Posts Tagged ‘blog’

Freeway vs. Highway – Libel vs. Slander – Shotgun vs. Rifle – Accident vs. Collision – Blog vs. Post – Jumbo Jet vs. Regular – Gas vs. Fuel

Monday, August 7th, 2017

We’re in Cali, right? So you know what a freeway is. So don’t call a freeway a “highway.” In California, a highway is any old street. For example:

CVC 21201 (d) A bicycle operated during darkness upon a highway…”

This use of highway in this context means any public street. I guarantee it. (But you can ride your bike on many sections of California freeway – see below.) So you can’t say that Frisco only has two highways (but if you do, people will know you mean freeway through context, I guess.)

What I’m saying is that you use highways to get to a freeway, how’s that?

Libel and slander don’t necessarily mean what you think they mean 100%, sry. Your rule of thumb will keep you out of trouble almost all of the time, but things can get tricky when you get down into the weeds. So yes, you’ve got the dictionary definition right, but there can be exceptions, the same way the duck-billed platypus is an egg-laying species but also a mammal. The solution is defamation and defamatory. 

Let’s try it out. “Dear Sir, your words are defamatory. I shall contact my solicitor to begin an action for defamation.” That works, baby. (Or, you can call yourself an “editor” of an online entity what’s called “Beyond Chron” and then threaten to sue the real Chronicle. Like you’ll say “I’ll consider my options” of suing the real Chronicle for defamation, something like that. And then people will chuckle because they know you’ve already decided not to sue our local paper of record.)

And really, this difference doesn’t really matter. It’s like what’s a fruit and what’s a vegetable. There’s no reason to get into the distinction most of the time.

(But feel free to mock those who confuse these terms, or use the term “liable,” – I won’t take that away from you.



Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference betwixt a shotgun and a rifle, especially from far away. So the term you use is long gun. Easy peasy. I saw the use of this term exactly once in our local Paper of Record, and I thought, wow, that’s how you do it. But then the hed was changed an hour later, presumably because readers were confused. Or maybe the issue had been cleared up by then, IDK.

Another thing is that a rifle can kill you from 500+ yards away and a shotgun can’t.

An accident is something what occurs not on purpose and a collision is when two or more things hit each other, more or less. (And let’s not get into allision.) But you see, they’re not really substitutes for each other. Sometimes collisions are accidental and sometimes accidents involve collisions. Most accidents involving cars are the result of negligence and some are the result of recklessness. Most bike accidents are the result of pilot error, you know, just falling down, but some involve hitting or getting hit by a car and that may or may not be the bicycle rider’s error. You need to look at each case to find fault.

Now if a tennis pro who’s into crystals starts running people over on purpose in the Mission, well, that’s not an accident, but later on you might say that you have a trick knee now due to a traffic accident even though this guy targeted you, that’d be OK. If you have reason to believe that some car crash was committed on purpose, you can say, “That was no accident.” And then it could be attempted homicide or vehicular manslaughter or battery – it could be a lot of things, but not an accident. Anyway, if a collision was the result of negligence or recklessness, then it quite rightly can be called an accident. (And of course, I’m more of a San Francisco bike rider and more of a San Francisco pedestrian, measured any way you would like, by miles, hours, years, decades on these streets of San Francisco, than anybody who harps on you about the difference between accident and collision. Think on that.)

A blog is a weB LOG – it’s the whole enchilada. A single entry into a blog is called a post. I am astounded at the number of people who don’t get this, even after a quick mansplaining. So, the post is the tree and the blog is the forest that the tree is in.

Now one time some lady who got rich off the Chron, through marriage I guess, paid some lawyer to send me a long-winded letter about how I was going to get sued for slander libel, ah defamation, that’s that ticket. Now he was only writing me concerning one post, but his demand was for me to take down my blog, you know, which at that time was made up of thousands and thousands of posts. You see, he was confused. (And then he said I wasn’t allowed to tell anybody about this matter, so of course I posted his letter on my blog the next day. (In poker terms, this is called going over the top.) Good times. And I kept the offending post up, ’cause it was all good. And of course I never got sued IRL. You gotta know how to handle Trump-like individuals, know how to call their bluffs.)

