Not true with real food, which you can get at a local farmer's market and even hunt some of your own meat.. Processed food is at price parity for the most part, though.
Gas mileage sucks in the city with constant starts and stops. You use just about as much fuel going a short distance in the city as you do going a longer stretch in a rural area. But in a rural area, you don't feel the need to leave home as much (mostly just work - and those aren't usually going to be long commutes).
Still, you're right - 50% is a big number. But housing is a huge part of a household budget - especially the lower your income goes. If you were going to live in a relatively small apartment in a rural area, that would cost less than half the price of the same in an urban area.
1. Basic infrastructure was deemed important. Most infrastructure is tax-funded, but telecommunications happens to be a private industry now. Most of modern society involves being reachable in such a way. 2. It's not just people who choose where the live - that's a consequence. 3. Above-ground wire lines are still much cheaper than buried. Even when taking into account the cost of replacing poles after storms. These people pay for their phones. They just don't directly pay for the lines being built. Neither do you. 4. So you can have a larger apartment. And so they can have a large house on two acres for much less than you pay for your apartment. Maybe they're a successful farmer growing your food. You'd be paying the difference in higher food cost anyway if they had to pay a higher share for infrastructure. 5. Make up your mind - are they poor or are they rich? The poor don't always live off the government - that's actually a lot more common in/near the city. They just don't have much. But if they were, the cost of living is much lower so be glad they're not in the city.
The city is not for everyone. Nor should it be. Plenty of people want to live a good distance from the city. People there are friendlier than you are. The air is clean. Cost of living overall is lower. There's so much open space. The Internet brings you as close to the modern world as you need to be.
It's just that they didn't realize how much a percentage of the poor's income this represents (just about the same percentage as the sales tax rate itself).
And then they decide to legalize prostitution with robots. Before you know it - since all the first bots were owned by the police, the police themselves are entrenched in the business of prostitution with no way out.
Even Google Translate knows that "jaja" is "haha." I think we can safely assume that the phrase, taken out of context, is someone giving the punchline to a joke.
Well - part of the problem is that pedestrians don't think they have to be seen before stepping out. So extending that to all is an ugly picture. So I was just clarifying.
On a bicycle or running, that's pretty much going to require you to stop and look both ways. A car doesn't have to yield unless you were already in the intersection early enough for the car to then react and slow down. If you aren't in the intersection yet, a car can zoom right by even if you were about to take your first step or pedal - so be careful!
People in the US don't usually drive outside of the U.S. And it works between vehicles AND bicycles. It's not a matter of ignoring 95% of the planet, it's a matter of driving on the right side of the road from the left side of the vehicle. You really can't use your right arm to signal from inside a car. And there's also a signal for stop - so arm orientation already matters here.
You said you didn't know where I live, so I was explaining where I live and the logic we used to set up our rules. Really, right-arm out isn't exactly taught or mentioned here, but it's understood implicitly and used mostly by people who don't know hand signals. I'm surprised it was even mentioned as if it were common here.
Not for the US. The one that conforms with the Uniform Vehicle Code uses the left arm for all. The ones with the left arm are the ones everyone is taught in driving class and when they teach bicycle safety. And of course all the pictures show the left arm as well.
Yes, you can also use your right arm for a right turn. But I didn't say it was exclusive.
Where it is legal, cyclists should yield at crosswalks, as they're not pedestrians and should have no expectation that cars should stop for the unexpected high-speed traffic.
Well - clearly we must be annexing part of the moon. That's why we put our flag there. It's the same as what happened in the New World except without natives messing up our manifest destiny.
And that IS plain text. Terribly bloated plain-text. Which unfortunately doesn't compress very well. WHY would you need to store anything like that in a cookie?
The payload is currently gzip compressed - not the request or response headers. The cookies currently must be sent as plain text - they can't store anything but ASCII. They could be gzipped as part of the binary protocol. All headers can be compressed and reduce bandwidth. It's not that it's binary, it's that we're throwing human-readable out the window as part of the transition.
I'll add that Slashdot stores its images on a CDN at a separate subdomain. As a result, this speeds up delivery of that content, since it doesn't send the cookies for slashdot.org - it sends the non-existent cookies for a.fsdn.com
They are stored locally in order to be transmitted with every request. Just pulled up the debug window here in Chrome. My HTTP request to load and view this page shows the following headers: Accept, Accept-Encoding, Accept-Language, Cache-Control, Connection, Cookie, Host, and User Agent.
Cookies are how your computer says to the server that you're logged into the site. How can the server verify that you're the same user and not just another computer behind the same external IP address without you sending the cookie?
The Cookie header contains ALL of the cookies stored for the slashdot.org domain. Total size of the Headers in the request was about 1.3KB. More than half - 0.9KB of that was the cookies.
The payloads are already often gzipped - but it's one connection per one file most of the time. If you need images, CSS, Javascript, more tiny images, then those are all separate HTTP connections and on some servers, they are serially requested over one connection. Combine it into one connection, and you can parallelize the download process into one connection, prioritize HTML over resources, and only send cookies once instead of once per file.
Really, the problem is small images. Not having to make multiple connections for < 1KB images is a big part of where this makes a difference. CSS vomit actually helps, by implementing things like CSS sprites made out of a single larger image, but it's nicer to be more module and stay with multiple < 1KB images.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true with real food, which you can get at a local farmer's market and even hunt some of your own meat.. Processed food is at price parity for the most part, though.
Gas mileage sucks in the city with constant starts and stops. You use just about as much fuel going a short distance in the city as you do going a longer stretch in a rural area. But in a rural area, you don't feel the need to leave home as much (mostly just work - and those aren't usually going to be long commutes).
Still, you're right - 50% is a big number. But housing is a huge part of a household budget - especially the lower your income goes. If you were going to live in a relatively small apartment in a rural area, that would cost less than half the price of the same in an urban area.
