With new people, I find myself unable to re-recognise them when I see them later in the same evening, atleast not with full confidence.
I have a similar problem. I don't generally have a problem recognizing people I actually know but I find it impossible to find someone based on a photo (for example first dates). I also have a very difficult time keeping track of which waitress is my waitress when I go out to a restaurant. I also have no problem recognizing that I've seen someone before but at the same time have a hard time remembering exactly who they are.
Either UPS moves forward with tech like everyone else, and the drivers lose their jobs.. Or they agree not to, become uncompetitive and have profits tank, and the drivers also lose their jobs.
So in either case the drivers are guaranteed to lose their jobs. It's just this way they get to take UPS down with them.
At least if UPS moves forward with the technology it might be a slower transition and if it's using a truck full of drones for the last mile, some of those drivers can still drive the trucks and manage the drones. If UPS doesn't move forward then they go bankrupt and all their jobs, retirement, etc... dies with it.
I'm not sure if you've ever flown a full sized drone indoors.
Drones don't necessarily mean flying. Autonomous vehicles inside of a building is already a completely solved problem. If a self driving truck can get it to the loading dock there are plenty of technologies that can load and unload a truck without a person being involved.
Other extremists, like your typical antifa thugs, may indeed have the turning-things-to-shit instincts, but they're total amateurs compared to the islamists, who are taking over the world through migration and sheer reproductive inertia.
The only thing that keeps extremists in check in the USA is that they aren't the ones running the country yet and so still get arrested for being too violent. If you ever got enough extremists in charge of the country (from the right or the left) then I guarantee their violence would increase too.
I don't mind javascript as language. The problem is the DOM, CSS, cross browser incompatibilities, and all the rube goldberg machines like jquery and select2. The russian doll that is modern web programming is a nightmare. Things like jquery remind me of script kiddies who think they are cool when they use a source filter and/or operator overloading to completely redefine a language. The hacking that has gone into things like jquery is impressive but it should never have become the standard for production code. It should have stayed in the "that's a cool hack" category.
When did farmers give their food away for free? Normally they do this in exchange for money. It's called "buying and selling". Its the usual way this works.
My point is that saying that the city areas have all the money is a weird concept as although that might seem to be true on the surface, the rural areas have all the food and push come to shove the rural areas ultimately have more value than just looking at money as the rural areas produce the stuff that lets humans survive.
The major problem with the "rural" vs coastal concept is MONEY. When you split a state, you don't just get to ignore the debt, it has to be split up and fairly. But the coastal part earns all the money, while the rural part of California has a bunch of wealthy people that hate high taxes.
I'm not sure it would stay this way. If the rural controlled the food supply, the coastal would quickly find out that they need to give up a good chunk of their money to eat. With the amount of manipulation of the food supply, it's hard to tell what stuff should really cost but I promise you that if you get hungry enough you will trade your fancy toys for food in a heartbeat.
Some states like Illinois are probably even worse off than California where one city controls the entire state. The red states are a little better. I live in MO which is typically a purple state and we still have our fights between the cities and the rural. Unlike Illinois, we have enough red to block many of the strict gun controls that Saint Louis would like to have and Saint Louis has enough support from the other cities that it can block more extreme red state agendas.
That still seems expensive to me. I bought several iphone like new 5S phones about a year ago for $50 each and other than the form factor cannot tell the difference between them and the iphone 6. If you are planning on using a phone for 4 years then you can save significant money by buying a 2 year old phone every two years and even more money if you hold onto it longer.
What seems to have been happening, is that people would order a pile of stuff and find that paying for one month of Prime cost less than shipping. So they would sign up and then cancel.
Some places like Six Flags, charge monthly payments but require you to keep it for a full 12 months before cancelling to prevent just this. Six Flags has a similar problem. They are charging a monthly subscription when they aren't even open for the full 12 months in many locations.
And then again, 1 gallon per day for $10 is $300 per month, and you have neither washed, showered or flushed the toilett for that price.
