Its funny how people like you manage to be pompous and dismissive despite being on the losing side. Do you think AGW is a real threat? Do you think that policy should be enacted to counter it? Then you need to get off your high horse and address the concerns of the people opposed to you. Calling people "fuckwits" isn't exactly the convincing logical argument that you think it is.
Bringing up Al Gore does prove something. That there exists powerful people who have exaggerated the impact of climate change in order to accumulate further power and wealth. Of course, this doesn't change any scientific facts, but its an important consideration when evaluating any proposed policy changes.
You remind me of the joke where a physicist tries to predict horse races by modelling the horses as solid sphere moving through a vacuum. Those tests are sufficient for a uniform body within a glass jar. As soon as you add water (in all of its phases and conditions), minerals, plants and everything else that makes Earth interesting, the conditions are must be tested become much more complicated.
I don't know how hard it is. But many types of vehicles are required to stop at all train crossings, so having the first generation of autonomous cars do the same isn't a big deal.
Are we to seriously believe Nevada thought it was entirely acceptable for the vehicle to come to a complete standstill in construction traffic?
Why wouldn't that be entirely acceptable? A construction zone means that traffic can come to complete standstill at any time, even on the freeway. Having autonomous cars momentarily stop and switch to manual control shouldn't be any more of a problem than other impediments due to construction.
The roundabout is the only one that's a show stopper. The other three are exactly the kind of circumstances where it would be reasonable for the car to come to a stop and switch to manual control.
That's a nice theory, but what really happens is that the patent troll just steam rolls the little guy instead of the manufacturer. At least the manufacturer produces some goods that have a benefit to society has a whole.
NATO did not agree to defend to Ukraine. In the Budapest Memorandum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B..., Russia, the US and the UK agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and refrain from interfering with their internal affairs in exchange for nuclear disarmament. But there was no provision for providing for Ukraine's defense. Now, arguably, Russia may have broken that agreement, but there's no provision for enforcing the treaty either.
I guess that makes it ok to provoke just a *little* nuclear exchange. I assume that you're willing to sacrifice the state or country that you live in for this noble cause?
Can't help but notice the obvious omission in your strategic analysis: nuclear weapons. Both sides have them, both side would use them if left with no other choice. The full scale confrontation between NATO and Russia wouldn't last long enough for any those other factors to matter.
"So, if all the Chinese Americans in California decided they were forming their own country, how would you feel about that?"
Yes. It is totally unAmerican for a bunch of recent immigrants to form their own country. Which is why the American Revolution was fought by full-blooded natives and the US fought on the side of Mexico to ensure Texas did not secede.
The USSR, at the peak of its military strength, went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan thirty years ago. The idea that a significantly weaker Russia would steam roll through Europe is absurd. The days when any superpower can make massive land grabs are long over.
This is a neighborhood bully that has the capability of wiping out all life on the planet if they think they're in a no-win situation. You'd be suicidally insane not to be scared.
What, do *you* suppose would happen? The US is still licking its wounds from two drawn out wars with 3rd world countries. I can't imagine that direct confrontation with Russia would be consequence free.
Don't be absurd. Unlike Ukraine, the Baltics are NATO and EU countries with stable governments. If Russia invaded, nukes would fly and both sides know it. It's not even a feasible scenario to speculate over.
You have a very anti-social, suburbanite view of what cities are and what they have to offer. The most interesting, valuable thing about cities isn't the huge, commercial cultural events that you list. Sports events and concerts are mostly attended by suburbanites who drive into the city. The best thing about city living is the ability to foster niche interests that might only appeal to one person in ten thousand. Want to put together a steam-punk LARP event? Open a Moroccan-Thai fusion restaurant? Put on a Doctor Who themed burlesque show? Then you need the population density of city to bring together the minimum number of interested people to make that happen.
The average black applicant has as much in common with the "inner-city ghetto culture", as you call it, as the average white applicant has in common with "white trailer-park trash".
That comparison doesn't help your argument. Depending on how you classify it, "trailer trash" is the predominant white subculture in America. College educated, urban professionals are a minority, even among whites.
Go ahead and link the paper. I'll bet it takes all of 5 minutes to find the study flaws that make the conclusion worthy of vitriol. Without even reading the paper, I'll almost guarantee that your colleague used college students as a study subjects (selection bias) and self-reported sex activity to establish experimental groups (even more selection bias).
A matter of priorities is right. If you have a type of job that you enjoying doing for its own sake, then working more than 45 hours per week might be something of a success. But working just to accumulate wealth that you don't have the time to enjoy is not success by any measure.
"As of May 2012, SpaceX had operated on total funding of approximately $1 billion in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M"
Slashdot Mirror
I see you don't let reading comprehension slow you down on jumping to conclusions.
