The main thing that the Tesla model S offers over any other electric vehicle is its range. Over much less expensive electric vehicles, the main things are that it has a respectable size, and that it doesn't look like a piece of shit *cough, prius, leaf*. However, the *ONLY* thing that it would offer me over absolutely any other kind of brand new car that I could go out buy for roughly half that price is that it is electric.
In other words, although I don't dispute that the Tesla model S is a luxury automobile, I would argue that if the price of making electric cars actually were to really come down, then I would suggest that it will also eventually be theoretically possible for a manufacturer to come out with a car that could probably compete quite well against the Tesla in terms of what it offers the consumer for a heck of a lot lot less money. I'm also saying that I don't think the latter will actually ever happen in reality. That despite it maybe becoming possible to do, I'm suggesting that purely electric cars that aren't ugly to look at, and actually have a decent range are probably permanently stuck in the "luxury class" and the allegation that we'd genuinely ever see them getting any cheaper in the future is nothing but a pipe dream, even though they will offer nothing that you can't get from a considerably less expensive car other than the fact that it's electric and whatever appeal that might exist based on branding.
Touche.... however, I did mean on a PC. I know that it is quite popular as a server OS as well, but none of the people that i know who use it on a PC utilize it primarily for that purpose.
Just because it's not widely used doesn't mean it isn't used. Everyone that I know that uses Linux uses it as a desktop OS. Maybe not their only one or primary one, but they still use it as a desktop OS.
So Linux is entirely viable as a desktop OS... the fact that it isn't widely used is just one ilustration of the old saying about leading a horse to water.
...except to the extent that one is owed the opportunity to be a productive member of a society, unless one adopts the premise that said society would be better off if those that were unemployed would simply die.
You are driving unsafely for the conditions around you.
My driving abstract would disagree with your assessment. In nearly 25 years of driving, in all kinds of road conditions and all kinds of traffic (mostly city driving,,, maybe about 15% highway), I have never been in any car accident where absolutely any amount of driving skill could have prevented it (other than to have not been at that location at that exact time in the first place, which is not really reflective of how good or bad a driver one is). The three accidents that I have been in were all at intersections while I was fully stopped, and my car was hit from behind. Two of which were while I was waiting for a red light, and the third was at a crosswalk where I was waiting for pedestrians to cross. All three incidents were at times and places where I was required, by law, to be stopped.
I'm not suggesting that either format is more correct, only that it actually *is* redundant to have to fully type out the type name of a variable whose type can be entirely determined by the expression on the right hand side of the equals sign.
The return type is already declared in the prototype. If your variable only needs to be the same type as the prototype declaration, then the explicit declaration of its type is redundant, since it can be deduced by the compiler.
Thank you, yes.... I am well aware of OSRIC. There's a handful of differences between it and AD&D, but not many. One of my former players (before real-life commitments made regular scheduled gaming unworkable) used the OSRIC materials for his player's handbook.
Considering Berners-Lee didn't even invent what would ultimately become HTML until very late into the 1980's, with the first formal publication of it not being around until 1993, I'd suggest that some of the snark which may have been intended by your comment may be lost by what is all too plainly an exaggeration.
Driving faster means that you are making your own vehicle capable of doing greater damage to anything that it hits, and producing greater injury to its occupants. I can't control how fast other people drive, but I can control how fast I drive. I do not drive slower than the speed limit unless road conditions actually warrant it, but I also don't deliberately speed just because everyone else is. If were to ever get hit in the rear by another car while travelng the speed limit, it's because they were tailing my vehicle too closely for the speed that *THEY* were traveling at, and that is *their* responsibility, not mine.
Actually yes... you really can get a ticket for driving too slowly. There's a sign that's not dissimilar to the one in the above picture that's not that far from where I live.
The upper speed limit for a road, however, is *NEVER* considered too slowly... even if everyone else is speeding.
You could try leaving a little earlier so that you don't have to race to where you are going.... if you can't budget your own time well enough to do so, that's hardly a reason to make your vehicle less safe in the process (you might very well handle your vehicle safely, but as momentum equals mass times speed, and most cars are pretty heavy, the faster your vehicle is moving, the more dangerous it is to others, regardless of how well you can drive. Because shit happens, and the faster you are moving, the less time you will have to react to it before you've hit it).
