Well, it would also work against subsidies and groups who try to get people to use light rail and buses and other mass transit. There are two groups, and sometimes they're represented by the same organization and sometimes they're represented by competing organizations. Those two groups are the people who want to reduce road congestion by reducing the number of cars, and the people who want to reduce car pollution by encouraging the purchase of electric/alternative vehicles. I think many people agree with some ideals of both groups, but I know a number of the people who want to reduce the number of cars on the road who would not be thrilled with the idea of the government encouraging the purchase of electric cars and subsidizing their recharges.
Individually, you're acting intelligently, but by your actions you are making the collective more stupid.
And it's totally understandable, too. It's why pretty much every Utopian society has failed -- they usually start out saying "if people would just change the way they are..." But people aren't going to. It's built into us to put the interests of our immediate family over that of outsiders, strangers, or the common good. It's instinctual, even. If we can make small cars, say, have just as much a safety chance in a collision with an SUV that another SUV would have, then people will abandon the "safety" argument. Until then, they will continue to purchase SUVs because they're not going to put the interests of "the big picture" over their family. A few individuals might, but "people" won't.
Perhaps it has more to do with the flying car being a bad idea and not one worthy of pursuit. There are quite a few avenues of technology that we could pursue but won't because they're simply bad ideas. Some of the problems with a flying car:
1) Most people are 'decent' drivers, but would never make good flyers, even with as many years of flying experience as they have driving experience. Like others, no, I don't believe people would be able to handle traveling in three dimensions. 2) You run out of gas in a car or have some other sort of mechanical failure and you usually coast to a stop. Sure, you might be a road hazard, but that's about it. If your flying car shuts down when you're in the air, you are going to die, period. Flying car proponents rarely seem to think of the "what happens in a disaster" scenario, but that's really the most important part of the decision. 3) The power requirements -- it's not cheap to fly around those drones. It's not going to be cheap to lift a flying car however high in the air you need to go. Add in about 1000lbs of passengers + gear for the kids' sports teams or groceries or... all these other things that people do, and you're looking at something with much higher energy costs than simply moving a car along a track on wheels. 4) Load up a flying car with as much dynamite as you can carry. Lift it off the ground, fly it into your nearest skyscraper. I'm really looking forward to that! 5) Just what sort of propulsion system are these cars going to use? The same type that drone jets you mentioned use? What if everyone had a flying car then? Could you imagine the noise?
Now many other people wanted to use them for traveling between villages because of their high mileage/gallon rate, so they're a bit of a hazard as they tend to appear out of nowhere from behind other vehicles.
Well, so do motorcyclists. Hell, with all the SUVs on the road, you won't be able to see even regular sedan-sized cars behind them.
I think... I have maybe half a dozen times seen an SUV tow something. They are used far more often as a commute vehicle (since they're quite roomy and comfortable), as a car/truck to go to the local grocery store, etc. I will wager that families that have an SUV and another car use the SUV by default first, and the car if the SUV is already in use. Eventually you get quite used to the extra comfort and luxury that's built into the SUV, along with the height difference. Also, there is the perception that they are safer (though that's mostly because the SUV is a road hazard in an accident).
The original poster is probably taking into account the cost of other items he/she might get at the supermarket, such as paper towels, toilet paper, toothpaste, books/school supplies, makeup, some clothes, etc. A 'grocery store' that you go to only to buy the food you will be putting on the table that week is a bit rare in the US these days.
ok, about 1, do you see that lane to your right ? it is for going slower:) you won't get run over for going 60, even if you have to drive on the highway (and many many people don't HAVE to go on a HW)
One question I would have is.. would a single-passenger electric car be allowed in the carpool lane? Many areas (like the one I live in) would allow electric cars to drive in the carpool lane, and if this little car is toodling along at it's top speed of 62 mph, it'll soon have a small procession of rather annoyed drivers traveling behind it.
Unfortunately term limits aren't the solution either. Then you simply get a situation like the one that exists in the California State Legislature: everyone is a freshman who hasn't learned how to do their job yet, and they are a joke to the entire state.