1. Basic infrastructure was deemed important. Most infrastructure is tax-funded, but telecommunications happens to be a private industry now. Most of modern society involves being reachable in such a way.
2. It's not just people who choose where the live - that's a consequence.
3. Above-ground wire lines are still much cheaper than buried. Even when taking into account the cost of replacing poles after storms. These people pay for their phones. They just don't directly pay for the lines being built. Neither do you.
4. So you can have a larger apartment. And so they can have a large house on two acres for much less than you pay for your apartment. Maybe they're a successful farmer growing your food. You'd be paying the difference in higher food cost anyway if they had to pay a higher share for infrastructure.
5. Make up your mind - are they poor or are they rich? The poor don't always live off the government - that's actually a lot more common in/near the city. They just don't have much. But if they were, the cost of living is much lower so be glad they're not in the city.
The city is not for everyone. Nor should it be. Plenty of people want to live a good distance from the city. People there are friendlier than you are. The air is clean. Cost of living overall is lower. There's so much open space. The Internet brings you as close to the modern world as you need to be.
They said:
(except perhaps local sales taxes or use fees)
It's just that they didn't realize how much a percentage of the poor's income this represents (just about the same percentage as the sales tax rate itself).
And then they decide to legalize prostitution with robots. Before you know it - since all the first bots were owned by the police, the police themselves are entrenched in the business of prostitution with no way out.
Even Google Translate knows that "jaja" is "haha." I think we can safely assume that the phrase, taken out of context, is someone giving the punchline to a joke.
Someone posted AOLiza in the comments of the article. You can thank the Internet Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010223222122/http://fury.com/aoliza/
Well - part of the problem is that pedestrians don't think they have to be seen before stepping out. So extending that to all is an ugly picture. So I was just clarifying.
At least in my state, you don't have the right of way to cross unless the drivers have time to slow down for you:
http://dps.illinois.edu/universitypolice/pedestrian.html
On a bicycle or running, that's pretty much going to require you to stop and look both ways. A car doesn't have to yield unless you were already in the intersection early enough for the car to then react and slow down. If you aren't in the intersection yet, a car can zoom right by even if you were about to take your first step or pedal - so be careful!
People in the US don't usually drive outside of the U.S. And it works between vehicles AND bicycles. It's not a matter of ignoring 95% of the planet, it's a matter of driving on the right side of the road from the left side of the vehicle. You really can't use your right arm to signal from inside a car. And there's also a signal for stop - so arm orientation already matters here.
You said you didn't know where I live, so I was explaining where I live and the logic we used to set up our rules. Really, right-arm out isn't exactly taught or mentioned here, but it's understood implicitly and used mostly by people who don't know hand signals. I'm surprised it was even mentioned as if it were common here.
Not for the US. The one that conforms with the Uniform Vehicle Code uses the left arm for all. The ones with the left arm are the ones everyone is taught in driving class and when they teach bicycle safety. And of course all the pictures show the left arm as well.
Yes, you can also use your right arm for a right turn. But I didn't say it was exclusive.
There's a standard way of signaling direction if you're on a bicycle or a vehicle with broken signal lights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_signals
They're all done with the left arm.
Although flashing lights are more noticeable, it's much harder to judge distance when the light keeps going dark.
Where it is legal, cyclists should yield at crosswalks, as they're not pedestrians and should have no expectation that cars should stop for the unexpected high-speed traffic.
You need a full-size car horn on your bicycle. That'll scare them into submission.
obligatory (and yet not xkcd):
http://thedoghousediaries.com/1934
I think it will be a while before our moon territory revolts. One of the main things missing for this to happen is a population.
Well - clearly we must be annexing part of the moon. That's why we put our flag there. It's the same as what happened in the New World except without natives messing up our manifest destiny.
And that IS plain text. Terribly bloated plain-text. Which unfortunately doesn't compress very well. WHY would you need to store anything like that in a cookie?
The payload is currently gzip compressed - not the request or response headers. The cookies currently must be sent as plain text - they can't store anything but ASCII. They could be gzipped as part of the binary protocol. All headers can be compressed and reduce bandwidth. It's not that it's binary, it's that we're throwing human-readable out the window as part of the transition.
I'll add that Slashdot stores its images on a CDN at a separate subdomain. As a result, this speeds up delivery of that content, since it doesn't send the cookies for slashdot.org - it sends the non-existent cookies for a.fsdn.com
They are stored locally in order to be transmitted with every request. Just pulled up the debug window here in Chrome. My HTTP request to load and view this page shows the following headers: Accept, Accept-Encoding, Accept-Language, Cache-Control, Connection, Cookie, Host, and User Agent.
Cookies are how your computer says to the server that you're logged into the site. How can the server verify that you're the same user and not just another computer behind the same external IP address without you sending the cookie?
The Cookie header contains ALL of the cookies stored for the slashdot.org domain. Total size of the Headers in the request was about 1.3KB. More than half - 0.9KB of that was the cookies.
Well...it won't - but it could significantly improve the compression when that crap is done.
The payloads are already often gzipped - but it's one connection per one file most of the time. If you need images, CSS, Javascript, more tiny images, then those are all separate HTTP connections and on some servers, they are serially requested over one connection. Combine it into one connection, and you can parallelize the download process into one connection, prioritize HTML over resources, and only send cookies once instead of once per file.
Really, the problem is small images. Not having to make multiple connections for < 1KB images is a big part of where this makes a difference. CSS vomit actually helps, by implementing things like CSS sprites made out of a single larger image, but it's nicer to be more module and stay with multiple < 1KB images.
Except cookies. And even worse - ViewState variables posted on badly coded .NET applications. Some of those are near the hundred kilobyte range.