More speed equals a car that is more dangerous to things that it hits. A slower speed car may present more danger to faster moving things that may hit it, but I'm not responsible for how fast other people drive, I'm responsible for how fast I drive, and the faster that *I* drive, the greater the danger that my car will pose to anything that my car might hit with the momentum that I impart upon it by choosing its speed. If someone hits my car in the rear, then they clearly were tailing too close for the speed they were traveling in the first place, and that is entirely on them... not me. You want to pass me? Feel free... Heck, if you adequately signal your intention, I'll generally even slow down a bit after you've signalled to let you back in front of me if that's the lane you want to be in.
I won't usually be in the left lane on a highway, since highway exit ramps are usually off towards the right, and I generally make an effort to get in the lane I need to be in as soon as it is safe for me to do so, and stay there until I turn off of the road.
I don't drive below the limit either, however.... at least to the same level of accuracy that the speedometer conveys my actual vehicle speed.
3e turned the game into something resembling a video game, being quite rules heavy, lots of bean counting that gets pretty tedious to track after a while, and the dungeonmaster is relegated a role that could almost be replaced by an automaton. I never cared for the way 2e handled specialization wizards, because most of them felt way too similar to eachother to be distinctive. The problem was even worse for clerics. In part this is because they didn't really try to consider that spells in different spheres or when cast by different specialists, should actually be set at a different level, and it's possible with some rather large changes to the class system and spell lists available to the appropriate classes, a good system could be created, but I never had the energy to devote to trying to do that. The psionics system in 2e was so overpowered as to be absurd, and the psionics system in 3e and beyond just feels like another magic spell list instead of anything particularly special.
The best edition of D&D was the first edition of AD&D, and I'm sticking to it.
Why is everyone doing 80 if the speed limit is only 45? And if the speed limit is 80, I would be moving at 80. If the speed limit is 50, I'd be doing 50 and not 45, unless the road conditions were pretty bad and warranted driving more slowly (icy or whatnot).
As all three of the accidents that I referred to were while my vehicle was stopped and *NOT* moving (and where I was even legally required to actually be stopped, at the time) I fail to see how any of those incidents would reflect on my driving skill. I can only conclude that you don't believe me.
It's the honest truth that in nearly 25 years of driving, I do not ever willfully speed... my default go-to card for an emergency is the brake, and not the accelerator or the steering wheel. This practice, which I have been doing ever since I first learned how to drive, has resulted in neither being in nor causing any accident while my vehicle was moving. It is possible that my habits may be partially overcompensating for my father, who used to speed quite a lot, but has also been in over a dozen different car accidents, many of which were his fault (he's actually a much safer driver lately, in all fairness). My mother, who does not speed, similar to myself, has never been in an accident where she was at fault in her life and has been driving for as many years as I've been alive.
But I wasn't even out to try and make any proclamations about how super-awesome a driver I am for trying to avoid speeding, or pointing out that I haven't had any accidents that were my fault... The only reason I even mentioned it is that some people here have this belief that everybody is going to willfully speed at some point in time or else they are a terrible driver. Terrible drivers, one would think, would probably have an accident history where at least some of the accidents were actually their fault. Unless you are alleging that neither myself nor my mother are not "people", this allegation is demonstrably false.
But hey.... I'll be sure to eat some crow if my "terrible driving" for following the posted speed limits actually ever causes any accidents.
I understand perfectly how the real world works, which is why I err on the side that will cost me the least amount of money if something unexpected happens. If that makes me an asshole, so be it..
I don't assume other drivers will drive safely, but I don't look both ways while passing through an intersection that has a steady green either, so I'm not going to notice a vehicle that is trying to run the red that I wouldn't have *ALSO* noticed approaching the intersection moments before I actually entered the intersection in the first place, and because I don't speed, I would have been able to make an emergency stop to avoid. Somebody else driving like a lunatic is not an excuse for me to endanger somebody else's life who may be in front of me.
As I don't floor the accelerator from a stopped position when starting at a green light, I highly doubt I would get up enough speed before I had cleared the intersection to even be going the speed limit, let alone faster. If I am approaching an intersection at speed that is already green and not in danger of turning yellow, in which case I will try to stop before reaching the intersection, Traffic moving perpendicular to my own vehicle that is moving fast enough that I would not be able to anticipate it before even entering the intersection in the first place will have been far enough from the intersection by the time I get there that I wouldn't see it in order to be aware that I had to speed up to avoid it anyways.
I can count on zero fingers the number of times that situation has ever arisen in my life, and spending time dealing with bizarre edge cases is a waste of time.
I live in an area where the greater metropolitan population is about 3 million people, and although I don't drive every single day (since because of where I work, it is easier if I take public transit to work than deal with parking), I still drive fairly frequently. I am admittedly considerably more adjusted to city driving than highway driving.