On the plus side, they don't really do anything of consequence, even to screw things up majorly, which I suppose would be an improvement over our current Congress.
I believe everyone has the right to be represented in their government; even (and especially, given their minority status) the fringe lefties and right-wingers. The founding fathers felt the same way.
Whew! Tell that to John Bolton! He's been on the talk show circuit lately talking about the attitude in the current administration (which he agrees with) that only the groups that voted in the party in power get real representation.
That he's a politician doesn't necessarily mean that he will be bought. Whether he can be corrupted however, directly affects whether he will be a successful politician.
Not possible. This would invalidate the movie industry's eventual move to video on demand.
To which the University can say: "Sorry. No movies on demand for you, the university network is for schoolwork only. If you want to download large files, you get your own, private, non-university network connection." That thinking was very prevalent in the UC system when I attended, and considering how easy it was to degrade the university's network, I couldn't blame them for it.
Remember, this is a university network. Universities in the US have had a long tradition of putting very strict "academic-only" requirements for net use. Whether that's a student's only Internet connection or not never mattered.
Given the great amount of attention that the health care situation in the United States has been getting recently?
I would be willing to bet on the side of the insurance companies if it came down to it.
The traffic analysis of "You're soaking up University bandwidth and haven't been able to justify how it relates to classes yet. Excessive usage == suspended account."
Come now, these are university students we're talking about here. What are the chances of targeting the two of three kids that didn't break copyright by downloading music?
I've been in the situation. I can say that I can handle bribes well and turn them down.
Then you'd be a poor choice for a politician, since you would get little to no funding. If you can't be bought, be prepared to work much harder than others to get funds for your campaign. Contributers expect returns on their investments, and they expect to influence those whose campaigns they helped to achieve success. Since campaigns for higher office require quite a lot of money, this is why we get so many unscrupulous people in power -- they're funded specifically because they can be bought.
Note: they don't necessarily need to be retired, or even close to retired either. I'm 30, a long way from being retired, and for some reason AARP keeps sending me letters offering me their services..
No, I understand his point. It sounds like it's a company he either works for or has close ties too. I've sometimes been tempted to post on stories related to the company I work at with information that is not public knowledge, but then I remind myself that impressing some geeks on Slashdot with insider knowledge they might want is never worth it.
Or better yet, have them swallow their pride, admit that the original placement of the airport was a horrible mistake, and move it to an area that actually services the population.
The guy sounds like he lives in Fort Bragg. For some reason a lot of... odd folks live in Fort Bragg and their letters would get printed in the Letters to the Editor section in the Santa Rosa paper whenever the editors wanted to print some strange comments. "3 miles away from San Francisco" sounds about right for that.
Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to construct such a bridge in just Alaska? Don't cite the state commerce clause because that is in between states, not just a single state.
I'm afraid I'll have to point to the interstate commerce clause as where the Constitution grants such authority, even though you said not to. I disagree with the notion as well that it should have anything to do with this, however some Supreme Court decisions have interpreted the commerce clause to give the Federal Government authority in matters that are only vaguely, marginally connected to 'interstate commerce.' That the bridge would be located close to an airport where goods from other states could conceivably be dropped off at means that interstate commerce could somehow be affected. If the Federal Government has authority over what a farmer grows in his backyard because local sale of produce competes with sale of produce shipped from out of the state, then it's not as much of a stretch to believe that the feds have jurisdiction over the construction of a bridge.
You may disagree; I may disagree. But you can blame SCOTUS which is the ultimate authority on interpreting the Constitution and what powers are granted by it to the Federal government.
You see, the problem with the GPL in general but more so with v3, is every time it gets modified it becomes more restrictive.
If by restrictive you mean that it actively preserves the ability of the end user to tinker and modify, then you are correct. In other words, the manufacturer does not have the freedom to place restrictions on the software. In that way the GPL is 'restrictive,' while the BSD license gives full control of all types to the manufacturer/publisher.
Name your full name, your mothers maiden name, your bank accounts and PINs or YOU don't exist.