Still beats dying. Another solutions would be to pipe salt water directly to the pipes. That would allow toilets and showers to operate then you would just have to carry in water for drinking and cooking.
They would be priced the exact same. Amazon has a logistic network that allows them to ship virtually every product with âoetwo dayâ shipping with the slowest and cheapest shipping option. If it takes longer it is purely because amazon waits their sweet time to ship it to you to punish you for not paying for prime.
I think you missed the point. It isn't about 2 day or 5 day, it's about a cost versus no cost. They could obviously sell the product cheaper if they didn't have to ship it to you.
There are long waiting lists of people waiting to adopt infants. There are plenty of people willing to adopt healthy infants. The older abused children or special needs infants are the ones that are harder to find homes for.
80% of sexually active women will get pregnant within a year so if only 7% of women using this app got pregnant then it is a significant improvement. It actually beats out a condom which only has a 82% effective rate i.e 18 out of 100 sexually active people who use condoms will still get pregnant within a year.
Of course Amazon pays for shipping but they don't have to pay for storefronts or cashiers so they can still beat the local stores. It makes you wonder how cheap the products would be if they didn't have free 2 day shipping.
So come up with a fixed set and leave it alone or make it about the specific candidates. Even something simple like name 3 candidates on the ballot would make sure people actually knew what they were voting about before they got there
I don't see a problem with traveling votes. Create the districts and the polling stations the normal way and let people vote at any station they want. That person still only gets one vote but if they want to drive two hours to vote in a different district them let them. It's a self limiting problem. It would kill gerrymandering and everyone's vote would be worth more. You could drive to a competitive district where your vote would count more but by doing so you take that vote away from your own district and make your own district more competitive.
Omfg. The stupid is strong with this one. You want to create a system where voters can be forced to give their voting rights to any other person or entity.
We already do it every time we elect someone to vote for us for the next 4+ years. I would go one step further. I think every person should be able to vote on every issue on the floor in congress or assign their vote to any other person to vote for them. So if I wanted to assign my voting rights to the EFF this week to vote on net neutrality but next week there is a different issue, I could either vote on it myself pr assign my voting rights to a different individual or organization that I think is qualified to represent my interests. There is no reason we need to be limited to 435 people. It would be just as easy for everyone to vote on every issue or assign someone to vote by proxy for them. This is similar to how stocks work. If you own a single stock of a company you can vote or you can let someone else vote on your behalf. Most people have no interest in watching 8 hours a day of cpan so would likely keep their vote assigned to a proxy but there is no reason we couldn't design a system where everyone had the option of voting individually if they wanted.
Yes. Every hurdle causes some drop off in conversion rate whether it is getting an ID, getting to the polling booth, standing in line, etc... and we should try to minimize them but not eliminate them. In some ways, it's a good thing that it takes some minimal effort to vote. It helps ensure that someone actually cares. Personally, I think a proper fair poll test would be a good thing. If you can't name the current vice president and current governor of your state then you have no business voting for the next one.
The reason the USA bundles elections is because more people get out and vote for the president than for minor issues so you get a higher voter turnout when you vote for everything at once.
How very Marie Antoinette of you - "Let them eat cake!"
Raising the price of water doesn't reduce the need for water to live.
You don't need 19 gallons per person a day to survive. You need less than 1 gallon per day per person of drinking water. If water is going to run out in 3 months then limited everyone to 1 gallon per day gives you almost 5 years to bring more desalination plants online and/or relocate some of the people.
The point is that you don't want to run out of water because then you have death by dehydration, mass riots, and chaos. If you really are going to run out of water in 3 months then you better come up with a game plan now that prevents mass hysteria and death.
The alternative to raising the price of water now is to just wait until it's all gone in 3 months and then everybody dies. Personally, I would rather pay $10 per gallon for water now than die in 3 months. Likely, if water was $10 per gallon then people would start moving elsewhere which would buy even more time.
Lets say you have a city with 1 million people, your current water sources can supply 3 million people, the population doubles every 5 years, and it takes 10 years to plan and construct a desalination plant that can supply water to 1 million people.