A jumbo jet is a Boeing 747, mostly. You can also throw in the Airbus A380 – now some call it a superjumbo, but you can also call it a jumbo. Both of those aircraft are also widebodies, with twin aisles. And narrowbodies have just one aisle, typically with five or six seats per row. Moving down, you’ve got your regional jets and your corporate jets and then your general aviation jets. That’s it.

Oh, there are some widebodies that aren’t jumbos, like the Boeing 777, that can carry more passengers than a smaller jumbo, like the comical-looking 747SP. Certainly this stubby jet is huge, it’s just so short that it went obsolete pretty quickly. So then along came larger and larger twinjets with only a single deck, but they end up having more capacity than a “jumbo.” Oh well. I didn’t make the rules, I just ‘splain them on my blog.

And if you aren’t sure, never say gas, say fuel. This will keep you out of trouble.

So a military tank might run on gas, but most likely not. The same thing with vessels. And some cars run on diesel of course, Usually, there’s no reason to be specific.

FIN

And here are some of your bikes operating legally on freeway areas, one in San Mateo County and the other in Marin:

7J7C6620-copy

go8f1555-copy

Unsolved Mysteries: An Air Rifle vs. Windows Battle All Along Geary?

Tuesday, March 7th, 2017

Here’s the story:

Police ask public for assistance with investigation of Geary shootings – Posted on March 2, 2017 by Sarah B

And here’s one of the windows – I guess the projectile made it about halfway through:

7J7C8158 copy

I looked for a pellet or a BB (beebee, a little spherical piece of metal) on the ground, but saw nothing.

Bee(bee) on the look out.

OMG, the New The Bold Italic is Here! – A Statement from the New Owners

Wednesday, August 12th, 2015

Here it is:

WELCOME TO THE NEW BOLD ITALIC, by SUNIL RAJARAMAN & SONIA ARRISON SENKUT,  Aug 12 at 8am

Let’s take a look:

“built a great brand over the course of several years.”

Great? Mmmm… Take a look here at the now-defunct Gannett Blog. What TBI was was a way for a Fortune 500 media company to spend millions upon millions on an experiment, one that didn’t work out. Any chance at sustainability was squandered on highly-paid design consultants and also squandered on the crushing rent burden of an expensive reclaimed wood clubhouse betwixt the gritty Twitterloin and trendy Hayes Valley. So, a great tax write-off for Gannett Co, Inc? YES. But a “great brand?” NO.

“we were surprised that TBI was shutting down”

Well, you shouldn’t have been. It was nice that a DC-area corporation could pay people money in SF, but the whole shebang wasn’t real, it wasn’t sustainable.

One of the reasons people love TBI is its focus on the authenticity of the San Francisco experience…” 

Objection, Your Honor – this clause assumes facts not in evidence. At least they aren’t evident to me. Sorry, but I gots to keep it real, I gots to be authentic.

“world-class”

Oh. I think we hit Peak World Class about a half-decade back, just saying. And even back then, I wouldn’t apply that phrase to this Curate’s egg of a website.

Having said all that, bygones. Some are optimistic while others are skeptical, to say the least, but let’s see how The New Bold Italic does.

After all, we all deserve a chance at a new start*…

photo

*Including The Sans Serif…**

**But is this a new start? “Great article from on whether the article about “The Really Big One” was credible” Did I miss something? It seemed pretty credible to me…

Google Announces New Operating Structure: Becoming Subsidiary of “ALPHABET” – Sundar Pichai will be New Google CEO

Monday, August 10th, 2015

Well, this is news:

G is for Google

The Official Google Blog by Google Blogs
 
As Sergey and I wrote in the original founders letter 11 years ago, “Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.” As part of that, we also said that you could expect us to make “smaller bets in areas that might seem very speculative or even strange when compared to our current businesses.” From the start, we’ve always strived to do more, and to do important and meaningful things with the resources we have.

We did a lot of things that seemed crazy at the time. Many of those crazy things now have over a billion users, like Google Maps, YouTube, Chrome, and Android. And we haven’t stopped there. We are still trying to do things other people think are crazy but we are super excited about.

We’ve long believed that over time companies tend to get comfortable doing the same thing, just making incremental changes. But in the technology industry, where revolutionary ideas drive the next big growth areas, you need to be a bit uncomfortable to stay relevant.

