The Civil War was fought over a lot of stuff. Mostly economics, but social issues to a lesser extent.
Also kind of depends on what state we're talking about; the people fighting in frontier and border states, like Missouri, had different motivations than, say, regular army troops from Carolina and New York.
I will say, people claiming that slavery was the main or only cause/reason for the war is an effective yardstick for measuring comprehension of historical facts.
Isn't the problem that the choice between "self value" and "providing for your family" isn't even a choice, and employers are well aware of that?
No, the problem is that employers know the majority of people think that way, and thus can take advantage of the mentality.
If, tomorrow, enough American workers stood up from their desk, exclaimed "We're not doing any more work until some of this shit changes," and (most importantly) stood by one another in solidarity, it would be the employers who were left without a choice.
His education is as useless as a Women's Studies degree.
Obviously writing doesn't pay him much, or he wouldn't be advocating bankruptcy as a debt solution.
If you can afford rent, you can afford a mortgage. Hell, mortgages can be cheaper - it would cost over 200\mo more to rent my house than it costs to buy it.
Here in Missouri we have "you fuck up, you pay," since the way we see it, it would be bullshit to expect society to cover the costs of individual negligence.
I do like the idea of everyone who actually uses the roads paying for medical expenses, though. if nothing else it's something to throw back at the dickhead cyclists who brag about using the roads without having to pay for their maintenance.
So in other words. giving every passenger a cudgel on the way to their seat and locking the damned cabin door would be a cheaper, more effective means of on-plane security.
Slashdot fails to find links to grammar of headlines.
How about "TSA Fails to Find Airport Workers' Links to Terrorism" instead? Unless the TSA was investigating the terrorism of airport workers, that headline is a little bit off.
Well, to be fair, it's not like they're edited before hitting the front page.
If I can build a rudimentary 3D scanner with decent resolution out of a cheap laser pointer, a wine glass, and a 480px resolution webcam, surely a fleet of expensive drones sporting modern, HD cameras could do the same thing a few orders of magnitude more efficiently.
Outside of weather causing damage to the external sensors, I don't really see why it would be hard to deal with from a programming standpoint. The proper way to deal with, say, hydroplaning (ease off throttle, do not apply brake, downshift if necessary), or skidding on ice (pretty much the same as hydroplaning, with the additional step of 'pray to the deity of your choosing'), is fairly consistent.
If you can actually pull it off, it may be better overall to rip the band-aid off as it were. No credit for 10 years and then it's over vs. an unpayable debt for life.
My brother did exactly that with credit card debt when he was 18-20, which is why he's almost 35 and just now able to apply for his first home loan.
If the government would be more reasonable about the repayment terms, I'd be OK with owing it for life.
No, I want to make sure everybody has liability insurance to pay for expenses when they cause a wreck.
That's not the same thing as "no-fault."
"no-fault" implies that regardless of how the collision occurred, everyone pays for their own stuff. Like in parking lots.
See, that works in parking lots because it's often hard to determine who screwed up, especially considering how poorly some lots are marked.
It does not work that way on public streets, for lots of reasons. Namely because innocent parties who are harmed by the negligence of others shouldn't, per our legal system, be required to bear the burden of that other person's mistake.
A "no-fault" world would mean that if you were crossing an intersection and got t-boned by a drunk driver who failed to stop at the red light, your family would pay for your medical expenses, funeral, etc, and Drunk Moron would only have to pay for the damage to his own vehicle.
Remember, I said "if you want to make auto-cars mandatory."
This implies that every single American household with automobiles would, within the next handful of years and pretty much simultaneously, be required to trade in their essentially worthless vehicles at a huge loss, since scrap steel is worth less than $150/ton. You, I, and everyone else with sense knows that neither auto dealers nor banks are going to be willing to purchase those now-useless, human operated vehicles for anything more than scrap value, which means my $25K+ Volkswagen would have a total trade in value of around $100, regardless of condition or mileage. How is anyone supposed to afford a brand new car with $100 of trade-in value? There's only one answer: government subsidies.
