Until we get flying vehicles we are going to have to deal with the constraints of roads. Bees and fish do not have those constraints and are a poor example to model road movement after. How do you build a highly constrained 2D system (roads) on top of a very open 3D system(flying or swimming)? The movement and constraints are completely different issues and the solutions are not transferable.
To paraphrase. Lets model autonomous systems now in an environment that may never exist in such a way as it will not work in the environment we have now. If it does not work now it does not matter if it may work in the future.
Lets not look so far into the future we lose sight of how to get there.
If you build a natural system that can not fit into the constrains you are no further ahead and have just wasted lots of time and money. For example, bees and fish can go over/under each other if crossing; vehicles can not. Failing to take that constraint into account in the original design will doom it to failure. with all these systems the 80/20 rule applies. 80% of the work will be consumed by the last 20% of the problems.
There is no reason to build a system that is dependent on the status quo,
There is a reason and that is due to the fact that we all are not going to instantly convert all our vehicles to autonomous vehicles. Autonomous vehicles are going to have to coexist on our roads with human driven cars. There may be some changes to rules of the road but they will not be all that drastic. It will impede future progress but it has to to integrate with present conditions.
Current laws are based on the constrains of roads while bees and fish work in a different world. The most obvious being 3 dimensional for the natural system vs 2 dimensional for most roads. There is also the constrains of the sides of the roads, intersections, on/off ramps, different vehicle performances, higher speeds, greater momentum, greater consequences of collision,etc. Natural situations are much more forgiving to errors. One fish hitting another will cause little or no damage. One car hitting another at high speeds could cause an accident that could kill many people.
Fish and bees do not have to deal with two dimensional intersections. When fish or bees touch each other it does not cause an accident that could kill someone. Fish and bees are not constrained by the width of roads. Vehicles move much faster than fish or bees and momentum is a much bigger issue. Fish or bees generally do not have individual destinations which require movement in many different directions.
As for the demonstration, it was laughable. Extremely slow. No crossing. No joining or leaving.
The term "zipping" is relative. They were "zipping" if you are a snail. To me, the apt description would be meandering.
I agree that exceptions need to be made. On the other hand, the fact that one group does not allow exceptions should have no effect on another, completely different, group allowing them. The government is not a monolith. Also, using finger guns is not a religious act. I also bet he got suspended as expelled means he can not return.
I am paraphrasing something I heard in a news report about the Quebec issue;
The State should be free of religion. The individual should be free to practice their religion.
For example, the State should not erect a menorah , Xmas tree or any other religious symbol. State employees should be able to wear a head scarf if Muslim, display a menorah on their desk if Jewish, etc.
I guess I'm trying to figure out what is the difference between doing nothing to celebrate or practicing disbelief in gods/religion/whatever the definition of atheism is taken to be.
The issue arises is when the State bans any display of religion by any employees of the state. They are in effect forcing their employees to appear to be atheist and thereby making atheism the State religion.
So if a psychiatric patient believes that God wants him to walk around waving his genitals at people, we have to allow it because of his religion?
One person's beliefs does not constitute a religion. When millions of people follow the same written code it is a religion. One person = belief. A few people = cult. Millions of people = religion.
To many people religion is the core of their very being. To not follow the precepts of the religion would be tantamount to suicide as their soul would be in peril. That is much more important than an autocratic rule about headgear. For most people removing a hat is not an issue. For some religious people it is."I prefer to keep my hat on as taking it off will imperil my soul" is very different than "I prefer to keep my hat on because I want to".
Why not make the same rule for everyone? There is a good reason for the rule but a some exceptions are not a problem if the reason is good enough. Due to the right to freedom of religion, religion is a good reason.
I disagree. Most rules are about preferences. For example, most people do not wear a head covering except if it is part of their religion. Requiring photos without headgear makes identification easier. In this case religion trumps preference. "I want to" is not a similar reason.
By the way "not allowed" is not the same as "illegal". Illegal means against the law and there are consequences for breaking the law. Not allowed means they won't take the picture with the headgear on. The prohibition of headgear is a rule not a law.
"Think of it, the most prominent billboard on the planet, viewable by everyone!"
Considering that the moon appears to be less than an inch across but is really over 3,400km across that would have to be pretty big advertising to be able to be seen from earth without a telescope. Not enough people gaze at the moon with telescopes to make small advertising worthwhile.
So you would exclude "fait accompli" and "juste milieu" from the dictionary?
Yes I would.
Even the OED defines dictionary as dealing with words and not phrases.
a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage:
I find it interesting that support of public data.and security and data privacy are supposed to be part of the criteria they are never mentioned in the ratings.