Its funny how people like you manage to be pompous and dismissive despite being on the losing side. Do you think AGW is a real threat? Do you think that policy should be enacted to counter it? Then you need to get off your high horse and address the concerns of the people opposed to you. Calling people "fuckwits" isn't exactly the convincing logical argument that you think it is.
Bringing up Al Gore does prove something. That there exists powerful people who have exaggerated the impact of climate change in order to accumulate further power and wealth. Of course, this doesn't change any scientific facts, but its an important consideration when evaluating any proposed policy changes.
You remind me of the joke where a physicist tries to predict horse races by modelling the horses as solid sphere moving through a vacuum. Those tests are sufficient for a uniform body within a glass jar. As soon as you add water (in all of its phases and conditions), minerals, plants and everything else that makes Earth interesting, the conditions are must be tested become much more complicated.
I don't know how hard it is. But many types of vehicles are required to stop at all train crossings, so having the first generation of autonomous cars do the same isn't a big deal.
Why wouldn't that be entirely acceptable? A construction zone means that traffic can come to complete standstill at any time, even on the freeway. Having autonomous cars momentarily stop and switch to manual control shouldn't be any more of a problem than other impediments due to construction.
The roundabout is the only one that's a show stopper. The other three are exactly the kind of circumstances where it would be reasonable for the car to come to a stop and switch to manual control.
That's a nice theory, but what really happens is that the patent troll just steam rolls the little guy instead of the manufacturer. At least the manufacturer produces some goods that have a benefit to society has a whole.
NATO did not agree to defend to Ukraine. In the Budapest Memorandum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B..., Russia, the US and the UK agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and refrain from interfering with their internal affairs in exchange for nuclear disarmament. But there was no provision for providing for Ukraine's defense. Now, arguably, Russia may have broken that agreement, but there's no provision for enforcing the treaty either.
I guess that makes it ok to provoke just a *little* nuclear exchange. I assume that you're willing to sacrifice the state or country that you live in for this noble cause?
Not often than someone manufactures a fictitious quote, attacks that strawman, then condescendingly lectures about logic. All in just 3 lines.
Ukrainians are a modern, western, civilized people. Arming them is quite different than arming religious fanatics looking to recreate the middle ages.
We can trust them! They're white people, like us!
Can't help but notice the obvious omission in your strategic analysis: nuclear weapons. Both sides have them, both side would use them if left with no other choice. The full scale confrontation between NATO and Russia wouldn't last long enough for any those other factors to matter.
Yes. It is totally unAmerican for a bunch of recent immigrants to form their own country. Which is why the American Revolution was fought by full-blooded natives and the US fought on the side of Mexico to ensure Texas did not secede.
The USSR, at the peak of its military strength, went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan thirty years ago. The idea that a significantly weaker Russia would steam roll through Europe is absurd. The days when any superpower can make massive land grabs are long over.
This is a neighborhood bully that has the capability of wiping out all life on the planet if they think they're in a no-win situation. You'd be suicidally insane not to be scared.
What, do *you* suppose would happen? The US is still licking its wounds from two drawn out wars with 3rd world countries. I can't imagine that direct confrontation with Russia would be consequence free.
Don't be absurd. Unlike Ukraine, the Baltics are NATO and EU countries with stable governments. If Russia invaded, nukes would fly and both sides know it. It's not even a feasible scenario to speculate over.
The Anonymous Coward trolls contribute to the conversation by proving that the problem exists.
It was taken to the Supreme Court and upheld 7-2. South Dakota V. Dole
You have a very anti-social, suburbanite view of what cities are and what they have to offer. The most interesting, valuable thing about cities isn't the huge, commercial cultural events that you list. Sports events and concerts are mostly attended by suburbanites who drive into the city. The best thing about city living is the ability to foster niche interests that might only appeal to one person in ten thousand. Want to put together a steam-punk LARP event? Open a Moroccan-Thai fusion restaurant? Put on a Doctor Who themed burlesque show? Then you need the population density of city to bring together the minimum number of interested people to make that happen.
That comparison doesn't help your argument. Depending on how you classify it, "trailer trash" is the predominant white subculture in America. College educated, urban professionals are a minority, even among whites.
Go ahead and link the paper. I'll bet it takes all of 5 minutes to find the study flaws that make the conclusion worthy of vitriol. Without even reading the paper, I'll almost guarantee that your colleague used college students as a study subjects (selection bias) and self-reported sex activity to establish experimental groups (even more selection bias).
A matter of priorities is right. If you have a type of job that you enjoying doing for its own sake, then working more than 45 hours per week might be something of a success. But working just to accumulate wealth that you don't have the time to enjoy is not success by any measure.
"As of May 2012, SpaceX had operated on total funding of approximately $1 billion in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
I think SpaceX is doing some neat stuff, but let's not pretend they're any different than any other government contractor.