And that's kind of the point. Where nature/reality/market dictates the different availability of certain services, let people who choose to live there absorb those consequences. Don't protect them from the consequences of their choices. They're adults, and will adapt.
Except that there are benefits to society as a whole by having these people live in rural areas.
And in doing you are implying that market conditions should dictate the availability of such services in rural areas. However the cost of such services is increased by the fact that they are being provided in rural areas compared with more densely populated areas. In addition the effect of this cost is exacerbated by depressed earnings in rural areas compared with metropolitan earnings. Thus by removing all subsidies you are reducing the ability of people in rural areas to enjoy the same levels of service as people in metropolitan areas. Which will create a society of Haves vs Have Nots based on location. In effect condemning the Have Nots to a sub standard living compared to the Haves. This is not begging the question.. its a direct consequence of your desired policy.
And while you can't expect to have everything available in rural areas, increasing access to fundamentals such as power, water, health care, education and now internet service benefits the country as a whole. However you seems to have philosophy that its is OK to stratify society based on location. I disagree and think that the job of a country is to raise up all members of its society regardless of where they live.
Now if you want to talk subsidies for sports stadiums.. then yeah.. they should go.
Why not use the right tool for the job. A *REAL* firefighting airplane. The CL415 http://www.bombardier.com/en/a... is *designed* for that purpose. It can reload in 12 second by scooping over any body of water just 6 feet deep. How long does it take to reload a DC-10?
If only there lakes full of fire retardant that a plane could just fly down to and scoop up a full load in a mere 12 seconds.
I would sue them for defamation, if I were one of their Tor-using customer.
It's a grave offence to imply someone is engaged in criminal activity, without actually having evidence of such activity.
And in what public venue did they announce this scurrilous rumor? And what are the actual damages that you suffered from said announcement (and being butthurt is not a valid damage) And assuming that you can satisfy the above, how much $$ do you have upfront to pay for a lawyer to take on your defamation case?
You may get the EFF interested, but I don't think that the case would even go anywhere unless there was actual damages involved.
I am not going to buy a sealed-in iMac or MacBook, I can't afford a Mac Pro and I am hanging out for a new Mac Mini model (and have been for 12 months)
Switching to 64 bit builds means that they will have to drop OSX 10.6, right? It's about time this one is left behind!
No, 64 bit builds run on 10.6 just fine. You may be confused here: 10.7 requires a 64 bit processor. So if you don't support 10.6, then supporting 32 bit is pointless - anything running 10.7 upwards supports 64 bit.
But there is also the corner case of machines like I have with a 64 bit capable CPU but only 32 bit EFI for which I am endlessly trapped on Lion (10.7). Which probably doesn't count in this case, but is always a source of endless bitching for me.
Supercaps aren't even really out of the early lab stage, their commercialization curve is at least a decade out.
Given that super caps are currently being used in F1 racing (Tackling KERS in Formula One) I'd say that they are a little more advanced than "early lab stage". Although 10 years from F1 to commercial does seem reasonable.
If you are at a normal intersection (not a roundabout), and you cross the intersection, have you 'changed lanes'? Any sane person would say no.
I was equating a roundabout to turning right, not crossing an intersection.
Regardless what you call them a roundabout have multiple lanes of traffic. I have driven on roundabouts in the UK that are a good 1/4 mile in diameter with significant distances between on/off ramps. Do you consider that those roundabouts do not have a left and right lane?
No, they are not the same at all, and your insistance that they are says to me you don't know how to use a roundabout.
The only thing you have right is that curved or straight does not matter.
On a freeway, your major direction of travel is ALWAYS parallel with the travel lanes, even when getting ready to exit. In a roundabout, it is not. You do not 'change lanes' in a roundabout, even temporarily. You cross lanes.
When you change lanes on a freeway you are driving at an angle to the direction of travel - albeit very small.
When you cross lanes in a roundabout you are driving at an angle to the direction of travel - but at a much larger angle than in the freeway case.
In both case you are driving at an angle to the direction of travel. The topology is the same.. only the size of the angle differs.
The hard part is that the car must absolutely be able to read the horizontal markings on the pavement.
And how is that different from any other form of driving? Why is it only in a roundabout that you are concerned about the car needing to read markings on the road?
Yes..and on both left and right side driving countries.
