Are paper route sheets an anachronism?
No one rides without a phone (right? please?). And just about everyone in this group has a "smartphone", correct? So, everyone should install the awesome, free RideWithGPS app. Right now! At meetup we can just make sure everyone's got the route pulled up correctly. Then you're set! Not only is it the easiest way to recover if you get lost, but you can even turn on voice directions, which I discovered on our first ride work amazingly well. As a bonus, some way to mount your phone on your bike would give you some visual confirmation (e.g. 0.3 miles to next turn), but it's not strictly necessary.
All you really have to worry about is making sure your phone is fully charged, which should absolutely be standard practice on a big ride anyway.
As a final note, anyone who does need or want paper route sheet can easily print one themselves (there will always be a ridewithgps link from each training ride G+ event page).
So, I'm inclined not to kill the trees anymore. Thoughts?
The Saturday training ride series will start not this weekend but the next (June 28), with a nice easy flat 40-mile loop across the Dumbarton bridge, down through Milpitas and back.
Please check out this new page about the training rides:
training rides | waves2wine
... and let us know any questions you have!
(Not sure you're ready for 40 yet? (a) Remember this will be flat! (b) You can take your time and take it easy (c) You can do a lot in 11 days to get ready! (d) At the very least, you can still cross the bridge with us and then decide whether to press on or retrace your steps.)
UPDATE: on further reflection I've switched this ride to week two, and on June 28 we'll do this 32-mile Portola Valley loop instead: http://ridewithgps.com/routes/5093299
No, I'm not going to try to claim that you're wrong.
All I'm asking you is to consider the fact that God told us two stories.
One story He wrote as words on a page. The other He wrote into the rocks, the stars, the orbits of planets, the cells of our bodies, the structures of our brains, wave-particle duality, Maxwell's equations (long before there was Maxwell), the cosmic background radiation and the stunning interconnectedness of all living things on Earth.
One story He asserted and welcomed us to believe. For the other story He provided us with our senses and the ability to reason (which together we might call "Science") so that we could discover and confirm it for ourselves.
Why would He bother with the second story (which you must agree seems like an awful lot more trouble) if He wants us to reject it as false? If it's to tempt us into rejecting faith, then why would He make Science so unbelievably effective at predicting outcomes, saving lives and improving our world?
Most of all: why would you not want to learn everything you can about both stories God is trying to tell you?
[Please share this post to its intended audience!]
The funny part is that we always assume ourselves to be rational without a lot of facts to back it up. I know for a fact that I'm totally irrational in my agnostic convictions, but then again, I'm pretty confident nobody will prove me wrong during my time on earth...
I do know many intelligent people who also happen to be religious (I come from a pretty religious family). I think the main problem is that there are way too many extremists in both camps. And it seems to become a real problem when people with more extreme beliefs start to gain political influence (as in the idea to teach new-earth creationism in biology class).
"Teachers treated those color groups in the same ways they would use gender. Teachers said, “Good morning, blue and red kids!,” “Let’s line up blue, red, blue, red.” Kids had their names on either a red or blue bulletin board and had either a red or blue name card on their desk. But again, teachers had to treat both groups equally and not allow them to compete with one another. They simply “used” color in the same way many teachers “use gender.”
"After only four weeks, children formed stereotypes about their color groups. They liked their own group better than the other group. Red-shirted children would say, “Those blue-shirt kids are not as smart as the red-shirt kids.” Just like they do with gender, they said that “all blue kids” act one way and “no red kids” act another way (this differed based on which group they were in). They began to segregate themselves, playing with kids from their own color group more than with those from the other group.
"They were also more willing to help kids in their own color groups. Children walked into a classroom in which we had staged two partially completed puzzles. We had surreptitiously draped a red shirt across one puzzle and a blue shirt across the other. When given the option, children were more likely to help out the child they thought was in their group.
"In all of these studies, there was always a very important control group—in addition to the group of students who wore colored T-shirts, there were classes in which the teacher who didn’t talk about the color groups. She didn’t sort by color or use the color grouping to label each child. In other words, it was like being in a class of boys and girls where the teacher doesn’t mention or sort by gender; she simply treated them like individuals. In these classes, children didn’t form stereotypes and biased attitudes about groups. If the adults ignored the groups, even when there were very visible differences, children ignored the groups too. [...]
"... it seems that children pay attention to the groups that adults treat as important. When we repeatedly say, “Look at those girls playing!” or “Who is that boy with the blue hat?,” children assume that being a boy or girl must be a really important feature about that person. In fact, it must the single most important feature of that person. Otherwise, why would we point it out all the time?
"If children see a difference, they look to experts in the world (us grown-ups) to see if the difference is important or not. Don’t forget that they see plenty of differences in people. For example, they see differences in hair color. We come in brown hair, black hair, blond hair, red hair, and gray hair. But no adult ever labels this visible category, saying “Look at that brown hair kid.” “Okay, all the brown-haired kids and black-haired kids over here. All the red- and blond-haired kids over there.” Children ultimately learn to ignore these as meaningful categories, but they still notice they exist. If I ask someone’s hair color, a child can tell me. It just isn’t a meaningful category. They don’t develop attitudes about what it means to have red hair or brown hair (even the occasional blond joke isn’t constant enough for children to notice).
"But with gender, children notice the difference and adults make it meaningful. Children see the category. We made sure of that with our pink or blue shirts. Also, the experts in the world, their parents, always label the category. We put a figurative flashing neon arrow on gender and say “Pay Attention! Important Information Here!” And guess what, they pay attention."
I'm at barely an intermediate player, if that, so I was quite proud of solving this correctly. Even better, after my devastating move my opponent responded with a foolhardy attempt to save his/her ass that walked right into checkmate instead! #chess
- Software Engineer, 2004 - present
- San Juan
Hooktheory I: Music Theory - Android Apps on Google Play
This is the music theory / songwriting book you’ll love. Hooktheory is an intuitive, modern take on music theory that answers the questions
CanIStream.It: Search Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Google Play, Amazon, Crackle,...
CanIStream.it allows you to search Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Google Play, Amazon, Crackle, Redbox, XFINITY Streampix, HBO GO, Showtime, Blockbust