Inject = break the skin to introduce a toxin Hypodermic Injection = inject a toxin under the skin Poison = absorbed or introduced Venom = injected Toxin = poison, venom, etc
*typo: imply = simply. Also, I should be specific: "does not change the injector mechanism", by definition it does change. What I should have said was "does not change the fact that it is injected". A hypodermic injection occurs below the skin, a non-hypodermic injection is into and possibly under the skin depending on the depth of the injection.
Apparently you didn't read the summary let alone RTFA - they are talking about injectable venom, like a snake.
Umm, maybe you should go re-read TFA before pointing fingers.
There are no injectors on these frogs, they secrete venom ON THEIR SKIN then flail their spines to open and get venom into a wound. It would be perfectly feasible to harvest venom from these as if they had been typical poison dart frogs.
An injector is imply a mechanism that breaks the skin to introduce the toxin. Whether it is by coating or hypodermically does not change the injector mechanism.
Hmmm... so if the Amazon tribes put it on pointy things, and can then "inject" it, are they venomous?
I realize it's a scientific distinction, but it really sounds like a small matter of semantics.
If it's chemically the same as poison, and administered via something pointy it becomes venom, that's an awfully small distinction. It sounds like if I put it in your drink, I've administered poison, but if I stab you with it it's venom.
I'd at least expect a different chemistry.
It's an important distinction for several reasons. Scientifically, specificity is always important. To a survivalist, they generally stay away from poisonous things but they can, with care/proper technique, use venomous things. Venomous things also generally create/store their own toxins where poisonous things can get them from another source, like poison dart frogs - their poison is actually from a plant that an insect feeds on which the frogs then eat & excrete. Take away that chain and they are no longer poisonous.
Privacy badger sees 7, no sorry, 8 trackers on this site (an extra one appears when you hit Reply)
Been using it since it came out - very light on resources and does one job well.
I must be doing it right, I only get 4. Unfortunately, Privacy Badger doesn't seem to function properly - it tells me there are 4 but will never load up the list and several of the buttons are unclickable.
Thing is, I paid $25K or so up front for a device that moves me around and stores some of my stuff, and then I keep paying and paying. That's a lot of money. If I could get decent transportation for just the operating expenses, I'd be willing to put up with some inconvenience.
The person who buys the vehicle will still have that expense, will be recouping that cost plus profit. As stated previously, for me an Echo cost me $267/m over 14 years where a car share would have cost me $488 over the same period. Then factor in the fact that fewer people will be buying cars meaning car companies will have to increase prices, the cars will be driven more often meaning more maintenance on them and all the sudden you're paying a lot more over the span of years. Sure there's no capital costs but now it's a 54% premium, in the future I imagine that will go up.
Some of the congestion numbers are based on 'MSN Auto' articles which doesn't inspire confidence. The best claim, backed by a reputable source, is that 10% market penetration results in 1% improvement in congestion, 50% having 21% improvement, 90% having an 80% improvement. That's in line with what I know of the subject that even when you have a majority of vehicles converted (50-70%) the improvements are incremental at best but once you convert 80%+ the curve accelerates because the majority of the vehicles are behaving in the same manner and the remaining drivers are more likely to mimic the majority.
here's a counter counter example: It takes 1 hour for me to take the train into the city. It takes 2.5 hours to drive into the city. The cost of parking in the city for the day is double the price of the train ticket. But that is irrelevant, the time difference alone seals the deal for the train.
Trains & subways are great when you're close to them. We used to live 2 blocks from 2 different subway lines and could get most places very quickly. We moved to a much larger/cheaper place and now it takes 30-50 minutes by bus to reach a train/subway. By driving instead of taking public transit we've cut 315 minutes off our weekly commute. It's all very situational, it can work for some and be horrid for others. To the larger point though, public transit is just a piece of the transportation puzzle, just like automated vehicles will be, but none of them will be a silver bullet solution to all the problems and will create new problems.
While some people are comfortable sharing their stuff, the vast majority are rather possessive. They don't want to sit in someone else's filth.
Is that why nobody uses taxis, and everyone owns their own elevator?
Taxis are generally cleaned regularly, you also have a driver who usually prevents some of the nastier things from occurring. As to elevators, you're not sitting for long periods in an elevator and the only thing you really have to touch is a single button which I usually do with my keys or something I'm holding. Elevators are nasty - our old building there was frequent vomit, animal urine, garbage, and various other substances.
Point taken, though I would argue that the driver is self interested to keep their vehicle clean
Are you from this planet? You don't seem to have a good grasp of human nature. Next time you are in a parking lot, look in the windows at the cars. Just about every car will have cups, lids, napkins, candy wrappers, plastic spoons, scraps of grocery lists, dead leaves, etc. all over the place.