Our company is operating well today, but we think we can make it cleaner and more accountable. So we are creating a new company, called Alphabet. I am really excited to be running Alphabet as CEO with help from my capable partner, Sergey, as President…

The Difference Betwixt SFGate and the San Francisco Chronicle: The Use of the Word IRREGARDLESS

Thursday, July 30th, 2015

At SFGate: ALLOWED

(At the San Francisco Chronicle: NOT ALLOWED, AFAICS.)

For ex, here’s today’s SFGate:

Irregardless, Dr. Tat recognizes a needle stick injury causes parents worry and anxiety. “The times that I’ve seen it, parents’ feelings have …

On It Goes…

“BURRITOFICATION IN PROGRESS” – Chipotle Chain Store Comes to Mervyn’s Heights, 94118 – NOW HIRING at Geary and Masonic

Monday, April 6th, 2015

After a giant Fail Whale landed upon the efforts to bring a Chipotle Mexican Grill to the masses at Church and Market a few years back, the purveyors of America’s Favorite Mission-style Burrito set about making things work up at 2675 Geary.

And lo, here it is:

7J7C4948 copy

Soon enough, everybody living on the wrong side of Divis will be able to Live Más and Think Outside The Bun…

Disturbia: Trail of “Bloody” Footprints on Hayes Leads to $5 Million House That Used to be a Baptist Church – Good Friday?

Saturday, April 4th, 2015

Nuala Sawyer of Hoodline just snapped this photo in the Western Addition – all the deets here:

Disturbing Footprints Leave Neighborhood Concerned

Via Nuala Sawyer:

Capturefsffffff

(Now I’ll tell you, whenever I leave bloody footprints, the trail generally, how do you say, attenuates as I move on. Moving on…)

Sure seems curious that this trail starts at the more-trafficked part of the NoPA / Western Addition and leads to 601 Broderick, the THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOODhouse, which, of course, used to be Gethsemane Baptist Church.

And then this building got sold for $5 million(!) as a Single Family Home.

And now it stands out, IMO, in an area of expensive houses.

Oh, here you go, CurbedSF’s Tracy Elsen called these transactions “our absolute favorite flip of the year.”

And here’s some assigned reading from Building Talker James Hill

601 BRODERICK: NOSTALGIA AND AMNESIA

But of course, I don’t know who did what to create those imprints…

Debunking the Debunkers: “Charles Vincent, Chris Bucchere, and the SFPD”

Monday, March 30th, 2015

Look what popped up in my inbox:

Saturday, March 28, 2015 Charles Vincent, Chris Bucchere, and SFPD

Take a look and then come back here – that’s how the dedebunking business works.

On March 2nd Charles Vincent, 66 years old, was riding his bike at the intersection of 14th and Folsom in San Francisco when…

When he ran a red light, per the SFPD police report (which I’ve ask to see, but haven’t seen yet), right? The problem with telling the story the way DJ Connel tells things, is that that makes it StreetsBlog-style advocacy journalism. Why not instead tell the story straight? Moving on.

“The DA is not gonna charge that person with a crime because…”

Because the DA would have to get a guilty verdict from a notoriously-slack San Francisco jury. By way of example, you and your GF can have about 14 drinks at the Foodies’ New Favorite Bay Area Restaurant and then run over a Eurpoean visitor and then stop and then move his bicycle off of the street(!) and then switch seats and then make a run for it and then, later on, you get a little bit of jail time, less than a year, perhaps just a few months. So that’s your because. IMO, a different question is whose fault the accident is. (I thought the PR said it was the cyclist’s?)

If someone is in violation of code, it’s sanctionable to kill them with your own violation?

Well maybe, it depends on how the violation relates to the harm. (I’ll point out that sanctionable is a particularly poor word choice here.)

Rewind to the Chris Bucchere case…. Chris rode his bike at approximately 31 mph…

Oh no no no. It was “at least 31 MPH.” If you want to go for “approximately,” then the answer is 35 MPH.