Temporary barges and free market solutions will not be able to cope with the realities of exponential growth. By the time the market signals there is more demand for water, its already too late.
Sure it can. The human population doesn't reproduce that fast. Those people are coming from some where. If the water becomes too scarce or too expensive then the people will stop coming and/or move to where they can get water. What you don't want to happen is for the water to stop then people don't have time to make the necessary move but if the price of water is also increasing exponentially and doubling every month then that will naturally cause the population to stop increasing exponentially. Even without desalination plants, there are solutions. Lots of people live in situations where water must be carried long distances. It would be highly inconvenient but individuals could walk to the ocean, get water, carry it back to their apartment, boil it, and produce clean drinking water.
If you are going to run out of water in 3 months at the current rate and you don't have the time or money to build desalination plants fast enough then the obvious solution is to raise the price of water so that you have the time/money to fix the problem. With the time gained from reduced consumption and the money gained from charging more for the water, this is an easily solvable problem for a city that sits on the ocean with an unlimited supply of water they can desalinate. There are also desalination plants built on barges that could be rented/purchased and moved there as a temporary solution.
No. Any gerrymander which puts the MINORITY in charge is an afront to the 14th Amendment Equal rights, privileges and immunities you know
Not the majority in charge but if a state was 70% democrats and 30% republicans and there are 10 reps then if you could somehow construct districts where you ended up with the 70% represented by 7 reps and the 3% represented by the remaining 3 reps then this would be equal representation with zero "wasted" votes.
The parties tend to separate along geographical lines, urban being heavily Democrat, suburbs and rural tending more Republican. That evens things out.
Not necessarily. If you have a city like chicago and you make the districts pizza slices starting in the center and radiating out then this would make the districts "fair" in that the districts would all be the same area with the same population but it would completely cut out the rural vote. On the other hand, if you did fair by saying smallest circumference possible of each district then this might even out the rural/city vote but could possibly add other distortions as the city districts would be physically much smaller than the rural districts.
Slashdot Mirror
With new people, I find myself unable to re-recognise them when I see them later in the same evening, atleast not with full confidence.
I have a similar problem. I don't generally have a problem recognizing people I actually know but I find it impossible to find someone based on a photo (for example first dates). I also have a very difficult time keeping track of which waitress is my waitress when I go out to a restaurant. I also have no problem recognizing that I've seen someone before but at the same time have a hard time remembering exactly who they are.
Either UPS moves forward with tech like everyone else, and the drivers lose their jobs..
Or they agree not to, become uncompetitive and have profits tank, and the drivers also lose their jobs.
So in either case the drivers are guaranteed to lose their jobs.
It's just this way they get to take UPS down with them.
At least if UPS moves forward with the technology it might be a slower transition and if it's using a truck full of drones for the last mile, some of those drivers can still drive the trucks and manage the drones.
If UPS doesn't move forward then they go bankrupt and all their jobs, retirement, etc... dies with it.
I'm not sure if you've ever flown a full sized drone indoors.
Drones don't necessarily mean flying. Autonomous vehicles inside of a building is already a completely solved problem. If a self driving truck can get it to the loading dock there are plenty of technologies that can load and unload a truck without a person being involved.
Other extremists, like your typical antifa thugs, may indeed have the turning-things-to-shit instincts, but they're total amateurs compared to the islamists, who are taking over the world through migration and sheer reproductive inertia.
The only thing that keeps extremists in check in the USA is that they aren't the ones running the country yet and so still get arrested for being too violent. If you ever got enough extremists in charge of the country (from the right or the left) then I guarantee their violence would increase too.
I don't mind javascript as language. The problem is the DOM, CSS, cross browser incompatibilities, and all the rube goldberg machines like jquery and select2.
The russian doll that is modern web programming is a nightmare. Things like jquery remind me of script kiddies who think they are cool when they use a source filter and/or operator overloading to completely redefine a language.
The hacking that has gone into things like jquery is impressive but it should never have become the standard for production code. It should have stayed in the "that's a cool hack" category.