I'm talking specifically about Uber drivers, not drivers in general. Uber drivers are self-interested because a dirty car can lead to a bad review. In general, I agree with you and that was the point of my OP - people are disgusting and will likely trash personal automated vehicles that are rented out while not in use by their owners. I think it would be more likely because there is no driver to keep them in line. Even if you can get your money for the cleanup it's a huge inconvenience and that's why I think it'll never happen. You'll get taxi services doing it and some individuals but not to the level the article suggests.
so now you are saying that circumstances create most traffic jams and earlier you were saying that individual actions cause most traffic jams
are you smoking from both ends of that pipe or what?
No, I'm saying that individuals create most traffic jams, though their causes can vary by situation. Examples of individuals causing/contributing to/prolonging traffic jams: car crash, not getting up to speed when entering a highway, accelerating slowly/stalling/etc at lights (have similar effects to those caused by turning cars which is why turning lanes were created), riding breaks, individuals changing lanes needlessly during high volume times, etc. Situational traffic jams would be things like construction, bottleneck in traffic, poorly designed on/off ramps (like DVP/401 in Toronto), rubbernecking.
As to the "fleets" argument, that's not the point, taxis fleets can do automated vehicles and do just fine. The point is whether the efficiencies in traffic flow & personal auto-sharing is viable.
then why does the traffic back up the same way and the same time every day?
Depends on the scenario. Mostly though it comes down to speed differences. Highway driving, people entering (especially a lot at once) cause traffic to slow down. Everyone behind them needs to slow down as well but it creates an amplification effect that travels like an accordion causing each person behind them to slow more than they did. Traffic jams are eased by people slowing down and going the same speed. They last longer due to jackasses who try and find the fastest lane - each lane change usually results in another accordion effect due to the psychology of break lights (people see them and over break instead of leaving a larger gap & allowing their drive train to slow for small speed changes... that's why you'll see people leaving large gaps in the middle of traffic jams; they keep their speed constant and stop the accordion effect though they can only stop 2-3 of them before they have to re-gap).
In town it's the lights. While they regulate traffic, most of a green light is spent waiting for the line of cars to accelerate with each car in the line taking longer than the next to get moving due to not wanting to over-accelerate and cause a crash. In automated cars they could solve this if every car had a standard acceleration rate, however, they would still need to make adjustments for differences in traction.
I completely agree. They'll very much have a place in the mix. I just don't think they'll ever have the critical mass to allow for some of the efficiency gains & widespread sharing that are being espoused. They'll just be another option among the many that are available. They'll have pros and cons like anything else in this world.
Auto-share is a different beast than automated-share. With auto-share you have a company handling the details of insurance/transactions/fixing problems/cleaning and so on. You also have the ability to exclude people from the market entirely due to there being only a few companies in any one city. The automated-share the individual would have to handle all of that or pay someone to handle it for them. The former is a huge barrier for the limited profit and the later cuts into the limited profit and is essentially just auto-share where you loan your car to the company instead of them outlaying the capital costs.
That sounds all well and great but think about the reality of it. You send your car out to make money, it comes back a mess right as you're about to head to that important [insert thing]. You need to send your car off to get cleaned, wait for another car, pay someone else to use it, and be late for that thing.
I looked into things like that, they didn't make economic sense. Even with limited trips I'd be spending more on auto-sharing per month than owning my own vehicle. Granted my vehicle is fairly economical costing only $267/month over 14 years (all expenses included). Based on car2go rates, that would have been around $488/month
Point taken, though I would argue that the driver is self interested to keep their vehicle clean and because they are in the vehicle the passengers behave better than they would in a driverless vehicle.
Traffic studies/simulations have repeatedly shown that most traffic problems originate from a single car causing a chain reaction which amplifies. You would need a significant portion of the system automated to compensate for that. Either to avoid those problems in the first place or to compensate once the problem has occurred.
Something people don't seem to notice about each other is that, in general, we're not actually that bad to one another. Some assholes will fuck things up, but if we were as bad as you worry, we'd never be able to have cities.
Slashdot Mirror
Inject = break the skin to introduce a toxin
Hypodermic Injection = inject a toxin under the skin
Poison = absorbed or introduced
Venom = injected
Toxin = poison, venom, etc
*typo: imply = simply. Also, I should be specific: "does not change the injector mechanism", by definition it does change. What I should have said was "does not change the fact that it is injected". A hypodermic injection occurs below the skin, a non-hypodermic injection is into and possibly under the skin depending on the depth of the injection.