This case brought out a wave of rage against Chris, indeed against cyclists in general, which caused the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition to attack him…

Whoa, slow down here. What happened was that he got carried away with Strava, so he’d repeatedly “bomb” down segments of steep streets to see how fast he could complete the “Castro Street Bomb” or the “XXth Street Bomb” and, even though he was experienced with how pedestrians behave on Market street, he crossed over it way over the limit and then he made a bizarre post on the Internet. So if that’s what you want to simply call “the case,” that’s fine, but there’s a reason why this accident became international news. I certainly didn’t feel any “wave of rage” directed at me and I don’t think that the SFBC would have cheered him on absent any purported generalized wave of rage. The people who were really mad were cyclists on SF2G, boards like that, members of various cycling groups, at least one of which had the word “Mission” in its name. Bucchere was way off the scale.

Indeed there’s little question Chris was being reckless…”

Oh, this is quite an admission. The next step after reckless is purposeful, and nobody thinks this accident was purposeful, right? So, yes, pretty reckless. Something I do after I’ve entered an intersection legally, you know, IRL legally, is to stop just before the crosswalk at the far side of the intersection, so as to avoid hitting one or more of SF’s horrible peds. Too bad Bucchere couldn’t have thought of that. Or even slowing down a little bit – that could have helped a lot.

“But the question is here is one of fairness, whether drivers are treated comparably to cyclists…”

Well, let’s look at the case of Randolph Ang. No 35 MPH, no Strava “King of the Hill” aspirations, no internet ode to a bicycle helmet posted five hours later. He got community service, performed at, at least in part, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. No felony conviction, certainly. His post-accident behavior seemed more understandable, right?

The Bucchere case, on the other hand, went something like this: A: “That speeding cyclist blew through the stop sign and hit the pedestrians legally crossing the intersection – throw the book at him!” 

Uh no, for a lot of reasons. The people who voiced emotion against Bucchere, which included, of course, most of the cyclists who commented, (including one who said he’d feel embarrassed to continue wearing a jersey with a certain club name on it) didn’t really get into Sutchi Hui being legally in the crosswalk or not. And this wasn’t a California stop at a stop sign, as this intersection was and is controlled with electronic signals. No no, it was Bucchere’s attorney who talked about Bucchere entering the intersection “legally,” but of course this couldn’t have been true since he was speeding, so oh well to that. And big factors were what he posted online and also his fascination with Strava

“But the video shows he [Bucchere] entered the intersection legally.”

Uh, do you mean on a yellow, DJ Connel? I think that’s what you mean. He was speeding though, right? Is speeding “legal?”

A: “Well, never mind that — he still plowed into those pedestrians legally crossing the intersection!”

Uh no, you’re putting words into peoples’ mouths here.

B: “But if he entered legally, and was near the speed limit, it’s impossible the pedestrians entered the intersection legally…

Whoa, whoa. He didn’t enter legally ’cause he was way over the limit, right?

A: “Well, never mind that — someone says he ran a stop sign during one of the blocks before the intersection.”

Well, stop signs – it looks like he did that too.

I’m not defending Bucchere…

Really? I think you are.

Amelie Le Moullac is just the most egregious of so many tragic cases where cyclists have been killed and blame-the-victim has been the first line of investigation.

Then cite all the many cases then, Dude. I don’t know, what about 2014? All of the deaths in SF were the fault of the cyclists themselves, right? Do you want to get into lessons learned here, DJ Connel? I don’t think you do.

You want to say that Bucchere was reckless but he was at the same time “legal.” You want to debunk myths, but you add some of your own.

So how does that help?

If you want to help, why not pour through all the police reports with at least one transportation-related fatality from last year. I’ll get you started, from a report I can’t link to, after the jump. Maybe you’ll learn something, IDK. Here’s something linkable, from Heather Knight. I’ll tell you, politically, this data proved to be unpopular with SFGov and, for whatever reason, the SFPD commander in charge of traffic got transferred to Timbuktu shortly after this bit came out. [UPDATE: I think he then later got promoted and is now has attained the highest SFPD position possible, outside of being Chief, so I guess things worked out for him after all.] So there might be a bias involved, but not the kind you’re looking for.

