I guess they could reset the table and change the rules they are playing under (updating all the rules descriptions and informing the players) but that's no different than them announcing that the table will now be playing Pai Gow.
Since the player cards are dealt face up so the dealer can see them, how exactly do you think being able to see them with a camera will change anything?
How is players exploiting other players turnabout of casinos exploiting players? I'm pretty sure the players at the receiving end in both cases don't see it as fair play.
The threat implied here is that people get shot during SWAT raids.
Either because an officer "accidentally" discharges his weapon or because a resident defends themselves against an apparent home invasion or because they thought they saw a gun.
What is not compatible about thinking that God thinks that homosexual behavior, abortions, and contraception are wrong while also having a humble opinion of yourself and submitting to God and others?
Apply the shortest time to any you don't have better knowledge for? Risk i and potentially be driving too fast? Avoid all traffic lights except for the ones you have been able to park at the side of the road and observe for at least 7426 light changes in order to get a good estimate?
You don't need to know the precise timings. You can make a low ball estimate until you know better and prioritize not having to run the light ahead of travel time, or a more reasonable estimate and prioritize not having people run into you from behind over not running a red light.
And unless you are planning on driving through every single traffic light in your country in one trip you don't need to know them all anyway.
Slinging webs is not a damn superpower - it's just technology. Being able to use them to swing through a city without regularly crashing is another story, but that story is the damn spider-sense anyway!
The traffic light is part of the conditions. If you are going fast enough that if the light changed yellow you would have no safe option but to run the red then you are driving too fast for the conditions.
And yes, some places have yellows so short that they make the conditions equivalent to driving on ice at all times. They are making a decision to decrease safety in order to raise revenue - but the cause of bad conditions is irrelevant to having to drive to suit those conditions.
And yes, you can't know the timings of every traffic light you might drive through, just like you can't know what is on the other side of the blind corner or just over a blind crest. You either drive so that you can safely handle a stopped car just over the hill or a fast changing traffic light, or you sacrifice some safety to get somewhere faster.
No. I don't see how the city both collecting the fine and setting the length of yellow changes the fact that you may have drive below the speed limit in order to be able to safely stop at the intersection in question.
How interesting what happens when big political money gets involved in science: the community is perfectly happy to speak of the 'theory of evolution,' or the 'special theory of relativity.' But when anthropocentric global warming, a theory with much less convincing experimental proof than those two, is spoken of as a 'theory' and not fact, the thought police rush in to deride the speaker as a holocaust denier.
"Anthropocentric global warming" is not a scientific theory like evolution and special relativity are and hence when the word theory is used the scientific theory definition isn't being applied, instead the common language definition is. Those two definitions are almost exact opposites hence your conflating of them is extremely misleading.
Sea ice is also fresh water (with brine trapped in the pockets admittedly, though that drains over a few years). That salt being forced out of the forming ice increases the density of the water below adding to the "down at the poles" part of global water circulation.
The mere fact that they issued 3 times as many tickets as there are people in the town is an indication that something is wrong here.
.
No, it could also indicate the town is located on a major commute (or other cause of travel) route, or is a tourist or working destination, etc.
That the company gets 40% of every ticket they issue is a massive conflict of interest. It's been proven before that some municipalities do fun things like shorten yellow lights so they can ticket more people.
The company isn't the municipality and so can't shorten yellow lights, hence there is no conflict of interest there. In fact it lowers the conflict of interest since the town that can do those fun things sees less of the revenue for doing so. Of course the actual contract made with the company might create some conflicts (if it has minimum revenue requirements or they'll pull the cameras, for example), but the existence of a percentage of revenue instead of a fixed fee itself doesn't create one.
Unless the company configuring the cameras incorrectly to report non-offenses as offenses is an option of course...
Yes. If you are going fast enough that if the light changed you wouldn't be able to go through it before it turns red, and you wouldn't be able to stop before the line then you are driving too fast for the current conditions.
If you are driving too fast for the current conditions then you should slow down. That may involve braking.
Except I didn't mention Republicans or Democrats. And their both irrelevant, since the statement applies to more than the US.
But OK, let's see if you can be more clear. I only made two claims, which of them are you disagreeing with:
1. Politicians who are in power tend not to consider what will happen when the "other side" is in power. 2. Politicians tend to put getting elected (and thus their party) ahead what is better for the country (their principles one would hope).
Slashdot Mirror
Just a documentary about the moon landing should land on the moon?
No they can not, the dealer play is fixed.