When did farmers give their food away for free? Normally they do this in exchange for money. It's called "buying and selling". Its the usual way this works.
My point is that saying that the city areas have all the money is a weird concept as although that might seem to be true on the surface, the rural areas have all the food and push come to shove the rural areas ultimately have more value than just looking at money as the rural areas produce the stuff that lets humans survive.
The major problem with the "rural" vs coastal concept is MONEY.
When you split a state, you don't just get to ignore the debt, it has to be split up and fairly. But the coastal part earns all the money, while the rural part of California has a bunch of wealthy people that hate high taxes.
I'm not sure it would stay this way. If the rural controlled the food supply, the coastal would quickly find out that they need to give up a good chunk of their money to eat.
With the amount of manipulation of the food supply, it's hard to tell what stuff should really cost but I promise you that if you get hungry enough you will trade your fancy toys for food in a heartbeat.
Some states like Illinois are probably even worse off than California where one city controls the entire state. The red states are a little better. I live in MO which is typically a purple state and we still have our fights between the cities and the rural. Unlike Illinois, we have enough red to block many of the strict gun controls that Saint Louis would like to have and Saint Louis has enough support from the other cities that it can block more extreme red state agendas.
That still seems expensive to me. I bought several iphone like new 5S phones about a year ago for $50 each and other than the form factor cannot tell the difference between them and the iphone 6. If you are planning on using a phone for 4 years then you can save significant money by buying a 2 year old phone every two years and even more money if you hold onto it longer.
What seems to have been happening, is that people would order a pile of stuff and find that paying for one month of Prime cost less than shipping. So they would sign up and then cancel.
Some places like Six Flags, charge monthly payments but require you to keep it for a full 12 months before cancelling to prevent just this.
Six Flags has a similar problem. They are charging a monthly subscription when they aren't even open for the full 12 months in many locations.
And then again, 1 gallon per day for $10 is $300 per month, and you have neither washed, showered or flushed the toilett for that price.
Still beats dying. Another solutions would be to pipe salt water directly to the pipes. That would allow toilets and showers to operate then you would just have to carry in water for drinking and cooking.
They would be priced the exact same. Amazon has a logistic network that allows them to ship virtually every product with âoetwo dayâ shipping with the slowest and cheapest shipping option. If it takes longer it is purely because amazon waits their sweet time to ship it to you to punish you for not paying for prime.
I think you missed the point. It isn't about 2 day or 5 day, it's about a cost versus no cost. They could obviously sell the product cheaper if they didn't have to ship it to you.
There are long waiting lists of people waiting to adopt infants. There are plenty of people willing to adopt healthy infants. The older abused children or special needs infants are the ones that are harder to find homes for.
80% of sexually active women will get pregnant within a year so if only 7% of women using this app got pregnant then it is a significant improvement. It actually beats out a condom which only has a 82% effective rate i.e 18 out of 100 sexually active people who use condoms will still get pregnant within a year.
Of course Amazon pays for shipping but they don't have to pay for storefronts or cashiers so they can still beat the local stores. It makes you wonder how cheap the products would be if they didn't have free 2 day shipping.
So come up with a fixed set and leave it alone or make it about the specific candidates. Even something simple like name 3 candidates on the ballot would make sure people actually knew what they were voting about before they got there
I don't see a problem with traveling votes. Create the districts and the polling stations the normal way and let people vote at any station they want. That person still only gets one vote but if they want to drive two hours to vote in a different district them let them. It's a self limiting problem. It would kill gerrymandering and everyone's vote would be worth more. You could drive to a competitive district where your vote would count more but by doing so you take that vote away from your own district and make your own district more competitive.
Omfg. The stupid is strong with this one.
You want to create a system where voters can be forced to give their voting rights to any other person or entity.
We already do it every time we elect someone to vote for us for the next 4+ years. I would go one step further. I think every person should be able to vote on every issue on the floor in congress or assign their vote to any other person to vote for them. So if I wanted to assign my voting rights to the EFF this week to vote on net neutrality but next week there is a different issue, I could either vote on it myself pr assign my voting rights to a different individual or organization that I think is qualified to represent my interests.
