Nice stereotype but lunches in Italy are usually 30 minutes, just like in many other European countries. It's the 3 minute long, bland lunch in front of your laptop that's depressing to me. But as other people said to each their own.
> No offense, but honestly your lunch sounds depressing as hell.
It's just food, it doesn't have to be a party.
No offense, but only kids need to be entertained to eat, most people need food only because they get hungry.
If I want to have a nice meal, I go out at night with my girlfriend in a restaurant we like.
> In southern Europe(Austria)
That's a bold statement! :)
Austria is Mitteleuropa (middle Europe) its traditions are very similar to those of Germany, southern Europe is radically different.
In Italy we call "germans" the people living in Südtirol on the border with Austria, because they are different from average stereotypical Italians.
Anyway you can walk to a bistrot (it's a French thing, not Austrian) and have warm lunch with fresh cooked quality food (it's a southern tradition, historically northern countries had problems growing fresh food in their long winters, except for apples, that grow abundantly in south Austria) in Berlin or Stockholm as well.
If you leave Wien and go to the Austrian mountains, for example Innsbruck, you can experience typical Tyrolean food, which is equally good, albeit not exactly light.
> You also can't brake to avoid a car that goes into the side of you.
I wear a biker tailbone protector and a back protector + an helmet when I go snowboarding and I'm an amateur snowboarder at best that rarely goes in the park and rides at mediocre speed.
Why I usually don't see cyclists wear some of them protections?
1. Helmets are pretty common for road cyclist in places where the roads aren't super safe. Tailbone & back protection aren't super useful do to the kinds of accidents you get.
2. A big difference is downhill versus (mostly) flat. I only wear my helmet about 10-20% of the time when I'm ski touring. Downhill bikers wear all sorts of padding & protectors.
Why don't drivers? Driving is the biggest killer of young people.
Any vehicle you use for commuting is for convenience. Strapping into armour makes it harder so we don't expect it of drivers while we do expect it of extreme sports.
Supposedly the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of the road but I've never looked into it.
>It is not driving, it's road traffic injuries, which includes biking.
It's not from being hit by cyclists.
>This is the list of the mandatory safety measures in Europe for motor vehicles, it's 24 pages long
Quite a lot of it isn't, read articles 6 and 7 and the lists of implementation dates.
>Why are cyclist so afraid of protecting themselves?
After having people maliciously aim their car at you for being in front of them, it's quite patronising to have them assume you're riding unsafely. People in other countries manage much better safety records through infrastructure and education. On the contrary, I don't think there's any safety clothing I can wear that will save me if a car crashes into me. This thread assumes that exists, yet assumes the same doesn't exist for anyone who dies in a car crash. Why don't you wear a helmet when in a car?
Infrastructure doesn't improve where I am because the nasty, tribalist rhetoric swipes any safety issues under the rug by assuming cyclist fault. You've accused cyclists of being afraid of protecting themselves, thus categorising them in a tribe separate from your own. But I'm not separate from you: I'm a driver, too. Yet when I'm in a car with someone and they see a driver do something foolish, I never hear them call 'drivers' idiots, it's always about the singular person. The tribalism makes you think of the other party as less important.
(And the foolish things happen multiple times a day - I can guarantee I'll see someone speed when I drive home tonight)
Accusing me of being afraid of protecting just gives me the impression that you feel I have to earn the right for you to tolerate me in the road. An impression I get every time someone punish-passes me, or manoeuvres assuming a cyclist won't be in their path. And it's so tiring to be told it's my fault when I know how often I see people fail to obey the laws of the road at my expense.
> After having people maliciously aim their car at you for being in front of them, it's quite patronising to hav
On my motorbike I wear helmet and protections anyway, before having people maliciously aim at me (because you know, accidents can happen even without malice...).
> Single sided bicycle accidents are pretty common
Putting yourself at risk because there are supposed health benefit is stupid.
It's like being anti vax because you read somewhere that one time someone had a fever after a vaccine.
You can have health benefits AND protect yourself from dangers, one does not exclude the other (I would argue that protecting yourself from dangers will benefit your health more than cycling).
it's funny because as kids the first thing they teach us is to look around before crossing the streets and make sure that vehicles on the streets saw us and stopped.
Adults are so pendatic about it that we develop muscle memory for it.
The reason is simple: don't assume other people won't make mistakes just because they were supposed to be careful and protect the weakest.
The safer option is to actually be proactive about safety, at the point that we would never think about crossing streets without looking first.
It is considered a severe distraction.
I noticed that bikers (not only them, but especially them) reasoning is kinda reversed.
I'm not a biker myself, I used to ride when I was younger, but I prefer to walk now.
As a walker I've had arguments with biker friends about the unsafety that their behaviour sometimes poses on pedestrians like going at high speed where there are other people around, arriving from behind when in a noisy city it's almost impossible to hear them and making simply suddenly dodging a puddle a life threatening hazard, riding on sidewalks, disobeying traffic laws etc. etc.
There is of course a majority of responsible bikers who are very careful, but what really baffles me is that talking about their own safety is a kind of taboo for a majority of them. Most of our arguments end up with them justifying with "cars are more dangerous, they should be more careful" and when I take them seriously and reply "so if cars are dangerous, why you never wear an helmet or other kind of protections except maybe a flashing light when on the streets?", the answer I get is usually "because it's their responsibility to not kill us".
It's really nonsense to me. I really don't understand the position.
More appropriately (since armor won't protect you from a two ton SUV), do you wear bright colors, reflective tape, and night-time illumination when walking?
The answer from any smart pedestrian certainly should be yes, but it's surprisingly hard to buy neon yellow jackets or hats. They're rare for bclists and almost nonexistent for mcyclists, of which I'm both.
Apparently most mcyclists would rather be cool than visible.