Irrelevant. You were the one making the claim that "at least one embedded Linux platform that is feverishly planning to switch from Linux to Windows because of the Samba's decision to adopt v3." If you make such a claim, then you need to cite your sources. That's all the grandparent poster was asking for. If there are no sources, then it is, by definition, FUD. If it's a verifiable fact, then it's an important one to take into consideration in the v2 vs v3 debate.
There are two sponsored links sections on a google search.
The first is on the far right-hand side in a column, seperated from the other results with a vertical line. This section is easily identified as a sponsored link.
The second is just above the regular links with a different background color. The "sponsored links" tag is on the right side of this box but it is clearly within the box, and it's only because I have an ultra-wide resolution monitor that the link appears so far too the right. If you have a widescreen monitor you should be used to many, even most websites being broken, as very few websites are coded specifically to appear properly on resolutions wider than 1024.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it would also work against subsidies and groups who try to get people to use light rail and buses and other mass transit. There are two groups, and sometimes they're represented by the same organization and sometimes they're represented by competing organizations. Those two groups are the people who want to reduce road congestion by reducing the number of cars, and the people who want to reduce car pollution by encouraging the purchase of electric/alternative vehicles. I think many people agree with some ideals of both groups, but I know a number of the people who want to reduce the number of cars on the road who would not be thrilled with the idea of the government encouraging the purchase of electric cars and subsidizing their recharges.
Individually, you're acting intelligently, but by your actions you are making the collective more stupid.
And it's totally understandable, too. It's why pretty much every Utopian society has failed -- they usually start out saying "if people would just change the way they are..." But people aren't going to. It's built into us to put the interests of our immediate family over that of outsiders, strangers, or the common good. It's instinctual, even. If we can make small cars, say, have just as much a safety chance in a collision with an SUV that another SUV would have, then people will abandon the "safety" argument. Until then, they will continue to purchase SUVs because they're not going to put the interests of "the big picture" over their family. A few individuals might, but "people" won't.
1) Most people are 'decent' drivers, but would never make good flyers, even with as many years of flying experience as they have driving experience. Like others, no, I don't believe people would be able to handle traveling in three dimensions.
2) You run out of gas in a car or have some other sort of mechanical failure and you usually coast to a stop. Sure, you might be a road hazard, but that's about it. If your flying car shuts down when you're in the air, you are going to die, period. Flying car proponents rarely seem to think of the "what happens in a disaster" scenario, but that's really the most important part of the decision.
3) The power requirements -- it's not cheap to fly around those drones. It's not going to be cheap to lift a flying car however high in the air you need to go. Add in about 1000lbs of passengers + gear for the kids' sports teams or groceries or... all these other things that people do, and you're looking at something with much higher energy costs than simply moving a car along a track on wheels.
4) Load up a flying car with as much dynamite as you can carry. Lift it off the ground, fly it into your nearest skyscraper. I'm really looking forward to that!
5) Just what sort of propulsion system are these cars going to use? The same type that drone jets you mentioned use? What if everyone had a flying car then? Could you imagine the noise?
Well, so do motorcyclists. Hell, with all the SUVs on the road, you won't be able to see even regular sedan-sized cars behind them.
I think... I have maybe half a dozen times seen an SUV tow something. They are used far more often as a commute vehicle (since they're quite roomy and comfortable), as a car/truck to go to the local grocery store, etc. I will wager that families that have an SUV and another car use the SUV by default first, and the car if the SUV is already in use. Eventually you get quite used to the extra comfort and luxury that's built into the SUV, along with the height difference. Also, there is the perception that they are safer (though that's mostly because the SUV is a road hazard in an accident).
One question I would have is.. would a single-passenger electric car be allowed in the carpool lane? Many areas (like the one I live in) would allow electric cars to drive in the carpool lane, and if this little car is toodling along at it's top speed of 62 mph, it'll soon have a small procession of rather annoyed drivers traveling behind it.
On the plus side, they don't really do anything of consequence, even to screw things up majorly, which I suppose would be an improvement over our current Congress.
Whew! Tell that to John Bolton! He's been on the talk show circuit lately talking about the attitude in the current administration (which he agrees with) that only the groups that voted in the party in power get real representation.