All right, hop to it. For whatever reason, your blog is Google-worthy, so anything you write about Chris Bucchere gets sent out as a Google alert to those MSM journalists who haven’t yet cancelled their Bucchere Google Alerts. So, unlike any comments you might post on StreetsBlog, actual real regular people, nonactivists will look at what you have to say…

(more…)

Explaining Why the “Haight Street Rat” Isn’t “as close as you can get to the intention that Banksy had”

Wednesday, January 21st, 2015

Here it is, back in 2010. That greenish building that used to be a bank housed Villains Vault at the time:

Click to expand

Detail, camera left:

Und camera right:

A thin red line connects these two elements, one assumes.

Here’s the update:

Banksy’s ‘Haight Street Rat’ graffiti holes up in an S.F. gallery by Rachel Howard

Now let’s say that Banksy caught Villains Vault displaying and selling unlicensed Banksy reprints as well as stuff from other street artists, you know, flagrantly, back in 2010. So then Banksy was all enough is enough, so he was all THIS IS WHERE I DRAW THE LINE.

And then he drew the line.

So really, the line is the piece, instead of the rat, right?

So if you just have the rat, you’re missing part of the story, right?

So it’s not just The Rat In The Hat Comes Back, right? I’m not saying that Banksy is all that deep but he’s deeper than a simple put-a-beret-on-it.

Now I understand why that KRON guy just went for the rat, but to do this job “as close as you could get to the intention Banksy had,” you’d have gotten the rest of the piece.

Just saying.

Or, IOW:

“The original Haight Street Rat stencil is a beret-wearing rat clutching a marker and a red line that extends from the rat to the neighboring building on the corner of Haight Street and Belvedere Street. On the adjacent building, the rat has seemingly written the text “THIS IS WHERE I DRAW THE LINE” in red which can be seen from the street above a clothing store that allegedly took street artists’ works and printed them on T-shirts and other apparel for sale without giving the artists any credit or revenue.”

Or IOW:

“Named the Haight Street Rat for its placement atop a Victorian building on Haight Street, the stenciled rat clutching a red marker is now neatly framed and displayed in a location entirely unlike the one in which it was created: the lobby of the U.S. Bank Tower in downtown L.A., the city’s tallest tower and perhaps its most conspicuous symbol of capitalism. It’s a baffling venue for a piece of site-specific street art that initially wrapped across two buildings…

Double-Park Nation, San Francisco – A Lesson in Urban Etiquette – “Double Parking: Is It For Me?”

Friday, December 19th, 2014

Here’s long-time SF blogger 40 Going On 28 going on about what really grinds his gears:

Urban Etiquette: Motoring in the City

And all that’s fine, for the most part.*

But here’s your nugget, San Francisco driving culture-wise:

4. Double Parking: Is It For Me?

The advice about not parking “anywhere near an intersection” is the Inviolable Rule. You can’t just go to the end of the block and then double-park right in front of the crosswalk – that’s not kosher. Agreed.

But what of this fairly typical sitch, in the Western Addition?

7J7C0631 copy

The street here is quite short, just three blocks, plus it’s quite wide plus, bonus, it’s not on a bus line, so all these bandits need not worry about getting a pesky MUNI bus camera ticket. IMO, the moving van has priority here, so the other drivers should avoid double parking near it.

Obviously, these double parkers should show a great deal of respect for elements of the SFPD and DPT, and they shouldn’t box in legally parked cars. If that happens to you, simply start honking your horn and then the car owner should appear within a minute or so, to hastily get out of your way. (I mean, ideally.)

Anyway, that’s my perspective, that double parking etiquette is something you’re just going to have to learn after you get here and drive around.

I’ve been driving / parking here for a quarter century now. This is JMO.

*Personally, I don’t see the harm of California stops in SF in most circumstances. I’m not talking about a MUNI driver blowing through stops at 12 MPH (as documented by a video cam on the very same bus), no, I’m talking about creeping (down the back streets on D’s) through. You should aspire to drive just the way off-duty SFPD cops do. Then you’ll be invisible to them when they’re on-duty. And when they’re trying to meet their quota for tickets on Fulton, let’s say, they’ll just sit and watch 20 cars creep through a stop sign (without ever coming to a complete stop) but then pull over the driver who only slows down to, say, 7 MPH or so. And as far as ped safety is concerned, you’re always scanning for peds, right? If so, feel free to Cali stop, particularly when there’s not a soul around.