think, "There goes another prick making things worse for everybody".

Pretty much that. While in that specific instance the cyclist isn't causing any direct harm, I don't believe that the cyclist is good at breaking the rules or whatever. In chicago cyclists were ****ing insane and it grows tiresome and stressful as a driver very quickly. I'd rather not kill anyone thanks, please don't blow through an intersection with stop signs going the wrong way on a one way please.

Yeah, I'm not getting upset. I favor the adoption of Idaho's bike laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Rules change. In some place's it's already ok and others are considering it.

Though Orwell had a strong point when he said Four wheels good ...

When I first heard of the Hunger Games books, I asked a (bonified) poet friend if she had read them. She didn't say anything, just stood there looking at me with a mix of pity and contempt. So I never read them. She's generally fine with YA fiction, including Harry Potter, I think. John Green for sure.

I just read Green's Paper Towns, which is a kind of mystery story, and has some clever bits. There's a reference in it to a picture of Woody Guthrie with his guitar. The guitar has "THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS" written on it.

Guthrie, of course, was a socialist. For a time, he lived in an apartment in NYC owned by Fred Trump, father of our potential next president. Donald may love the Blacks, but his father didn't rent to them. Needless to say, Guthrie didn't much like Fred:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...trumps-father/

Woody would not have thought much of Donald either. In This Land is Your Land, he sings

There was a big high wall there, that tried to stop me
A sign was painted, said "private property"
But on the back side, it didn't say nothin'
This land was made for you and me

[x] literary criticism
[x] "bonified"

Yes, like blatantly so. I watched one out of curiosity and it was as bad as I thought it would be. It's a bit weird and disturbing that its so popular.

Bona Fide

O Brother, Where Art Thou? tho

Her poetry is published. Maybe the contempt was more for me than the books.

My sixteen-year-old daughter is a published poet. She was not that into the Hunger Games either. My 13 year old non poet on the other hand was somewhat into the Hunger Games.

Stewart Lee stand-up on Harry Potter. Wonderfully elitist, and dead on.

"Have you read the new Harry Potter book Stu? No, I haven't read it because it's a children's book and I'm a 40 year old man."

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2e...rry-potter_fun

moar olds getting uppity. go to your nursing home and drink some prune juice

That's awesome. Sincerely.

I haven't been following the online poker scene since I stopped playing, but someone told me this week that Russian bots are taking tons of money out of the game, playing no-limit (!) fullstacking (!!!). Is that true? My impression (which this article seems to agree with) is that current AI isn't good enough to crush what's basically the most complex form of hold'em.

I'm curious how fast a table full of bots could play through until there's one winner, if shuffling and everything was a lot faster.

Mainly depends on how much processing each bot has to do before acting. They couldn't really do the processing before everyone in front of them acts, so maybe as slow as 10 secs per hand if each gets 1 second to process/act. I suspect Go was a harder problem than winning NLHE. There's actually been a fair bit of work on poker AI, but think much of it has been limit. No limit cant be that much harder: win big pots, only lose big pots when the expected value is positive.

Email Andrew Sullivan sent out today:

"This email is to let you know that I'm going back to long-form journalism, as I hoped to, at New York Magazine, edited by the incomparable Adam Moss (with whom I've worked, on and off, since the late 1980s). I start today and am already working on an essay on Trump. I'll also be blogging the Democratic and Republican conventions - two discrete, unmissable moments for bloggery in real time. I know, I know. But if I keep the blogging restricted to two bouts of four days each, I'm hoping I won't relapse."

Lol

http://www.wsj.com/articles/malaysia...eet-1459531987

Politically connected Senator asks the SEC to launch specious securities investigations into her political opponents, inexplicably makes the request in open-letter format