In countries where people bike a lot, biking isn't treated as an inherently risky behavior. Instead, it's more akin to how we treat walking or driving a car, which we feel comfortable doing without helmets even if they would save lives on occasion. This alternative attitude to biking risk encourages more people to bike, which makes it safer for everyone as drivers become more accustomed to seeing and watching out for bikers. Keep in mind, most people don't die from accidents, they die from disease. Riding 20 miles a week on a bike cuts your chance of heart disease in half. Given that heart disease is our biggest killer in the US, we'd do well to stop treating biking as a risky behavior and instead encourage people to bike whether they choose to wear a helmet or not.
Do you actually bike? I ask because the statement "in the US, we'd do well to stop treating biking as a risky behavior" will come as a surprise to anybody who spends any amount of time in the saddle on US roads.
Do you live in sprawling suburbia? In a lot of major cities it's fairly safe, and it becomes safer the more people bike. What's stopping people is that it's perceived as being risky. I don't think we need to abolish helmets for that, but the perception that you will die of head trauma if you're riding a few blocks to the coffee shop is a bit much.
Suburbia definitely contributes to this problem with large multi-lane roads, hostile to both cyclists and pedestrians alike. A lot of their cycling projects also seem to be focused on multi-use paths, which are unlikely to bring up the count of commuter cyclists. They're poor to use as transportation or training options, which often leaves suburban drivers confused or frustrated when "there's a perfectly good path for you over there."
I live at a block with a two way stop at the intersection. A few weeks ago a student was pedaling at a healthy clip --25-30 mph, I was walking on the same direction as she was. The street she was pedaling down has a stop sign, the cross street does not. A lot of cyclists kinda sorta slow down a bit at the stop sign. This day, a car was coming down the hill on the street with no stop sign. The cyclist didn't stop ---not did the car (it did apply its bakes) which had the right of way.
She was wearing a helmet and she left a nice dent in the side of the car. She came out of it stunned but alright. I doubt she would have had the same outcome had she not worn a helmet.
She wouldn't have needed a helmet if she had heeded the stop sign and the fact that the car had right of way. I don't know if it's a regional thing, but a disturbing number of cyclists in the Bay Area ride like idiots. I've had numerous near-misses with bikes as a pedestrian, and I've seen some astonishingly bad behavior by riders who caused minor accidents and then tried to blame the driver of the car they careened into. I intervened in one such situation (where the rider was screaming racist obscenities are a car full of elderly passengers that he had just plowed into and threatening them with arrest and legal action) to point out that not only had he been going far faster than the car he hit, which was pulling in to park, his bike had no brakes. 'I own several bicycles,' he puffed 'and my other ones have brakes. I'll just show one of those to the police when I file the incident report.' He was less than pleased when I took a picture of him with his bike and told him to try it.
I don't think I have an anti-bike bias - I don't own one now, but I rode for years and the only motor vehicle I've owned was a motorcycle; I don't like driving a car unless I have to.
What you day is true but we wear safety devices in the event something unforeseen happens --in this case an accident. Maybe she was tired wasn't paying attention, etc. This provided protection from this event. The world isn't perfect nor are we so its not unreasonable to try to hedge against an accident within reason...
Yes, I agree. Both motorists and cyclists need to understand each other. Myself, both a cyclist and motorist, can assume some negative aspects --for example, feeling exasperation at a cyclists slowing down traffic --for example when they ride side-by-side. But also when I'm a cyclist, I can assume some negative aspects exhibited by cyclists --not coming to a full stop, etc... It's about education and becoming cultured in both transport modes... That is not seeing stopping at a stop as 'inconvenient' (the same way we don't feel inconvenienced by having to wait for a crosswalk light.)
Also, a bicycle helmet doesn't do much good in a head-on impact at 25 mph. It only gives you a few mm of deceleration distance. So, if the impact was at 25mph, that dent in the car likely did way more for her than her helmet.
While I agree that going that fast minimizes or negates the saftey of the helmet, your hour-record link is useless here. While cycling on a flat surface, I easily club up to 30 mph (for a stint). On a downhill, I've had to use my breaks to stay below 40 mph. The parent post did not say she was sustaining that speed for a whole hour, plus this was downhill. Despite how fast she was going, she should have been going slower and riding defensively.
