Extortion for the greater good? Let them either raise the fares to reflect the actual cost (which would provide a lot more incentive to run the system more efficiently, since fares are a big political issue in NYC) or levy city taxes to subsidize it. The bridge tolls are largely a way to extort money from people from the surrounding areas (Long Island, upstate NY, NJ, Connecticut) who have no choice but to pass through NYC to get somewhere else. The current system is medieval, like some feudal lord being given the privilege of extorting whatever tolls he wants from those passing through. That's a system that helped destroy the French economy and lead to their Revolution (hey, it's Bastille Day!).
I figure NYC bridges could demand much larger tolls in order to keep the number of cars trying to gridlock Manhattan in check.
Many high toll NYC bridges don't connect to Manhattan, including Verrazano, GW, Throgs Neck, and Whitestone. In order to drive from Long Island to almost anywhere else you pretty much have to take those bridges. I don't think NYC has some feudal right to extort extravagant tolls from anybody who passes through "their" territory, especially on routes that are part of the interstate system (built largely to avoid such issues).
The drunken captain, bad as that was, wasn't the cause of the accident. He was asleep in his bunk, and the ship was being piloted by someone who was qualified. The drunken captain bit was played up to distract from Exxon's culpability, like choosing not to fix a radar that was broken for a year, in order to save a few bucks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill#Identified_causes
Sometimes I think that using the Internet for anything other than publicly available static HTML (e.g. Wikipedia) is a mistake. Nice idea, but not every good idea works out well.
we will have to see many evolutionary steps between now and then
What better time to start taking them than now?
Honestly I'm a bit skeptical of this one though. I've been hearing about this approach since I was a teenager. Still, I'd rather hear about some dreams than listen to this frickin' "can't be done" whine that seems to have become so popular in this country. I suppose a trans-continental railroad or electric power to every home is unrealistic too.
The thing about geniuses is that they have 100 great ideas every day, one of which may prove to be practical. Musk has proven his genius and vision. What about you? Hughes? Not so much a genius as an entrepreneur/exploiter. He didn't come up with many novel/new ideas, but he had an ability to see which ones to exploit. That isn't to say that he didn't contribute to tech in his time, but compared to others, he was small potatoes...:-)
The "inventions" (ideas really) that Musk promotes are not his own, and he doesn't claim they are. He certainly doesn't claim this is his invention. That's nothing against him, in fact to me Musk is a geek's geek, but let's be as clear about his role as he is. He is a sort of Howard Hughes, but without as many movie stars hanging off him and AFAIK fewer CIA contracts. He also hasn't killed anybody that I'm aware of.
The NYS Thruway is nothing. Look at NYC bridge tolls. Some of them are on interstates, and for years violated federal law about what tolls could be for bridges on interstates. Simple fix: they changed the law. Same thing for the NYS Thruway (and the Mass. Turnpike). They were built before the interstate system, so in incorporating them into the system there was an agreement to let the states charge tolls for another 30 years. Guess what happened after that.
The objections to that pipeline are mostly about the use of tar sands and possible oil spills. This would be a different animal. Of course there would be some opposition, but nothing like the pipeline.
P.S. Similar objections were raised about the Alaska pipeline (us old fogeys remember such stuff). It was still built, and probably built better because of the opposition. Who knew that the real problem would be sailing a ship into a reef.
Politicians and Unions would make sure that robots would never see the light of day on something like this
That probably explains why all construction work in the US is done by guys with shovels. Imagine the efficiency improvements if they could use backhoes, trucks, tunnel boring machines, etc.
They could even charge a premium for that service and make the TSA self-funding. Maybe even return money to the government. More proof that bureaucracies have no imagination.
P.S. Don't forget an equivalent service for the ladies. Let's not be sexist here (or pass up any business opportunities, like the cosmetics companies that didn't market to black women for years).
I fail to see where I ever mentioned that the jury found anyone "innocent".