There are NO 'lane changes' involved.
The lane crossing in a roundabout is just a special case of lane changing in which time spent within the lane is minimized as you merge into or out of the roundabout. The fundamentals and topology are still the same.
Many locales have different rules in for driving in general. Such as passing on the right. A fully fledged autonomous car will have to take all of those differences into account. But this was a limited test in a limited locale for which google pre-mapped the route, and probably tuned the car so that it would behave accordingly to the situations it encountered.
Where do you drive that is acceptable to do that (drive in the left lane and cross the right lane to exit)?
As I said.. the topology (and I mean topology in its purest sense) is *exactly* the same for both roundabouts and freeway exits, the only difference is the scales of elements *within* that topology, such as how far from the exit you should consider moving from left to right hand lanes, and perhaps the "attraction" factor you should have for a particular lane. The fact that one object curves and that one is straight is irrelevant.
And just how to you propose to 'predict' where the other cars are going?
Are you saying that spinning laser pointer thingy on the roof of the google car is just there for show? That one that tracks the objects in the vicinity of the car, that is held up high so it can get a good view of its surroundings?
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you feel entitled to to decide that rural inhabitants should enjoy more internet and less live sport events?
Because in general sports franchises could pay for new stadiums out of petty cash, but still demand subsidies for said stadiums.
" benefits to society as a whole "
Quantify, specify.
You like to eat don't you?
And that's kind of the point. Where nature/reality/market dictates the different availability of certain services, let people who choose to live there absorb those consequences. Don't protect them from the consequences of their choices. They're adults, and will adapt.
Except that there are benefits to society as a whole by having these people live in rural areas.
No. I would simply not support subsidizing them.
And in doing you are implying that market conditions should dictate the availability of such services in rural areas. However the cost of such services is increased by the fact that they are being provided in rural areas compared with more densely populated areas. In addition the effect of this cost is exacerbated by depressed earnings in rural areas compared with metropolitan earnings. Thus by removing all subsidies you are reducing the ability of people in rural areas to enjoy the same levels of service as people in metropolitan areas. Which will create a society of Haves vs Have Nots based on location. In effect condemning the Have Nots to a sub standard living compared to the Haves. This is not begging the question .. its a direct consequence of your desired policy.
And while you can't expect to have everything available in rural areas, increasing access to fundamentals such as power, water, health care, education and now internet service benefits the country as a whole. However you seems to have philosophy that its is OK to stratify society based on location. I disagree and think that the job of a country is to raise up all members of its society regardless of where they live.
Now if you want to talk subsidies for sports stadiums .. then yeah .. they should go.
"why not just get them all to move"
Sorry, I'm not a dictator.
But you would condemn them to sub-standard living just for the reason of residing outside of a large metropolitan area.
Yes. And they should get off open-ended subsidies (transfers from other taxpayers).
While you are at it .. why not just get them all to move to the cities where all the important infrastructure, jobs and money are?
... at all.
Sooo .. all the people out in the countryside with the subsidized phone, water electricity service should just suck it up in this case?
3D printed legs, Intel Edison system board, machine vision camera and $4200 worth of drive motors.
and all it does in the video is sit there and wobble like a drunk, white, middle aged guy at his daughters wedding reception.
Of course, the kernel is special, and kernel engineers are just better people. Everybody knows that.
Given his communications style I'm not surpassed by this quote.
Or maybe I am just missing the implied "/s" .. yeah .. right .. NOT.
Why not use the right tool for the job. A *REAL* firefighting airplane.
The CL415 http://www.bombardier.com/en/a... is *designed* for that purpose.
It can reload in 12 second by scooping over any body of water just 6 feet deep. How long does it take to reload a DC-10?
If only there lakes full of fire retardant that a plane could just fly down to and scoop up a full load in a mere 12 seconds.
There are a lot of Muslims in Australia, and it makes sense to keep an eye on them as a lot of them support terrorism
That seems like an obvious trolling comment, but sadly I'm not sure.
You just need to look at the Rise up Australia party for that. (Run by the same person as the "Catch the fire" ministries in Melbourne)
Regardless I would press charges (which is more accurately said than "sue them")
IANAL either, but suing (civil) and pressing charges (criminal) are two different things.
I would sue them for defamation, if I were one of their Tor-using customer.