Apparently you didn't read the summary let alone RTFA - they are talking about injectable venom, like a snake.
Umm, maybe you should go re-read TFA before pointing fingers.
There are no injectors on these frogs, they secrete venom ON THEIR SKIN then flail their spines to open and get venom into a wound. It would be perfectly feasible to harvest venom from these as if they had been typical poison dart frogs.
An injector is imply a mechanism that breaks the skin to introduce the toxin. Whether it is by coating or hypodermically does not change the injector mechanism.
Hmmm ... so if the Amazon tribes put it on pointy things, and can then "inject" it, are they venomous?
I realize it's a scientific distinction, but it really sounds like a small matter of semantics.
If it's chemically the same as poison, and administered via something pointy it becomes venom, that's an awfully small distinction. It sounds like if I put it in your drink, I've administered poison, but if I stab you with it it's venom.
I'd at least expect a different chemistry.
It's an important distinction for several reasons. Scientifically, specificity is always important. To a survivalist, they generally stay away from poisonous things but they can, with care/proper technique, use venomous things. Venomous things also generally create/store their own toxins where poisonous things can get them from another source, like poison dart frogs - their poison is actually from a plant that an insect feeds on which the frogs then eat & excrete. Take away that chain and they are no longer poisonous.
Meanwhile some Amazon tribes have been using frog venom on their arrows and blowpipe darts for thousands of years...
And theres probably some joke about Jeff Bezos patenting it...
Apparently you didn't read the summary let alone RTFA - they are talking about injectable venom, like a snake.
Privacy badger sees 7, no sorry, 8 trackers on this site (an extra one appears when you hit Reply)
Been using it since it came out - very light on resources and does one job well.
I must be doing it right, I only get 4. Unfortunately, Privacy Badger doesn't seem to function properly - it tells me there are 4 but will never load up the list and several of the buttons are unclickable.
It's so good that I've stopped using AdBlock and instead just have Privacy Badger and FlashBlock.
Sure if you want 3rd party ad services to install malware/spyware/etc on your system.
Thing is, I paid $25K or so up front for a device that moves me around and stores some of my stuff, and then I keep paying and paying. That's a lot of money. If I could get decent transportation for just the operating expenses, I'd be willing to put up with some inconvenience.
The person who buys the vehicle will still have that expense, will be recouping that cost plus profit. As stated previously, for me an Echo cost me $267/m over 14 years where a car share would have cost me $488 over the same period. Then factor in the fact that fewer people will be buying cars meaning car companies will have to increase prices, the cars will be driven more often meaning more maintenance on them and all the sudden you're paying a lot more over the span of years. Sure there's no capital costs but now it's a 54% premium, in the future I imagine that will go up.
Some of the congestion numbers are based on 'MSN Auto' articles which doesn't inspire confidence. The best claim, backed by a reputable source, is that 10% market penetration results in 1% improvement in congestion, 50% having 21% improvement, 90% having an 80% improvement. That's in line with what I know of the subject that even when you have a majority of vehicles converted (50-70%) the improvements are incremental at best but once you convert 80%+ the curve accelerates because the majority of the vehicles are behaving in the same manner and the remaining drivers are more likely to mimic the majority.
here's a counter counter example: It takes 1 hour for me to take the train into the city. It takes 2.5 hours to drive into the city. The cost of parking in the city for the day is double the price of the train ticket. But that is irrelevant, the time difference alone seals the deal for the train.
Trains & subways are great when you're close to them. We used to live 2 blocks from 2 different subway lines and could get most places very quickly. We moved to a much larger/cheaper place and now it takes 30-50 minutes by bus to reach a train/subway. By driving instead of taking public transit we've cut 315 minutes off our weekly commute. It's all very situational, it can work for some and be horrid for others. To the larger point though, public transit is just a piece of the transportation puzzle, just like automated vehicles will be, but none of them will be a silver bullet solution to all the problems and will create new problems.
While some people are comfortable sharing their stuff, the vast majority are rather possessive. They don't want to sit in someone else's filth.
Is that why nobody uses taxis, and everyone owns their own elevator?
Taxis are generally cleaned regularly, you also have a driver who usually prevents some of the nastier things from occurring. As to elevators, you're not sitting for long periods in an elevator and the only thing you really have to touch is a single button which I usually do with my keys or something I'm holding. Elevators are nasty - our old building there was frequent vomit, animal urine, garbage, and various other substances.