If it was a "fact that Zimmerman was only acting in self defense" it would mean that he was innocent. The jury didn't say that. Their not guilty verdict just means they couldn't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Learn to read.
Learn that a word can be used to accurately describe an argument, even if that word was not used verbatim in the original statement of the argument.
This is not a conservative victory. This is the court doing its job to find the truth and making rulings on the law and the disposition of alleged criminals.
Regardless of how well the court did its job, if you believe that a story like this has no political aspect to it, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
The facts that Zimmerman was only acting in self defense. You know, the facts that the jury used to serve justice.
Juries don't find people innocent. They find them guilty or not guilty. The latter means that the defendant could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not necessarily mean they thought he was innocent.
The founding fathers knew this -- that's why they advocated jury trials in the first place
That and the fact that it had been part of the common law for centuries.
I don't think, if they were alive today in the age of the internet and instant communication, they would still advocate that these trials be open to the public
On the contrary. The reason for requiring that criminal trials be public is to help ensure that they're not totally corrupt.
You talk about jobs, I talk about careers. He may be able to find a job here and there, but he'll never have a career again
I doubt that. There were a lot of people who were "on his side", "rooting for him", or whatever you want to call it. Probably doesn't hurt either that George Zimmerman is not an unusual name.
Slashdot Mirror
The video only shows it doing hands free voice search when you're already in Google Now
I'm wondering if when you curse at it enough, it'll offer to file a bug report.
I'd never seen the word bikeshedding before. A very useful neologism - I'll have to remember it. And yes, a good description of many comments.
Extortion for the greater good? Let them either raise the fares to reflect the actual cost (which would provide a lot more incentive to run the system more efficiently, since fares are a big political issue in NYC) or levy city taxes to subsidize it. The bridge tolls are largely a way to extort money from people from the surrounding areas (Long Island, upstate NY, NJ, Connecticut) who have no choice but to pass through NYC to get somewhere else. The current system is medieval, like some feudal lord being given the privilege of extorting whatever tolls he wants from those passing through. That's a system that helped destroy the French economy and lead to their Revolution (hey, it's Bastille Day!).
I figure NYC bridges could demand much larger tolls in order to keep the number of cars trying to gridlock Manhattan in check.
Many high toll NYC bridges don't connect to Manhattan, including Verrazano, GW, Throgs Neck, and Whitestone. In order to drive from Long Island to almost anywhere else you pretty much have to take those bridges. I don't think NYC has some feudal right to extort extravagant tolls from anybody who passes through "their" territory, especially on routes that are part of the interstate system (built largely to avoid such issues).
The drunken captain, bad as that was, wasn't the cause of the accident. He was asleep in his bunk, and the ship was being piloted by someone who was qualified. The drunken captain bit was played up to distract from Exxon's culpability, like choosing not to fix a radar that was broken for a year, in order to save a few bucks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill#Identified_causes
But my 18th birthday rolled around, and I decided to clean up my ethics, and only program for legitimate purposes.
You turned down the job offer from the NSA?
Sometimes I think that using the Internet for anything other than publicly available static HTML (e.g. Wikipedia) is a mistake. Nice idea, but not every good idea works out well.
Nearly every car can reach 3Gs without a problem - just apply the brakes.
Here are some guys doing actual measurements on hi-end Porsches. Less than 1.5G's tops.
http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/997-gt2-gt3-forum/715560-deceleration-g-force-readings.html
What exactly is the problem with paying for good infrastructure?
Nothing. What I object to is paying for it several times over.
we will have to see many evolutionary steps between now and then
What better time to start taking them than now?
Honestly I'm a bit skeptical of this one though. I've been hearing about this approach since I was a teenager. Still, I'd rather hear about some dreams than listen to this frickin' "can't be done" whine that seems to have become so popular in this country. I suppose a trans-continental railroad or electric power to every home is unrealistic too.
keep taking risks and one day you fail
If you stop taking risks you've already failed.