It's a grave offence to imply someone is engaged in criminal activity, without actually having evidence of such activity.
And in what public venue did they announce this scurrilous rumor?
And what are the actual damages that you suffered from said announcement (and being butthurt is not a valid damage)
And assuming that you can satisfy the above, how much $$ do you have upfront to pay for a lawyer to take on your defamation case?
You may get the EFF interested, but I don't think that the case would even go anywhere unless there was actual damages involved.
The choice is yours. Upgrade or die.
I would .. but..
I am not going to buy a sealed-in iMac or MacBook, I can't afford a Mac Pro and I am hanging out for a new Mac Mini model (and have been for 12 months)
Switching to 64 bit builds means that they will have to drop OSX 10.6, right? It's about time this one is left behind!
No, 64 bit builds run on 10.6 just fine. You may be confused here: 10.7 requires a 64 bit processor. So if you don't support 10.6, then supporting 32 bit is pointless - anything running 10.7 upwards supports 64 bit.
But there is also the corner case of machines like I have with a 64 bit capable CPU but only 32 bit EFI for which I am endlessly trapped on Lion (10.7). Which probably doesn't count in this case, but is always a source of endless bitching for me.
Company tries two things, chooses the one that is better. News at 11.
Nope ..
News at 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 AND 11 .. plus at 6AM, 7AM and 9AM there's a recap of the previous days related rumors and stories.
And I say this typing on a MacBook with an iMac to my right, my iPad downstairs, my Nano in my gym bag and my iPod touch in a drawer.
Supercapacitors
Supercaps aren't even really out of the early lab stage, their commercialization curve is at least a decade out.
Given that super caps are currently being used in F1 racing (Tackling KERS in Formula One) I'd say that they are a little more advanced than "early lab stage". Although 10 years from F1 to commercial does seem reasonable.
If you are at a normal intersection (not a roundabout), and you cross the intersection, have you 'changed lanes'? Any sane person would say no.
I was equating a roundabout to turning right, not crossing an intersection.
Regardless what you call them a roundabout have multiple lanes of traffic. I have driven on roundabouts in the UK that are a good 1/4 mile in diameter with significant distances between on/off ramps. Do you consider that those roundabouts do not have a left and right lane?
No, they are not the same at all, and your insistance that they are says to me you don't know how to use a roundabout.
The only thing you have right is that curved or straight does not matter.
On a freeway, your major direction of travel is ALWAYS parallel with the travel lanes, even when getting ready to exit. In a roundabout, it is not. You do not 'change lanes' in a roundabout, even temporarily. You cross lanes.
When you change lanes on a freeway you are driving at an angle to the direction of travel - albeit very small.
When you cross lanes in a roundabout you are driving at an angle to the direction of travel - but at a much larger angle than in the freeway case.
In both case you are driving at an angle to the direction of travel. The topology is the same .. only the size of the angle differs.
The hard part is that the car must absolutely be able to read the horizontal markings on the pavement.
And how is that different from any other form of driving? Why is it only in a roundabout that you are concerned about the car needing to read markings on the road?
Do actually know how to use a roundabout?
Yes ..and on both left and right side driving countries.
There are NO 'lane changes' involved.
The lane crossing in a roundabout is just a special case of lane changing in which time spent within the lane is minimized as you merge into or out of the roundabout. The fundamentals and topology are still the same.
Many locales have different roundabout rules.
Many locales have different rules in for driving in general. Such as passing on the right. A fully fledged autonomous car will have to take all of those differences into account. But this was a limited test in a limited locale for which google pre-mapped the route, and probably tuned the car so that it would behave accordingly to the situations it encountered.
Where do you drive that is acceptable to do that (drive in the left lane and cross the right lane to exit)?
As I said .. the topology (and I mean topology in its purest sense) is *exactly* the same for both roundabouts and freeway exits, the only difference is the scales of elements *within* that topology, such as how far from the exit you should consider moving from left to right hand lanes, and perhaps the "attraction" factor you should have for a particular lane. The fact that one object curves and that one is straight is irrelevant.
And just how to you propose to 'predict' where the other cars are going?
Are you saying that spinning laser pointer thingy on the roof of the google car is just there for show? That one that tracks the objects in the vicinity of the car, that is held up high so it can get a good view of its surroundings?