There is no reason we need to be limited to 435 people. It would be just as easy for everyone to vote on every issue or assign someone to vote by proxy for them. This is similar to how stocks work. If you own a single stock of a company you can vote or you can let someone else vote on your behalf. Most people have no interest in watching 8 hours a day of cpan so would likely keep their vote assigned to a proxy but there is no reason we couldn't design a system where everyone had the option of voting individually if they wanted.
Yes. Every hurdle causes some drop off in conversion rate whether it is getting an ID, getting to the polling booth, standing in line, etc... and we should try to minimize them but not eliminate them. In some ways, it's a good thing that it takes some minimal effort to vote. It helps ensure that someone actually cares. Personally, I think a proper fair poll test would be a good thing. If you can't name the current vice president and current governor of your state then you have no business voting for the next one.
The reason the USA bundles elections is because more people get out and vote for the president than for minor issues so you get a higher voter turnout when you vote for everything at once.
How very Marie Antoinette of you - "Let them eat cake!"
Raising the price of water doesn't reduce the need for water to live.
You don't need 19 gallons per person a day to survive. You need less than 1 gallon per day per person of drinking water. If water is going to run out in 3 months then limited everyone to 1 gallon per day gives you almost 5 years to bring more desalination plants online and/or relocate some of the people.
The point is that you don't want to run out of water because then you have death by dehydration, mass riots, and chaos. If you really are going to run out of water in 3 months then you better come up with a game plan now that prevents mass hysteria and death.
The alternative to raising the price of water now is to just wait until it's all gone in 3 months and then everybody dies. Personally, I would rather pay $10 per gallon for water now than die in 3 months. Likely, if water was $10 per gallon then people would start moving elsewhere which would buy even more time.
Lets say you have a city with 1 million people, your current water sources can supply 3 million people, the population doubles every 5 years, and it takes 10 years to plan and construct a desalination plant that can supply water to 1 million people.
Temporary barges and free market solutions will not be able to cope with the realities of exponential growth. By the time the market signals there is more demand for water, its already too late.
Sure it can. The human population doesn't reproduce that fast. Those people are coming from some where. If the water becomes too scarce or too expensive then the people will stop coming and/or move to where they can get water. What you don't want to happen is for the water to stop then people don't have time to make the necessary move but if the price of water is also increasing exponentially and doubling every month then that will naturally cause the population to stop increasing exponentially. Even without desalination plants, there are solutions. Lots of people live in situations where water must be carried long distances. It would be highly inconvenient but individuals could walk to the ocean, get water, carry it back to their apartment, boil it, and produce clean drinking water.
If you are going to run out of water in 3 months at the current rate and you don't have the time or money to build desalination
plants fast enough then the obvious solution is to raise the price of water so that you have the time/money to fix the problem.
With the time gained from reduced consumption and the money gained from charging more for the water, this is an easily
solvable problem for a city that sits on the ocean with an unlimited supply of water they can desalinate.
There are also desalination plants built on barges that could be rented/purchased and moved there as a temporary solution.
No.
Any gerrymander which puts the MINORITY in charge is an afront to the 14th Amendment
Equal rights, privileges and immunities you know
Not the majority in charge but if a state was 70% democrats and 30% republicans and there are 10 reps then if you could somehow construct districts where you ended up with the 70% represented by 7 reps and the 3% represented by the remaining 3 reps then this would be equal representation with zero "wasted" votes.
The parties tend to separate along geographical lines, urban being heavily Democrat, suburbs and rural tending more Republican. That evens things out.
Not necessarily. If you have a city like chicago and you make the districts pizza slices starting in the center and radiating out then this would make the districts "fair" in that the districts would all be the same area with the same population but it would completely cut out the rural vote. On the other hand, if you did fair by saying smallest circumference possible of each district then this might even out the rural/city vote but could possibly add other distortions as the city districts would be physically much smaller than the rural districts.