You're right she was likely going about 20 mph. She was on a 'ten' speed. The street she was on is on a slight downward incline. I think helmets provide protection for some scenarios a d agent either useless or burdensome. In other words they are worth their while and I think it provided her with protection in this case.
I've heard this argument and don't buy it. Technically I think you are correct--if you presume there's an inverse correlation between helmet use and cycling rates, the health benefits of riding would save more lives than would be lost by the lack of helmets.
But it's not a tradeoff. Cycling rates have skyrocketed over the last 5 years in SF and NYC, without any real change in attitude towards helmets. We can thank bike lanes.
The car analogy doesn't hold water either--the most effective safety device for cars is the seat belt. Nobody thinks seat belt use is a sign of a risk-obsessed driver, and likewise, wearing a helmet doesn't mean you treat biking as a risky behavior. In both cases they're just sensible precautions for a common activity.
that's a poor excuse to not wear a helmet. I guess if you are in a city and the only thing that you worry about are cars then it's reasonable.
Where I am, there are more things than cars that will take me out, and a helmet is one thing that protects me.
Low hanging or falling branches, massive potholes that can kill your tires and bike wheel, people carrying large objects out of the trunk of their car - so even if they are driving safely, it only takes one snapped bungie cord to have a piece of furniture come at you...
Always wear a helmet regardless of how safe you think cars are being!
There are on only two paragraphs about this in the Wikipedia link you gave, and the second one ends:
Elvik writes "When the risk of injury to head, face or neck is viewed as a whole, bicycle helmets do provide a small protective effect. This effect is evident only in older studies. New studies, summarised by a random-effects model of analysis, indicate no net protective effect".
I'm guessing you didn't read it and assumed it supported your preconceptions?
(Going to politely revoke my snarky response to your snark)
I specifically mentioned head injuries (TBIs) - there are two meta analyses listed, the point you listed went beyond that (to include neck and face injuries). The other meta analysis also supported its TBI-reducing benefits.
Edit: If you're looking for the pertinent line from the analysis:
"With respect to head injury, the answer is clearly yes, and the re-analysis of the meta-analysis reported by Attewell et al. (2001) in this paper has not changed this answer."
What you actually said was, "Helmets are pretty universally known to reduce traumatic brain injuries."
This is wrong and not what you are now saying. You are now saying that among people who have suffered brain injuries, helmets are known to reduce traumatic brain injuries.
If the helmets make it more likely that you suffer an injury in the first place, it's not really a consolation that they mitigate the effects. There are actually reasons why many people oppose compulsory helmet laws.
This sort of thinking is often invoked to justify why the world can't get better for e.g. poor Africans, while ignoring the fact that the rest of the world has been doing it in a more effective fashion (e.g. boiling water with a fire) for literally millennia with no ill effects.
It's not clear to me that bacteria and other pathogens could evolve around heat sterilization. I'm sure they can adapt in some ways to some amount of temperature change, but at some point (maybe hotter than this device can achieve) surely no organism can survive.
It's like the old saying, it's easy to destroy HIV - the hard part is doing it inside a human body. In the case of sterilizing water, we don't have that problem, the water will remain usable.
So, 150 °F is not really all that hot as some organisms thrive at 250°F or well above boiling. However, I suspect organisms that thrive at 150+°F are unlikely to also thrive in the human body. A more important issue is the effort to sterilize water by hand is unlikely to be made with any real consistency.
This is a disease which can be fatal, and is found in association with systems involving water, including hot water heaters.
I'll grant you as much as you likely that you're unlikely to get this or that, what I'm cautioning against is the idea that you've found a silver bullet. You've never found a silver bullet against bacteria, and it's better to go into use of systems like these with that assumption.
Thinking ahead to make "thoroughly rinse, clean, and dry this system at least once a week" part of the instructions for use as a precaution against bacteria isn't nay-saying, it could be quite valuable to the people we would have using systems like these in the future.
As long as good technology gets communicated well enough to be effectively applied, with real results, there is hope in the world. How we go about doing that, especially for life-destroying subjects such as these diseases, is a matter of great importance to mankind and is thus, alas, subject to all mankinds' cultures. Expressions of technological prowess mean nothing if the basics of human life, in the first place - the real rudimentary stuff, like: water, food, shelter - are nearly non-existent.