Truck, passenger, and school children be damned. When the self-driving car thinks a crash is imminent, it tries to stop. Period. End of philosophical rant about Asimov's laws, morality, and manufacturer's liability.
Yes... This. I can't believe how many people here are trying to argue that it should *EVER* be otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
The main thing that the Tesla model S offers over any other electric vehicle is its range. Over much less expensive electric vehicles, the main things are that it has a respectable size, and that it doesn't look like a piece of shit *cough, prius, leaf*. However, the *ONLY* thing that it would offer me over absolutely any other kind of brand new car that I could go out buy for roughly half that price is that it is electric.
In other words, although I don't dispute that the Tesla model S is a luxury automobile, I would argue that if the price of making electric cars actually were to really come down, then I would suggest that it will also eventually be theoretically possible for a manufacturer to come out with a car that could probably compete quite well against the Tesla in terms of what it offers the consumer for a heck of a lot lot less money. I'm also saying that I don't think the latter will actually ever happen in reality. That despite it maybe becoming possible to do, I'm suggesting that purely electric cars that aren't ugly to look at, and actually have a decent range are probably permanently stuck in the "luxury class" and the allegation that we'd genuinely ever see them getting any cheaper in the future is nothing but a pipe dream, even though they will offer nothing that you can't get from a considerably less expensive car other than the fact that it's electric and whatever appeal that might exist based on branding.
Touche.... however, I did mean on a PC. I know that it is quite popular as a server OS as well, but none of the people that i know who use it on a PC utilize it primarily for that purpose.
... when I can buy an all-electric car that is just as sexy and just as performant as the Tesla Model S for under about $45k in today's dollars.
Just because it's not widely used doesn't mean it isn't used. Everyone that I know that uses Linux uses it as a desktop OS. Maybe not their only one or primary one, but they still use it as a desktop OS.
So Linux is entirely viable as a desktop OS... the fact that it isn't widely used is just one ilustration of the old saying about leading a horse to water.
But in general, yes, I fully agree.
My driving abstract would disagree with your assessment. In nearly 25 years of driving, in all kinds of road conditions and all kinds of traffic (mostly city driving,,, maybe about 15% highway), I have never been in any car accident where absolutely any amount of driving skill could have prevented it (other than to have not been at that location at that exact time in the first place, which is not really reflective of how good or bad a driver one is). The three accidents that I have been in were all at intersections while I was fully stopped, and my car was hit from behind. Two of which were while I was waiting for a red light, and the third was at a crosswalk where I was waiting for pedestrians to cross. All three incidents were at times and places where I was required, by law, to be stopped.
I'm not suggesting that either format is more correct, only that it actually *is* redundant to have to fully type out the type name of a variable whose type can be entirely determined by the expression on the right hand side of the equals sign.
Gotta love those disclaimer headers that are essentially outright lies.
"Not to be rude but...."
"Not that I'm bragging, but..."
"I don't mean to crtiticize, but.."
The return type is already declared in the prototype. If your variable only needs to be the same type as the prototype declaration, then the explicit declaration of its type is redundant, since it can be deduced by the compiler.
Thank you, yes.... I am well aware of OSRIC. There's a handful of differences between it and AD&D, but not many. One of my former players (before real-life commitments made regular scheduled gaming unworkable) used the OSRIC materials for his player's handbook.
Considering Berners-Lee didn't even invent what would ultimately become HTML until very late into the 1980's, with the first formal publication of it not being around until 1993, I'd suggest that some of the snark which may have been intended by your comment may be lost by what is all too plainly an exaggeration.
Driving faster means that you are making your own vehicle capable of doing greater damage to anything that it hits, and producing greater injury to its occupants. I can't control how fast other people drive, but I can control how fast I drive. I do not drive slower than the speed limit unless road conditions actually warrant it, but I also don't deliberately speed just because everyone else is. If were to ever get hit in the rear by another car while travelng the speed limit, it's because they were tailing my vehicle too closely for the speed that *THEY* were traveling at, and that is *their* responsibility, not mine.
Actually yes... you really can get a ticket for driving too slowly. There's a sign that's not dissimilar to the one in the above picture that's not that far from where I live.
The upper speed limit for a road, however, is *NEVER* considered too slowly... even if everyone else is speeding.