It is less about money than the impossibility to stop a well fueled fire once it starts. The idea that all fires are bad and must be put out is a dangerous one. Slow burning fires that occur in wet seasons are actually good. They clear out underbrush so animals can find food and they keep the fuel down. Trees live just fine through these fires as their bark protects them. Some trees even need fire to open their cones and let the seeds out. Putting out every fire just lets the fuel build to the point that the next fire is impossible to put out. These fires get very hot and kill the trees. Forest management practices have changed to include controlled burns but they need to be done more often.
It is impossible to stop all fires and some need to be left to burn so bigger fires do not happen later.
Most vehicles get to 60kph in one block. Do the math. If it takes 10 blocks to get to 60kph and one has to stop every 5 blocks. the top speed is 30kph and the average speed is 15ph. There would be something wrong when a 60 year old on a bicycle can out accelerate you. The main problem is that traffic lights are times for much higher accelerations which would cause one to miss even more lights. It could drop to every 2 blocks which would mean the average speed would be 6kmh and cause gridlock.
1. The cab is not environmentally sealed. The "door" is just a wide bar. Try using this in the rain or cold. It would be little better than a motorcycle. 2. Difficult to carry things in the trunk and still be able to fold. Everything in the trunk will shift around when the vehicle is folded. Things may get crushed or jam the mechanism. How many vehicles to you know have empty trunks? This makes the trunk space and folding mechanism much less useful. 3. Missing specification. What is the acceleration? If it takes 10 blocks to get to 60K it is not very useful. 4. Complexity. More moving parts means more parts to break which means lover reliability and higher maintenance costs.
Without capital costs, that translates to 10ct per kWh, less than half the current consumer electricity price.
That is without capitol costs and without operating costs and therefore only part of the story. By the way, where do these installed costs figures come from? Citation please.
Slashdot Mirror
Until we get flying vehicles we are going to have to deal with the constraints of roads. Bees and fish do not have those constraints and are a poor example to model road movement after. How do you build a highly constrained 2D system (roads) on top of a very open 3D system(flying or swimming)? The movement and constraints are completely different issues and the solutions are not transferable.
To paraphrase. Lets model autonomous systems now in an environment that may never exist in such a way as it will not work in the environment we have now. If it does not work now it does not matter if it may work in the future.
Lets not look so far into the future we lose sight of how to get there.
You are correct and I don't have a problem with that.
If you build a natural system that can not fit into the constrains you are no further ahead and have just wasted lots of time and money. For example, bees and fish can go over/under each other if crossing; vehicles can not. Failing to take that constraint into account in the original design will doom it to failure. with all these systems the 80/20 rule applies. 80% of the work will be consumed by the last 20% of the problems.
There is no reason to build a system that is dependent on the status quo,
There is a reason and that is due to the fact that we all are not going to instantly convert all our vehicles to autonomous vehicles. Autonomous vehicles are going to have to coexist on our roads with human driven cars. There may be some changes to rules of the road but they will not be all that drastic. It will impede future progress but it has to to integrate with present conditions.
Current laws are based on the constrains of roads while bees and fish work in a different world. The most obvious being 3 dimensional for the natural system vs 2 dimensional for most roads. There is also the constrains of the sides of the roads, intersections, on/off ramps, different vehicle performances, higher speeds, greater momentum, greater consequences of collision,etc. Natural situations are much more forgiving to errors. One fish hitting another will cause little or no damage. One car hitting another at high speeds could cause an accident that could kill many people.
Fish and bees do not have to deal with two dimensional intersections.
When fish or bees touch each other it does not cause an accident that could kill someone.
Fish and bees are not constrained by the width of roads.
Vehicles move much faster than fish or bees and momentum is a much bigger issue.
Fish or bees generally do not have individual destinations which require movement in many different directions.
As for the demonstration, it was laughable.
Extremely slow.
No crossing.
No joining or leaving.
The term "zipping" is relative. They were "zipping" if you are a snail. To me, the apt description would be meandering.
I agree that exceptions need to be made. On the other hand, the fact that one group does not allow exceptions should have no effect on another, completely different, group allowing them. The government is not a monolith. Also, using finger guns is not a religious act. I also bet he got suspended as expelled means he can not return.
Do you have proof that there is no God? That is the difference between belief and fact.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
The fact that someone else is wearing a hat is also not your problem.
I am paraphrasing something I heard in a news report about the Quebec issue;
The State should be free of religion. The individual should be free to practice their religion.
For example, the State should not erect a menorah , Xmas tree or any other religious symbol. State employees should be able to wear a head scarf if Muslim, display a menorah on their desk if Jewish, etc.