IMO, if a plan flat-out requires a taxpayer subsidy in order to function, it's a bad plan.
Are you kidding? Walk into just about any new car dealership in the country and they will take your trade-in and pay off your loan. Any balance over the trade-in value of your car gets rolled into the new loan.
A smart financial move for the customer? Only if your new loan is considerably cheaper (percentage wise) than your old one, but people do this hundreds (maybe thousands) of times a day, every damn day.
I appreciate the admission that while possible, that might not be a wise financial move, universally.
Another issue at hand, are there any plans for an automated pickup truck? I have large things to haul on a regular basis.
Yea, sadly I don't see the "full automation that doesn't even allow, let alone require at any point, human control" coming along until today's pre-teens are my own age.
For me, I won't care for 'em until those bad-boys can fly.
So really, by "the elderly would participate more" what you're really saying is that elderly people who are, currently, mostly homebound due to reasonable travel restraints, would be less hindered thanks to auto-cars.
That makes sense now. Also, when you swap the term "elderly" for "homebound," you realize that the invention would actually help open up the world for a far greater portion of the population.
Right now I have about $50K invested in human-controlled automobiles. These automobiles, with proper maintenance, will last me another 10-20 years.
The real question is, if you want to make auto-cars mandatory, how are you going to get the millions of Americans who are currently paying for non-auto-cars out of their loans? If non-auto-cars become unusable on public streets, how the hell am I supposed to get enough value out of the ones I already own, to be able to afford to replace them with 2 auto-cars?
FYI, if your answer involves a government subsidy, then you're already admitting to failure.
Slashdot Mirror
The Civil War was fought over a lot of stuff. Mostly economics, but social issues to a lesser extent.
Also kind of depends on what state we're talking about; the people fighting in frontier and border states, like Missouri, had different motivations than, say, regular army troops from Carolina and New York.
I will say, people claiming that slavery was the main or only cause/reason for the war is an effective yardstick for measuring comprehension of historical facts.
Isn't the problem that the choice between "self value" and "providing for your family" isn't even a choice, and employers are well aware of that?
No, the problem is that employers know the majority of people think that way, and thus can take advantage of the mentality.
If, tomorrow, enough American workers stood up from their desk, exclaimed "We're not doing any more work until some of this shit changes," and (most importantly) stood by one another in solidarity, it would be the employers who were left without a choice.
You mean, like, Sudden In-fan Death Syndrome?
I slay me.
Obviously, "geese and other flying things" are smarter than some drone owners.
The real problem is that the pool of people willing to work horrible hours for shit pay is too damned big.
People need to learn some self-value.
Meh, it's not that bad. Just put down "Independent Contractor."
His education is as useless as a Women's Studies degree.
Obviously writing doesn't pay him much, or he wouldn't be advocating bankruptcy as a debt solution.
If you can afford rent, you can afford a mortgage. Hell, mortgages can be cheaper - it would cost over 200\mo more to rent my house than it costs to buy it.
Until they do, anyway.
Like cell phone carriers.
I would personally love to be the guy that takes that call:
"sir, you realize if we put an IR filter in, your night vision cameras won't have night vision anymore, right?"
Which is why the IR LED trick only works on cameras with night vision.
Here in Missouri we have "you fuck up, you pay," since the way we see it, it would be bullshit to expect society to cover the costs of individual negligence.
I do like the idea of everyone who actually uses the roads paying for medical expenses, though. if nothing else it's something to throw back at the dickhead cyclists who brag about using the roads without having to pay for their maintenance.
So in other words. giving every passenger a cudgel on the way to their seat and locking the damned cabin door would be a cheaper, more effective means of on-plane security.
Slashdot fails to find links to grammar of headlines.
How about "TSA Fails to Find Airport Workers' Links to Terrorism" instead? Unless the TSA was investigating the terrorism of airport workers, that headline is a little bit off.
Well, to be fair, it's not like they're edited before hitting the front page.
If I can build a rudimentary 3D scanner with decent resolution out of a cheap laser pointer, a wine glass, and a 480px resolution webcam, surely a fleet of expensive drones sporting modern, HD cameras could do the same thing a few orders of magnitude more efficiently.