You could try leaving a little earlier so that you don't have to race to where you are going.... if you can't budget your own time well enough to do so, that's hardly a reason to make your vehicle less safe in the process (you might very well handle your vehicle safely, but as momentum equals mass times speed, and most cars are pretty heavy, the faster your vehicle is moving, the more dangerous it is to others, regardless of how well you can drive. Because shit happens, and the faster you are moving, the less time you will have to react to it before you've hit it).
One word: feats.
blech.
1e forever.
More speed equals a car that is more dangerous to things that it hits. A slower speed car may present more danger to faster moving things that may hit it, but I'm not responsible for how fast other people drive, I'm responsible for how fast I drive, and the faster that *I* drive, the greater the danger that my car will pose to anything that my car might hit with the momentum that I impart upon it by choosing its speed. If someone hits my car in the rear, then they clearly were tailing too close for the speed they were traveling in the first place, and that is entirely on them... not me. You want to pass me? Feel free... Heck, if you adequately signal your intention, I'll generally even slow down a bit after you've signalled to let you back in front of me if that's the lane you want to be in.
I won't usually be in the left lane on a highway, since highway exit ramps are usually off towards the right, and I generally make an effort to get in the lane I need to be in as soon as it is safe for me to do so, and stay there until I turn off of the road.
I don't drive below the limit either, however.... at least to the same level of accuracy that the speedometer conveys my actual vehicle speed.
The best edition of D&D was the first edition of AD&D, and I'm sticking to it.
Why is everyone doing 80 if the speed limit is only 45? And if the speed limit is 80, I would be moving at 80. If the speed limit is 50, I'd be doing 50 and not 45, unless the road conditions were pretty bad and warranted driving more slowly (icy or whatnot).
As all three of the accidents that I referred to were while my vehicle was stopped and *NOT* moving (and where I was even legally required to actually be stopped, at the time) I fail to see how any of those incidents would reflect on my driving skill. I can only conclude that you don't believe me.
It's the honest truth that in nearly 25 years of driving, I do not ever willfully speed... my default go-to card for an emergency is the brake, and not the accelerator or the steering wheel. This practice, which I have been doing ever since I first learned how to drive, has resulted in neither being in nor causing any accident while my vehicle was moving. It is possible that my habits may be partially overcompensating for my father, who used to speed quite a lot, but has also been in over a dozen different car accidents, many of which were his fault (he's actually a much safer driver lately, in all fairness). My mother, who does not speed, similar to myself, has never been in an accident where she was at fault in her life and has been driving for as many years as I've been alive.
But I wasn't even out to try and make any proclamations about how super-awesome a driver I am for trying to avoid speeding, or pointing out that I haven't had any accidents that were my fault... The only reason I even mentioned it is that some people here have this belief that everybody is going to willfully speed at some point in time or else they are a terrible driver. Terrible drivers, one would think, would probably have an accident history where at least some of the accidents were actually their fault. Unless you are alleging that neither myself nor my mother are not "people", this allegation is demonstrably false.
But hey.... I'll be sure to eat some crow if my "terrible driving" for following the posted speed limits actually ever causes any accidents.
I understand perfectly how the real world works, which is why I err on the side that will cost me the least amount of money if something unexpected happens. If that makes me an asshole, so be it..
I don't assume other drivers will drive safely, but I don't look both ways while passing through an intersection that has a steady green either, so I'm not going to notice a vehicle that is trying to run the red that I wouldn't have *ALSO* noticed approaching the intersection moments before I actually entered the intersection in the first place, and because I don't speed, I would have been able to make an emergency stop to avoid. Somebody else driving like a lunatic is not an excuse for me to endanger somebody else's life who may be in front of me.
As I don't floor the accelerator from a stopped position when starting at a green light, I highly doubt I would get up enough speed before I had cleared the intersection to even be going the speed limit, let alone faster. If I am approaching an intersection at speed that is already green and not in danger of turning yellow, in which case I will try to stop before reaching the intersection, Traffic moving perpendicular to my own vehicle that is moving fast enough that I would not be able to anticipate it before even entering the intersection in the first place will have been far enough from the intersection by the time I get there that I wouldn't see it in order to be aware that I had to speed up to avoid it anyways.
I can count on zero fingers the number of times that situation has ever arisen in my life, and spending time dealing with bizarre edge cases is a waste of time.
What's that quote from? I don't recognize it, but it sounds entertaining.
I live in an area where the greater metropolitan population is about 3 million people, and although I don't drive every single day (since because of where I work, it is easier if I take public transit to work than deal with parking), I still drive fairly frequently. I am admittedly considerably more adjusted to city driving than highway driving.
Yes... This. I can't believe how many people here are trying to argue that it should *EVER* be otherwise.