The thing with immobilisers is that you have to defeat them before you actually get to steal the car. Such a device on a gun will do zero to prevent the theft of that gun and then the thief has an incentive and all the time in the world to defeat the so-called "smart gun".
Personally, I think they should be barred from even being called smart guns until they actually are smart. Half-arsed security measures don't count.
I dunno. I could see that it might just be something that he remembered. It shouldn't be that hard, especially if someone had even done it once for a project or maybe collected those state-shaped fridge magnets.
I guess the main thing is that it's a lot more impressive than most politicians who don't read bills or know much of anything or, like one local politician here, couldn't name the three branches of government (I actually like the dude but seriously?).
I'm no fan of Franken or his policy beliefs but it would be nice if our politicians at least had a clue.
Yes. I was never fond of the lights on roundabouts. I'm sure they had their reasons though and they may even make sense.
Never went to the Swindon one (it's actually only five roundabouts) but I did live in Basingstoke which is sometimes called "roundabout city". It was possible to run through several left tires for each right if you didn't rotate them due to increased wear from the constant turning.
Surely not as much. To a greater or, more likely, lesser degree, surely (I am sure that not many cyclists are taking advantage of "low bridge" signs, for example.
Now, I refuse to get into the discussion any deeper than that as how one would choose to apportion that would depend on your point-of-view. I'm sure there's even an argument that cyclists (who own vehicles at least) are a net benefit to roads when they cycle rather than use their motor-vehicle.
The problem is it's kinda ambiguous whether they're yielding or not. They've totally removed the signalling of intention. They could actually be dead at the wheel for all I know.
And yes, I know it's not the Idaho/California/rolling stop thing.
Check your laws, there's often exceptions which allow crossing the line to go around obstacles. You can argue the toss about whether 3mph counts as an obstacle or not but that's typically about walking speed.
I tend to agree. But pollution is a lot like weeds. A weed is just a plant growing where it shouldn't, pollution is just chemicals/particles in concentrations greater than are acceptable. Context is everything. I think the immediate jump to labeling CO2 as pollution is an attempt to achieve and end-run around debate as so often seems to be the case from the Fabian crowd.
Sure, there's inertia but we've been at this a few billion years and have gone through several cycles of rising and falling temperatures so there's at least a hint that there's some negative feedback at work. Not that that is necessarily sufficient or more than a local effect but that's not what was being claimed, merely that there's enough not yet understood to justify not going all chicken little.
There's still plenty of text out there if you take a look around. Pictures are not that awful. Unfortunately though, a lot of instructional stuff is going to video which is not only an annoying format but also typically requires a certain level of performance and usually speakers.
And if you vote liberal, you may as well vote for a tree too. It's time there was a multipartisan movement to move to a proportional apportionment of electoral college votes (like a few states have already)
Stops signs work well enough as long as everyone knows whose turn it is to go, even if not everyone comes to a complete stop. The real annoying people are those who slow down well before the stop then roll up to and through the stop at more or less the same speed, confusing everyone else involved.
Unless he's in California or many other parts of the world where it's perfectly legal.
I used to do it in the UK and it's infuriating not to be able to do it legally here (though I sometime will still when there are idiots who pace each other in both lanes).
I saw an interesting video on youtube in one Asian city where at stop lights, there is actually an area ahead of the cars for two wheeled vehicles to accumulate so they can go first when they get the green.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing with immobilisers is that you have to defeat them before you actually get to steal the car. Such a device on a gun will do zero to prevent the theft of that gun and then the thief has an incentive and all the time in the world to defeat the so-called "smart gun".
Personally, I think they should be barred from even being called smart guns until they actually are smart. Half-arsed security measures don't count.
Modern version: "Installing updates, please wait..."
Context is important, of course but I would not classify that as wildly. Boiling seas or solid CO2, perhaps...
I dunno. I could see that it might just be something that he remembered. It shouldn't be that hard, especially if someone had even done it once for a project or maybe collected those state-shaped fridge magnets.
I guess the main thing is that it's a lot more impressive than most politicians who don't read bills or know much of anything or, like one local politician here, couldn't name the three branches of government (I actually like the dude but seriously?).
I'm no fan of Franken or his policy beliefs but it would be nice if our politicians at least had a clue.
I believe dividends get taxed more than capital gains. Hence government f*cks things up again.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ba...
I agree. How soon can we get this free market thing in place?
Yes
Yes. I was never fond of the lights on roundabouts. I'm sure they had their reasons though and they may even make sense.
Never went to the Swindon one (it's actually only five roundabouts) but I did live in Basingstoke which is sometimes called "roundabout city". It was possible to run through several left tires for each right if you didn't rotate them due to increased wear from the constant turning.
Surely not as much. To a greater or, more likely, lesser degree, surely (I am sure that not many cyclists are taking advantage of "low bridge" signs, for example.
Now, I refuse to get into the discussion any deeper than that as how one would choose to apportion that would depend on your point-of-view. I'm sure there's even an argument that cyclists (who own vehicles at least) are a net benefit to roads when they cycle rather than use their motor-vehicle.
Water could be a pollutant in the right circumstances. But otherwise, I think we're in agreement. My assertion is not that CO2 is a pollutant.
Like when the pendulum on a clock swings from the left to the right?
Depends on the intersection.
It's often pointless in a car also.
The problem is it's kinda ambiguous whether they're yielding or not. They've totally removed the signalling of intention. They could actually be dead at the wheel for all I know.
And yes, I know it's not the Idaho/California/rolling stop thing.
Check your laws, there's often exceptions which allow crossing the line to go around obstacles. You can argue the toss about whether 3mph counts as an obstacle or not but that's typically about walking speed.
I tend to agree. But pollution is a lot like weeds. A weed is just a plant growing where it shouldn't, pollution is just chemicals/particles in concentrations greater than are acceptable. Context is everything. I think the immediate jump to labeling CO2 as pollution is an attempt to achieve and end-run around debate as so often seems to be the case from the Fabian crowd.
Sure, there's inertia but we've been at this a few billion years and have gone through several cycles of rising and falling temperatures so there's at least a hint that there's some negative feedback at work. Not that that is necessarily sufficient or more than a local effect but that's not what was being claimed, merely that there's enough not yet understood to justify not going all chicken little.
32,767 surely?
That they marry their daughters? No, that's Kentuckyans.
There's still plenty of text out there if you take a look around. Pictures are not that awful. Unfortunately though, a lot of instructional stuff is going to video which is not only an annoying format but also typically requires a certain level of performance and usually speakers.
There's no real reason for that to be the case with sd though
And if you vote liberal, you may as well vote for a tree too. It's time there was a multipartisan movement to move to a proportional apportionment of electoral college votes (like a few states have already)
Yes, that's the logic that leads to no progress whatsoever
Stops signs work well enough as long as everyone knows whose turn it is to go, even if not everyone comes to a complete stop. The real annoying people are those who slow down well before the stop then roll up to and through the stop at more or less the same speed, confusing everyone else involved.
Unless he's in California or many other parts of the world where it's perfectly legal.
I used to do it in the UK and it's infuriating not to be able to do it legally here (though I sometime will still when there are idiots who pace each other in both lanes).
I saw an interesting video on youtube in one Asian city where at stop lights, there is actually an area ahead of the cars for two wheeled vehicles to accumulate so they can go first when they get the green.