I guess I'm trying to figure out what is the difference between doing nothing to celebrate or practicing disbelief in gods/religion/whatever the definition of atheism is taken to be.
The issue arises is when the State bans any display of religion by any employees of the state. They are in effect forcing their employees to appear to be atheist and thereby making atheism the State religion.
Agoraphobia is not a religion.
So if a psychiatric patient believes that God wants him to walk around waving his genitals at people, we have to allow it because of his religion?
One person's beliefs does not constitute a religion. When millions of people follow the same written code it is a religion. One person = belief. A few people = cult. Millions of people = religion.
To many people religion is the core of their very being. To not follow the precepts of the religion would be tantamount to suicide as their soul would be in peril. That is much more important than an autocratic rule about headgear. For most people removing a hat is not an issue. For some religious people it is."I prefer to keep my hat on as taking it off will imperil my soul" is very different than "I prefer to keep my hat on because I want to".
Why not make the same rule for everyone? There is a good reason for the rule but a some exceptions are not a problem if the reason is good enough. Due to the right to freedom of religion, religion is a good reason.
I disagree. Most rules are about preferences. For example, most people do not wear a head covering except if it is part of their religion. Requiring photos without headgear makes identification easier. In this case religion trumps preference. "I want to" is not a similar reason.
By the way "not allowed" is not the same as "illegal". Illegal means against the law and there are consequences for breaking the law. Not allowed means they won't take the picture with the headgear on. The prohibition of headgear is a rule not a law.
"Think of it, the most prominent billboard on the planet, viewable by everyone!"
Considering that the moon appears to be less than an inch across but is really over 3,400km across that would have to be pretty big advertising to be able to be seen from earth without a telescope. Not enough people gaze at the moon with telescopes to make small advertising worthwhile.
Sorry I mis-referenced. I meant the Oxford Online Dictionary (OOD) which is the subject of the article.
"Particular category of vocabulary" is understood to include phrases.
Citation please. To me, ""[p]articular category of vocabulary" means a specific area such as a dictionary of engineering terms.
From your citation;
What time was spent in turning over Dictionaries and Phraseologies to assure the author of doubtful constructions.
It seems that words go in dictionaries and phrases go in phrasiologies.
So you would exclude "fait accompli" and "juste milieu" from the dictionary?
Yes I would.
Even the OED defines dictionary as dealing with words and not phrases.
a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage:
I see no mention of phrase in that definition.
I find it interesting that support of public data.and security and data privacy are supposed to be part of the criteria they are never mentioned in the ratings.
It is less about money than the impossibility to stop a well fueled fire once it starts. The idea that all fires are bad and must be put out is a dangerous one. Slow burning fires that occur in wet seasons are actually good. They clear out underbrush so animals can find food and they keep the fuel down. Trees live just fine through these fires as their bark protects them. Some trees even need fire to open their cones and let the seeds out. Putting out every fire just lets the fuel build to the point that the next fire is impossible to put out. These fires get very hot and kill the trees. Forest management practices have changed to include controlled burns but they need to be done more often.
It is impossible to stop all fires and some need to be left to burn so bigger fires do not happen later.
Most vehicles get to 60kph in one block. Do the math. If it takes 10 blocks to get to 60kph and one has to stop every 5 blocks. the top speed is 30kph and the average speed is 15ph. There would be something wrong when a 60 year old on a bicycle can out accelerate you. The main problem is that traffic lights are times for much higher accelerations which would cause one to miss even more lights. It could drop to every 2 blocks which would mean the average speed would be 6kmh and cause gridlock.
1. The cab is not environmentally sealed. The "door" is just a wide bar. Try using this in the rain or cold. It would be little better than a motorcycle.
2. Difficult to carry things in the trunk and still be able to fold. Everything in the trunk will shift around when the vehicle is folded. Things may get crushed or jam the mechanism. How many vehicles to you know have empty trunks? This makes the trunk space and folding mechanism much less useful.
3. Missing specification. What is the acceleration? If it takes 10 blocks to get to 60K it is not very useful.
4. Complexity. More moving parts means more parts to break which means lover reliability and higher maintenance costs.
It is a french hotel; the french never apologize.
Quebec has an anti-SLAPP law.
If you look at the review site you will find a total of 28 reviews that grade the hotel as poor or terrible.Why only sue one reviewer?
In Canada we have Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Without capital costs, that translates to 10ct per kWh, less than half the current consumer electricity price.
That is without capitol costs and without operating costs and therefore only part of the story. By the way, where do these installed costs figures come from? Citation please.