I guess they could reset the table and change the rules they are playing under (updating all the rules descriptions and informing the players) but that's no different than them announcing that the table will now be playing Pai Gow.
Since the player cards are dealt face up so the dealer can see them, how exactly do you think being able to see them with a camera will change anything?
That's hardly news.
Please name a casino game played against the house in which seeing the players cards can change anything for the house.
I'm pretty sure there isn't one, because having such a thing would only serve as a way for the casino to lose huge amounts of money.
I seriously doubt they guarantee anything.
How is players exploiting other players turnabout of casinos exploiting players? I'm pretty sure the players at the receiving end in both cases don't see it as fair play.
The threat implied here is that people get shot during SWAT raids.
Either because an officer "accidentally" discharges his weapon or because a resident defends themselves against an apparent home invasion or because they thought they saw a gun.
Property is also often damaged.
If only there was some way to rent server resources to handle such spikes.
Ah so you had no point all then. And left of "with reality" in order to make sure you made no sense I guess?
OK, to each his own.
And how does God not existing make those two beliefs incompatible?
What is not compatible about thinking that God thinks that homosexual behavior, abortions, and contraception are wrong while also having a humble opinion of yourself and submitting to God and others?
Apply the shortest time to any you don't have better knowledge for? Risk i and potentially be driving too fast? Avoid all traffic lights except for the ones you have been able to park at the side of the road and observe for at least 7426 light changes in order to get a good estimate?
You don't need to know the precise timings. You can make a low ball estimate until you know better and prioritize not having to run the light ahead of travel time, or a more reasonable estimate and prioritize not having people run into you from behind over not running a red light.
And unless you are planning on driving through every single traffic light in your country in one trip you don't need to know them all anyway.
Slinging webs is not a damn superpower - it's just technology. Being able to use them to swing through a city without regularly crashing is another story, but that story is the damn spider-sense anyway!
Whether I do or not is irrelevant to the statement about possibly having to slow down even though the light is green.
The traffic light is part of the conditions. If you are going fast enough that if the light changed yellow you would have no safe option but to run the red then you are driving too fast for the conditions.
And yes, some places have yellows so short that they make the conditions equivalent to driving on ice at all times. They are making a decision to decrease safety in order to raise revenue - but the cause of bad conditions is irrelevant to having to drive to suit those conditions.
And yes, you can't know the timings of every traffic light you might drive through, just like you can't know what is on the other side of the blind corner or just over a blind crest. You either drive so that you can safely handle a stopped car just over the hill or a fast changing traffic light, or you sacrifice some safety to get somewhere faster.
No. I don't see how the city both collecting the fine and setting the length of yellow changes the fact that you may have drive below the speed limit in order to be able to safely stop at the intersection in question.
"Anthropocentric global warming" is not a scientific theory like evolution and special relativity are and hence when the word theory is used the scientific theory definition isn't being applied, instead the common language definition is. Those two definitions are almost exact opposites hence your conflating of them is extremely misleading.
Sea ice is also fresh water (with brine trapped in the pockets admittedly, though that drains over a few years). That salt being forced out of the forming ice increases the density of the water below adding to the "down at the poles" part of global water circulation.
.
No, it could also indicate the town is located on a major commute (or other cause of travel) route, or is a tourist or working destination, etc.
The company isn't the municipality and so can't shorten yellow lights, hence there is no conflict of interest there. In fact it lowers the conflict of interest since the town that can do those fun things sees less of the revenue for doing so. Of course the actual contract made with the company might create some conflicts (if it has minimum revenue requirements or they'll pull the cameras, for example), but the existence of a percentage of revenue instead of a fixed fee itself doesn't create one.
Unless the company configuring the cameras incorrectly to report non-offenses as offenses is an option of course...
Yes. If you are going fast enough that if the light changed you wouldn't be able to go through it before it turns red, and you wouldn't be able to stop before the line then you are driving too fast for the current conditions.
If you are driving too fast for the current conditions then you should slow down. That may involve braking.
Except that you'd have to make an effort to think he meant just the positions of the objects rather than the velocity vectors that he obviously did.
No. It clearly implies they are going to pay it off 5 years earlier than it is currently due.
Except I didn't mention Republicans or Democrats. And their both irrelevant, since the statement applies to more than the US.
But OK, let's see if you can be more clear. I only made two claims, which of them are you disagreeing with:
1. Politicians who are in power tend not to consider what will happen when the "other side" is in power.
2. Politicians tend to put getting elected (and thus their party) ahead what is better for the country (their principles one would hope).