That he's a politician doesn't necessarily mean that he will be bought. Whether he can be corrupted however, directly affects whether he will be a successful politician.
To which the University can say: "Sorry. No movies on demand for you, the university network is for schoolwork only. If you want to download large files, you get your own, private, non-university network connection." That thinking was very prevalent in the UC system when I attended, and considering how easy it was to degrade the university's network, I couldn't blame them for it.
Remember, this is a university network. Universities in the US have had a long tradition of putting very strict "academic-only" requirements for net use. Whether that's a student's only Internet connection or not never mattered.
I would be willing to bet on the side of the insurance companies if it came down to it.
The traffic analysis of "You're soaking up University bandwidth and haven't been able to justify how it relates to classes yet. Excessive usage == suspended account."
Come now, these are university students we're talking about here. What are the chances of targeting the two of three kids that didn't break copyright by downloading music?
Yeah, Vicki Weaver was armed with a semi-automatic assault baby.
Then you'd be a poor choice for a politician, since you would get little to no funding. If you can't be bought, be prepared to work much harder than others to get funds for your campaign. Contributers expect returns on their investments, and they expect to influence those whose campaigns they helped to achieve success. Since campaigns for higher office require quite a lot of money, this is why we get so many unscrupulous people in power -- they're funded specifically because they can be bought.
But what is she going to do if Ted leaves office?
Note: they don't necessarily need to be retired, or even close to retired either. I'm 30, a long way from being retired, and for some reason AARP keeps sending me letters offering me their services..
No, I understand his point. It sounds like it's a company he either works for or has close ties too. I've sometimes been tempted to post on stories related to the company I work at with information that is not public knowledge, but then I remind myself that impressing some geeks on Slashdot with insider knowledge they might want is never worth it.
Or better yet, have them swallow their pride, admit that the original placement of the airport was a horrible mistake, and move it to an area that actually services the population.
The guy sounds like he lives in Fort Bragg. For some reason a lot of... odd folks live in Fort Bragg and their letters would get printed in the Letters to the Editor section in the Santa Rosa paper whenever the editors wanted to print some strange comments. "3 miles away from San Francisco" sounds about right for that.
I'm afraid I'll have to point to the interstate commerce clause as where the Constitution grants such authority, even though you said not to. I disagree with the notion as well that it should have anything to do with this, however some Supreme Court decisions have interpreted the commerce clause to give the Federal Government authority in matters that are only vaguely, marginally connected to 'interstate commerce.' That the bridge would be located close to an airport where goods from other states could conceivably be dropped off at means that interstate commerce could somehow be affected. If the Federal Government has authority over what a farmer grows in his backyard because local sale of produce competes with sale of produce shipped from out of the state, then it's not as much of a stretch to believe that the feds have jurisdiction over the construction of a bridge.
You may disagree; I may disagree. But you can blame SCOTUS which is the ultimate authority on interpreting the Constitution and what powers are granted by it to the Federal government.
If by restrictive you mean that it actively preserves the ability of the end user to tinker and modify, then you are correct. In other words, the manufacturer does not have the freedom to place restrictions on the software. In that way the GPL is 'restrictive,' while the BSD license gives full control of all types to the manufacturer/publisher.
Irrelevant. You were the one making the claim that "at least one embedded Linux platform that is feverishly planning to switch from Linux to Windows because of the Samba's decision to adopt v3." If you make such a claim, then you need to cite your sources. That's all the grandparent poster was asking for. If there are no sources, then it is, by definition, FUD. If it's a verifiable fact, then it's an important one to take into consideration in the v2 vs v3 debate.
There are two sponsored links sections on a google search.
The first is on the far right-hand side in a column, seperated from the other results with a vertical line. This section is easily identified as a sponsored link.
The second is just above the regular links with a different background color. The "sponsored links" tag is on the right side of this box but it is clearly within the box, and it's only because I have an ultra-wide resolution monitor that the link appears so far too the right. If you have a widescreen monitor you should be used to many, even most websites being broken, as very few websites are coded specifically to appear properly on resolutions wider than 1024.