Our only hope, is all I'm saying, is in our ability to cross all boundaries and communicate under extraordinary duress, nevertheless, with effective results. So I fully support your position.
I'm encouraged by the community efforts being made to address this; there is, after all, a very large industrial powerhouse that can be directed towards these problems. If we see Ebola-bots on the horizon, better hope they're flying away and not getting closer, uh oh ..
Yeah, I'm not sure about that. According to the xdg-mime(1) man page:
"The query option is for use inside a desktop session only."
Why wouldn't it work from a console session? Or even a non-login session (e.g. cron job)? I'm not sure I want to trust a command-line program that only works as part of a desktop session. It sounds like the sort of fragile doodad that makes weird assumptions about its environment, which might one day no longer be true even in that environment, to me.
Can anyone shed any further light on that crazy usage restriction?
xdg-mime merely looks at the shared-mime-info db, processes files accordingly and spits out the result.
Also, I did not actually say you should use xdg-mime; I said you should use the shared-mime-info database. xdg-mime is a (very crappy) interface for it, but using an xdg library is a lot, lot more efficient.
For use on the command line, feel free to use xdg-mime (it does not just do mime types, it also does associations with them which means you can view and change associations between file types from it). I don't know of any other tool like it although I was working on one in python (but it's not production ready).
Nice, they have both Windows and Linux support. I got a Papilio Pro some time ago and it's fun to play with. There's also a few other boards based on the same Spartan 6 series with more gates/ram and cheaper.
"Emails are synced from the users’ email accounts via IMAP to the box and are stored in plaintext in a secure storage area on the box"
I've seen a better (opensource) approach to use gpg to securely store email: upon receiving a message, if not already encrypted, use the public key of the account recipient to encrypt it. This way, all email is encrypted with your pgp key. The downside , which this box is trying to solve, is that the (imap) client will need to do the decryption, so it's not transparent to the user. There's also filters for well known MTA (exim,postfix,etc) that will encrypt/decrypt using pgp or s/mime (user/host) keys upon connection.
I see another problem with the 'box' approach, it will need the plain-text passphrase, so if someone steals or has access to your (mail)box, all your email is plain-text and you will have to revoke the pgp key.
Not only that, if you are not aware of the intrusion, someone can impersonate you, since they can sign any message/document with those credentials.
How about redundancy/backups? If the net connection goes down or box/house stops working, what happens to the emails?
My point was that for a non-pgp aware imap client to read the encrypted emails, the passphrase needs to be somewhere, probably in RAM all the time, making it a target, so if there's an exploit, having it encrypted or not is moot. It solves the 'steal box' problem and since it's not spy stuff, we don't have to worry about cold boot attacks ;)
On a desktop, the pgp credentials either exists momentarily (user input) or through an agent, so at first sight it would seem that would be safer, although then we could also argue that a desktop is probably not as safe as this box due to all the other software that is run by the user.
Ultimately this is a decision between usability and security, and I am afraid there is no good answer here. We still do our best to prevent key theft, even in the case of someone hacking into a running box. There is only one process with access to the keys, which runs in a separate system account (each software component runs under its own account anyways) and which is not accessible from the outside. Still, one could potentially hack into the system and become root.. but this is less likely to happen on a separate box than on a full-blown desktop (with the average user giving out his/her root password whenever some installer asks for it).
Crowd funding is great for many things, but not for a fab. We're talking >$1 BILLION in capital per plant required just to replicate existing technology (not even to begin innovating). Still, if you can raise $1B in a crowdfund, we'd love to know your secrets!
But you're just converting one time to another. If you know their reported UTC time and their reported offset to local, isn't that all you need? For greater precision, ask for their geolocation or use an IP address to narrow down the possibilities, though offset obvious helps.
Now that I think about it, you could auto-suggest based on offset and embed a list of locations per option if they needed to pick between daylight savings or not, for instance. There's room for an interesting widget or service, but it would need to be updated almost as much as a US sales tax calculation widget ;-)
when doing kernel development on embedded systems or on a real host (not within a virtual machine), it's sometimes useful to get system information when it crashes. the cool thing is that it's also possible to send the sysrq through a console serial port by first sending a break command.
anyway, someone already mentioned a few mnemonics, I learned one, a quick googling lead me here: