not one of you deserve it.

via Wired

In December comes The Stuff of Life: A Graphic Guide to Genetics and DNA, a remarkably thorough explanation of the science of genetics, from Mendel to Venter, with a strand of social urgency spliced in. “If there was ever a time that we needed a push to make science a priority, it’s now,” says Howard Zimmerman, the book’s editor and, not coincidentally, a former elementary-school science teacher. [...] Up next? Possibly evolution. After all, Zimmerman says, “more than half of adult Americans think Earth is about 6,000 years old.”

that is a disarming thought that i’ve never had thrown into focus for me.

ps – this tops out four posts in one day for me. mission accomplished.

this post is one that i should’ve written a long while ago. this blog is, after all, over a year old and being my main mode of transportation it has garnered a shockingly little amount of press. so, without further ado…
now, let me put a few fears to bed before i get into things:

1. i don’t hate all cars – while i’ll proudly join the millions in saying i disagree with how many people drive, i certainly don’t hate cars simply for being automobiles
2. i don’t consider bikers as being above cars – nor do i consider them below cars. we’re sharing the road. learn and love. [hugs]
3. i follow traffic laws – and so should you.

the main beef that i see drivers having with bikers is their wanton regard to traffic laws, other drivers, and life in general. jon hodgman, on a recent episode of you look nice today, said that the attitude of bikers towards everyone is “they hate you.” this is a falsity. much like the case of driver to driver, it is a biker to biker matter; yes, there are dick-bikers. there are also dick-drivers, dick-baristas, dick-servers, dick-cops, dick-ranch hands, and dick-dicks. so, judge all bikers by one sample from the bunch, and you’re a raging bigot. get out of my house.

the fact of the matter is that bikers (competent bikers) are usually doing what’s best for traffic. and on this note, let me make something inescapably clear: you can usually rely on a shotgun judgment to tell if someone is a competent biker or not

pop quiz, hot shot!
who is the competent biker?

if you answered the men on the right, you are correct… probably. the fact is that old guy bikers who look homeless are usually only biking because they got their license revoked for drinking and driving (kind of a good indicator that they shouldn’t be behind any sort of wheel, let alone one that puts no buffer between them and sweet lady pavement). these are the fellas you see careening into traffic down a one way street. in my opinion, these people should not be allowed to bike. more to come on that.

however! do not always rely on your instincts. there will be plenty of bikers who look geared up and serious about cycling that haven’t a fucking clue as to how to effectively bike with traffic. they signal at the last second if at all, are pissed towards every car isn’t bowing to their from-the-hip whims, and demand the respect they think they deserve simply for “saving the planet.” these d-bags may be referred to as Granolas (a borrowed term from camping; those jerks that haul their RV into the woods, spend thoudands on hiking gear for a day trip, or just simply don’t get it). these people, as well, should not be allowed to bike. again, more to come.

so, how do you drive around a competent biker? well, here’s a secret: treat them like a car. i won’t get into specifics, but just treat them exactly like a car. on the other side of things, bikers should be riding like a car; signaling, allowing the right of way to whomever it belongs to, using turning lanes appropriately, etc. etc. etc. “riding like a car? well, if they were to truly ride like a car, then they should have a drivers license.”

i couldn’t agree more.

the fact that there is a way for any bobby bike-messenger to get aboard a moving vehicle and enter traffic, endagering not only their own life but the lives of others is inexcusable. but, i doubt that in my lifetime (or ever, for that matter) we’ll see a biking license be put into effect. so, for the time being, let’s do the best we can.

——-

did i leave something out? well, don’t fret. that was the first in what will become a series of posts. i originally everything into one document, but there’s far too much on this subject to deliver in one sitting. so, stay tuned for the next post, coming… i don’t know… whenever.

I think finding your own comfort with the process (whatever that process ends up being) might just be the whole game here — being willing to put in your time, learn the craft, and never lose the courageousness to be caught in the middle of making something you care about, even when it might be shit and you might look like an idiot fumbling to make it.

via merlin mann

via bullshit but i saw it on lonelysandwich

It’s not strange to disagree about movies that are wildly different, and there are surely a few random movies that are very polarizing. What I find most interesting is which movie people consider the best movie from a particular director, as it is usually very telling and polarizing in a different way, so to this point I will propose a new personality test where you reblog your favorite movie from each of these directors:

1. Joel Coen: No Country for Old Men, The Big Lebowski, Fargo, The Hudsucker Proxy, Miller’s Crossing, Raising Arizona, etc
2. Wes Anderson: The Darjeeling Limited, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The Royal Tennenbaums, Rushmore, Bottle Rocket, etc
3. Hal Ashby: Being There, Shampoo, Harold and Maude, etc
4. Kevin Smith: Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Dogma, Chasing Amy, Mallrats, Clerks, etc
5. Quentin Tarantino: Grindhouse, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, etc

my results: Miller’s Crossing, Rushmore, Harold and Maude, … Chasing Amy, i guess… Pulp Fiction