Outside of weather causing damage to the external sensors, I don't really see why it would be hard to deal with from a programming standpoint. The proper way to deal with, say, hydroplaning (ease off throttle, do not apply brake, downshift if necessary), or skidding on ice (pretty much the same as hydroplaning, with the additional step of 'pray to the deity of your choosing'), is fairly consistent.
If you can actually pull it off, it may be better overall to rip the band-aid off as it were. No credit for 10 years and then it's over vs. an unpayable debt for life.
My brother did exactly that with credit card debt when he was 18-20, which is why he's almost 35 and just now able to apply for his first home loan.
If the government would be more reasonable about the repayment terms, I'd be OK with owing it for life.
I presume you've never filed bankruptcy.
FYI, payday loans and pawn tickets are not technically credit, in the sense that they don't go on your credit report.
No, I want to make sure everybody has liability insurance to pay for expenses when they cause a wreck.
That's not the same thing as "no-fault."
"no-fault" implies that regardless of how the collision occurred, everyone pays for their own stuff. Like in parking lots.
See, that works in parking lots because it's often hard to determine who screwed up, especially considering how poorly some lots are marked.
It does not work that way on public streets, for lots of reasons. Namely because innocent parties who are harmed by the negligence of others shouldn't, per our legal system, be required to bear the burden of that other person's mistake.
A "no-fault" world would mean that if you were crossing an intersection and got t-boned by a drunk driver who failed to stop at the red light, your family would pay for your medical expenses, funeral, etc, and Drunk Moron would only have to pay for the damage to his own vehicle.
Remember, I said "if you want to make auto-cars mandatory."
This implies that every single American household with automobiles would, within the next handful of years and pretty much simultaneously, be required to trade in their essentially worthless vehicles at a huge loss, since scrap steel is worth less than $150/ton. You, I, and everyone else with sense knows that neither auto dealers nor banks are going to be willing to purchase those now-useless, human operated vehicles for anything more than scrap value, which means my $25K+ Volkswagen would have a total trade in value of around $100, regardless of condition or mileage. How is anyone supposed to afford a brand new car with $100 of trade-in value? There's only one answer: government subsidies.
IMO, if a plan flat-out requires a taxpayer subsidy in order to function, it's a bad plan.
Easy. Everyone with an auto-car gets a HUGE insurance discount,
So... a subsidy, then.
Couldn't you have at least tried?
Are you kidding? Walk into just about any new car dealership in the country and they will take your trade-in and pay off your loan. Any balance over the trade-in value of your car gets rolled into the new loan.
A smart financial move for the customer? Only if your new loan is considerably cheaper (percentage wise) than your old one, but people do this hundreds (maybe thousands) of times a day, every damn day.
I appreciate the admission that while possible, that might not be a wise financial move, universally.
Another issue at hand, are there any plans for an automated pickup truck? I have large things to haul on a regular basis.
Yea, sadly I don't see the "full automation that doesn't even allow, let alone require at any point, human control" coming along until today's pre-teens are my own age.
For me, I won't care for 'em until those bad-boys can fly.
So really, by "the elderly would participate more" what you're really saying is that elderly people who are, currently, mostly homebound due to reasonable travel restraints, would be less hindered thanks to auto-cars.
That makes sense now. Also, when you swap the term "elderly" for "homebound," you realize that the invention would actually help open up the world for a far greater portion of the population.
If your ride gets crunched because you were operating it improperly, you don't deserve to "get paid."
Right now I have about $50K invested in human-controlled automobiles. These automobiles, with proper maintenance, will last me another 10-20 years.
The real question is, if you want to make auto-cars mandatory, how are you going to get the millions of Americans who are currently paying for non-auto-cars out of their loans? If non-auto-cars become unusable on public streets, how the hell am I supposed to get enough value out of the ones I already own, to be able to afford to replace them with 2 auto-cars?
FYI, if your answer involves a government subsidy, then you're already admitting to failure.