Better yet drive into a stone wall.
He is in his 40s after all ... and senile as anyone else.
Wow, a new standard for age discrimination. I'm older than that and my mind is perfectly ... what was I saying?
P.S. Forget Logan's Run, Wild in the Streets is a much better movie.
P.P.S. Sorry for the plot spoiler, but if you're over 18 you're over-the-hill.
The thing about geniuses is that they have 100 great ideas every day, one of which may prove to be practical. Musk has proven his genius and vision. What about you? Hughes? Not so much a genius as an entrepreneur/exploiter. He didn't come up with many novel/new ideas, but he had an ability to see which ones to exploit. That isn't to say that he didn't contribute to tech in his time, but compared to others, he was small potatoes... :-)
The "inventions" (ideas really) that Musk promotes are not his own, and he doesn't claim they are. He certainly doesn't claim this is his invention. That's nothing against him, in fact to me Musk is a geek's geek, but let's be as clear about his role as he is. He is a sort of Howard Hughes, but without as many movie stars hanging off him and AFAIK fewer CIA contracts. He also hasn't killed anybody that I'm aware of.
The NYS Thruway is nothing. Look at NYC bridge tolls. Some of them are on interstates, and for years violated federal law about what tolls could be for bridges on interstates. Simple fix: they changed the law. Same thing for the NYS Thruway (and the Mass. Turnpike). They were built before the interstate system, so in incorporating them into the system there was an agreement to let the states charge tolls for another 30 years. Guess what happened after that.
The objections to that pipeline are mostly about the use of tar sands and possible oil spills. This would be a different animal. Of course there would be some opposition, but nothing like the pipeline.
P.S. Similar objections were raised about the Alaska pipeline (us old fogeys remember such stuff). It was still built, and probably built better because of the opposition. Who knew that the real problem would be sailing a ship into a reef.
Politicians and Unions would make sure that robots would never see the light of day on something like this
That probably explains why all construction work in the US is done by guys with shovels. Imagine the efficiency improvements if they could use backhoes, trucks, tunnel boring machines, etc.
They could even charge a premium for that service and make the TSA self-funding. Maybe even return money to the government. More proof that bureaucracies have no imagination.
P.S. Don't forget an equivalent service for the ladies. Let's not be sexist here (or pass up any business opportunities, like the cosmetics companies that didn't market to black women for years).
I fail to see where I ever mentioned that the jury found anyone "innocent".
If it was a "fact that Zimmerman was only acting in self defense" it would mean that he was innocent. The jury didn't say that. Their not guilty verdict just means they couldn't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Learn to read.
Learn that a word can be used to accurately describe an argument, even if that word was not used verbatim in the original statement of the argument.
I propose that sort of error be dubbed the "When the Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor Fallacy."
You must be one of those conspiracy theorists that thinks that was trumped up to get the US into WWII.
This is not a conservative victory. This is the court doing its job to find the truth and making rulings on the law and the disposition of alleged criminals.
Regardless of how well the court did its job, if you believe that a story like this has no political aspect to it, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
The facts that Zimmerman was only acting in self defense. You know, the facts that the jury used to serve justice.
Juries don't find people innocent. They find them guilty or not guilty. The latter means that the defendant could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not necessarily mean they thought he was innocent.
I know it's good for ratings, but it makes the "news" seem foolish these days...
When didn't the news seem foolish about these things?
The founding fathers knew this -- that's why they advocated jury trials in the first place
That and the fact that it had been part of the common law for centuries.
I don't think, if they were alive today in the age of the internet and instant communication, they would still advocate that these trials be open to the public
On the contrary. The reason for requiring that criminal trials be public is to help ensure that they're not totally corrupt.
You talk about jobs, I talk about careers. He may be able to find a job here and there, but he'll never have a career again
I doubt that. There were a lot of people who were "on his side", "rooting for him", or whatever you want to call it. Probably doesn't hurt either that George Zimmerman is not an unusual name.