Point taken, though I would argue that the driver is self interested to keep their vehicle clean
Are you from this planet? You don't seem to have a good grasp of human nature. Next time you are in a parking lot, look in the windows at the cars. Just about every car will have cups, lids, napkins, candy wrappers, plastic spoons, scraps of grocery lists, dead leaves, etc. all over the place.
I'm talking specifically about Uber drivers, not drivers in general. Uber drivers are self-interested because a dirty car can lead to a bad review. In general, I agree with you and that was the point of my OP - people are disgusting and will likely trash personal automated vehicles that are rented out while not in use by their owners. I think it would be more likely because there is no driver to keep them in line. Even if you can get your money for the cleanup it's a huge inconvenience and that's why I think it'll never happen. You'll get taxi services doing it and some individuals but not to the level the article suggests.
so now you are saying that circumstances create most traffic jams and earlier you were saying that individual actions cause most traffic jams
are you smoking from both ends of that pipe or what?
No, I'm saying that individuals create most traffic jams, though their causes can vary by situation. Examples of individuals causing/contributing to/prolonging traffic jams: car crash, not getting up to speed when entering a highway, accelerating slowly/stalling/etc at lights (have similar effects to those caused by turning cars which is why turning lanes were created), riding breaks, individuals changing lanes needlessly during high volume times, etc. Situational traffic jams would be things like construction, bottleneck in traffic, poorly designed on/off ramps (like DVP/401 in Toronto), rubbernecking.
LOL - right. Here's an example: 3 to 3.5 stars on various sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As to the "fleets" argument, that's not the point, taxis fleets can do automated vehicles and do just fine. The point is whether the efficiencies in traffic flow & personal auto-sharing is viable.
I suspect it'll be more along the lines of current taxi services, just without drivers.
then why does the traffic back up the same way and the same time every day?
Depends on the scenario. Mostly though it comes down to speed differences. Highway driving, people entering (especially a lot at once) cause traffic to slow down. Everyone behind them needs to slow down as well but it creates an amplification effect that travels like an accordion causing each person behind them to slow more than they did. Traffic jams are eased by people slowing down and going the same speed. They last longer due to jackasses who try and find the fastest lane - each lane change usually results in another accordion effect due to the psychology of break lights (people see them and over break instead of leaving a larger gap & allowing their drive train to slow for small speed changes... that's why you'll see people leaving large gaps in the middle of traffic jams; they keep their speed constant and stop the accordion effect though they can only stop 2-3 of them before they have to re-gap).
In town it's the lights. While they regulate traffic, most of a green light is spent waiting for the line of cars to accelerate with each car in the line taking longer than the next to get moving due to not wanting to over-accelerate and cause a crash. In automated cars they could solve this if every car had a standard acceleration rate, however, they would still need to make adjustments for differences in traction.
That doesn't do you much good when you need it to get somewhere.
Some studies have already started to show that a minor proportion of automatic cars can actually undo such chain reactions if programmed to do so.
Link? I'd be interested to read about that.
I completely agree. They'll very much have a place in the mix. I just don't think they'll ever have the critical mass to allow for some of the efficiency gains & widespread sharing that are being espoused. They'll just be another option among the many that are available. They'll have pros and cons like anything else in this world.
Auto-share is a different beast than automated-share. With auto-share you have a company handling the details of insurance/transactions/fixing problems/cleaning and so on. You also have the ability to exclude people from the market entirely due to there being only a few companies in any one city. The automated-share the individual would have to handle all of that or pay someone to handle it for them. The former is a huge barrier for the limited profit and the later cuts into the limited profit and is essentially just auto-share where you loan your car to the company instead of them outlaying the capital costs.
That sounds all well and great but think about the reality of it. You send your car out to make money, it comes back a mess right as you're about to head to that important [insert thing]. You need to send your car off to get cleaned, wait for another car, pay someone else to use it, and be late for that thing.
I looked into things like that, they didn't make economic sense. Even with limited trips I'd be spending more on auto-sharing per month than owning my own vehicle. Granted my vehicle is fairly economical costing only $267/month over 14 years (all expenses included). Based on car2go rates, that would have been around $488/month
Point taken, though I would argue that the driver is self interested to keep their vehicle clean and because they are in the vehicle the passengers behave better than they would in a driverless vehicle.
Traffic studies/simulations have repeatedly shown that most traffic problems originate from a single car causing a chain reaction which amplifies. You would need a significant portion of the system automated to compensate for that. Either to avoid those problems in the first place or to compensate once the problem has occurred.
Something people don't seem to notice about each other is that, in general, we're not actually that bad to one another. Some assholes will fuck things up, but if we were as bad as you worry, we'd never be able to have cities.
You must be rich.