If I walked at 30km/h on the streets I would definitely wear one
The poster in another comment says he wears helmet and body protections when skying, I think it's just common sense and not wanting to suffer sever consequences for no real reason.
I used to wear an helmet when skating.
Why bikers think they are the only immortal beings on this planet?
> suing another free software organisation for trademark infringement
Trademarks have to be enforced or you lose them.
> threatened to ruin the life of an FSF board member
Can you please backup this claim? I've found nothing to validate it.
> and who was fired by the FSF for briefing against the FSF's interests
According to every source I've found he resigned himself and voluntarily stepped down and left "on good terms" to take care of SFLC which he had recently founded.
It might be political jargon, but there is no way to prove he was fired.
> FSF's interests while being paid by Oracle.
AFAIK Moglen never worked or took money from Oracle.
> Trademarks have to be enforced or you lose them.
His trademark is on "Software freedom law center", and he's suing the Software Freedom Conservancy. He doesn't hold a trademark on "Software Freedom".
> Can you please backup this claim? I've found nothing to validate it.
I was there when it was reported and had confirmation from a witness.
> According to every source I've found he resigned himself and voluntarily stepped down and left "on good terms" to take care of SFLC which he had recently founded.
> It might be political jargon, but there is no way to prove he was fired.
I was on the board when he was fired.
> AFAIK Moglen never worked or took money from Oracle
> He doesn't hold a trademark on "Software Freedom".
Has he ever claimed that?
> I was there when it was reported and had confirmation from a witness.
It is true because I say so it's not really an answer to the question.
> I was on the board when he was fired.
So you can confirm you fired him?
That's interesting.
Back then you wrote
> This, in conjunction with his behaviour over the ZFS issue, led to him stepping down as the FSF's general counsel.
You did not say "fired" anywhere.
Why didn't you just say "fired"?
> Why would you be in a position to know?
I'm in the position to ask why you're accusing someone of taking money, without proof.
It's just human decency, I happen to be a contributor (a tiny one, but sill one) of both FSF and FSLC and I would like to know if Moglen took money from Oracle to sue other FSF foundations.
You seem to know though, but you don't say.
And even if it was true, is taking money from Oracle a crime per se?
What about taking money from Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft? more than a few FSF folks work there.
You said that it's necessary to sue to protect trademarks. In this case, where is the necessity?
> It is true because I say so it's not really an answer to the question
You can choose to believe me or you can choose to believe I'm lying - entirely up to you.
> So you can confirm you fired him?
Eh. Asked him to resign with the understanding that he'd be fired otherwise.
> And even if it was true, is taking money from Oracle a crime per se?
It's not a crime, it's just inappropriate to take money from a company and provide legal opinions that serve their interests while serving as general counsel for an organisation that strongly and publicly holds a different opinion.
> You said that it's necessary to sue to protect trademarks. In this case, where is the necessity?
I understand you don't like questions.
Moglen founded SFLC and helped SFC come to the light.
He even registered SFC trademark, he asked for the cancellation of SFC, not the trademark of "Free Software".
Now it's sure that no one will try to register a trademark similar to FSLC or FSC dealing with free software.
With that move he protected both.
There's no need to double down on the false accusation line.
Facts are well know by now.
> You can choose to believe me or you can choose to believe I'm lying - entirely up to you.
I'm not a believer.
I prefer the sane way of doing things: reviewing evidence.
You are not providing any, just "believe me or not", which is not what I'd like to do when it's about my money.
You said something about Moglen that upset me, I've just asked for a clarification, that you refuse to provide.
> Eh. Asked him to resign with the understanding that he'd be fired otherwise
So you did fire him, but issued a different statement.
Good to know.
> It's not a crime, it's just inappropriate to take money from a company and provide legal opinions that serve their interests
When did this happen exactly?
Wasn't Moglen providing legal opinions to Debian, the FSF, Canonical, but not Oracle?
And What interests are you talking about?
Is Google any different from Oracle?
One of my favourite programmer ever, Alan Cox (who also kinda look like Stallman), worked for a long time on the Linux kernel but was also being paid by Intel for a few years. What's wrong about that?
> as general counsel for an organisation that strongly and publicly holds a different opinion
The different opinion was a minor difference though.
I remember the OpenZFS problem: the only difference was that Moglen believed that users can legally distribute copies of OpenZFS binary blobs as the result of the compilation of an openly licensed source code, while FSF said no.
They had the same opinion on everything else.
Even Linus said in the past “But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)?”
Is this enough to fire people?
BTW Canonical have been distributing OpenZFS for years now and the sky has not fallen, nor Oracle have become richer thanks to that. They still distribute the real ZFS (the proprietary one) which is a much better implementation of ZFS.
He protected the Software Freedom Conservancy by accusing it of violating the Software Freedom Law Center trademark? You're going to need to explain that more clearly.
> I've just asked for a clarification, that you refuse to provide.
I've clarified as much as I can. When there's no other public evidence available, what do you want me to do?
> The different opinion was a minor difference though.
> You're going to need to explain that more clearly.
I think you are intelligent enough to understand it on your own.
BTW, I know asking question is good, but sometimes try to answer other people's questions, it's good too!
> When there's no other public evidence available, what do you want me to do?
So we can safely assume he did not do anything you say, he's innocent until proven guilty, like any of us, right?
> It really wasn't.
It really was.
I'm with Joshua Gay (former employee of the FSF Licensing & Compliance Team) on this:
It is not clear to me that there is any contradiction between the SFLC statement and the FSF’s statement on the matter of Linux and ZFS. That is, I can’t really find how the SFLC and FSF differ in their interpretation GPLv2 and CDDL.
By doing things well. ;)
Seriously, ask you colleagues, who has ever done anything good at lunch time, when low sugar fatigue kicks in?