There's a certain rationality to them. Devices are often designed to break before harming the user. A simple example is my badge lanyard will unclip if pulled hard enough.
Laws 2 and 3 are the wrong way round though. Machines are typically designed not to break on command. You tend to have safety cutouts and the like to protect the device.
Seems people are a lot more tolerant of advertising, if they get something from it. You can advertise on TV or in magazines with only minor complaints, because you're helping fund the medium. Even then, people are cutting the cord because they prefer streaming services that don't.
Telenav suggests $30 annually per vehicle. Personally, even if all that goes into driver perks, I don't think an effective $300 reduction over a 10 year car lifetime is going to persuade many people to accept this feature.
The amount of CPU time you might reasonably get from a JS bot, for the minute or two that it takes to read an article, from a standard PC that's also doing other stuff at the same time is pretty small. How much money do they get per page load? Is it going to cover costs?
It's a format that allows reasonable compression and requires relatively low resources to decompress. It's also still used in most DVB transmissions. So there are uses.
The business model doesn't work that way. It's not like it costs youTube $x per channel, and that it saves them money not to provide them. Some people will pay $40 for a single channel. Some will pay $20 each for 2 of the channels. Others will be willing to pay varying amounts for th channel selection they actually watch. This model allows youTube to offer the widest selection to most people and maximise their own profit.
We've seen a decent number of politically educated people pushing for leaving the EU. It's a good thing is economic stability is your goal, and don't get me wrong - economic stability is a good thing; but it's not the only thing that matters.
Trump was a response to a really bad choice essentially between the highly unpopular Hillary Clinton, and Trump; who is extremely unpopular to his opponents, but appeals to some people because of his brashness. It's not really a democratic process.
Right. Despite my criticism above, I'm still fairly pro-EU, but feel the organisation needed some fairly hefty reforms. Ironically, I think the UK being outside of the EU might mean they actually fix most of the aspects that were causing problems in the UK.
Seems to work reasonably well in Switzerland, and even for US constitutional amendments. There are hurdles to getting things on the ballot, so it's not absolute democracy, but it does create a lot more involvement of the populace in lawmaking.
A lot of Europe is in the wrong time zone. Spain wants to stay in sync with France. Portugal is on UTC (or UTC+1 in summer) same as the UK and Ireland. They tried +1/+2 for a few years in the 1990's to match Spain, but it wasn't popular.
I'd say Spain and possibly France are in the wrong timezones, but they seem to like to be in the same timezone as each other and Germany.
So why was this only a non-binding resolution? Why didn't they go the whole hog and introduce legislation to actually make the commission review the costs and benefits?
The commission president is elected by the European parliament
So, who were the candidates for president? How many votes did the second place get? (The answer, is zero, because the president is appointed in a really stupid way that in no way reflects democracy).
and the commissioners are appointed by state governments. If you think they're not accountable then that's most likely because your government isn't accountable and is using the commissioners to do things against your interests - that's not the EU or the commissions fault, that's the fault of your own government.
It's a shame the EU wasn't structured in such a way as to keep them accountable. Who are they directly accountable to? Parliament as a whole, the cabinet, or the head of government? If I object to a decision by my commissioner, who do I contact to make this objection known? The fact that I live in a country where the government doesn't represent the people doesn't excuse the EU from being crap here.
as the European Parliament is democratically elected through proportional representation that makes it one of the single most accountable governments in the Western world
I have two objections to the EU Parliament - firstly, STV is not mandatory. Secondly, it has no ability to initiate legislation. The only elected body of a nominally democratic institution only has the power to rubber stamp, or reject legislation.
You should probably educate yourself before spouting such drivel in future,
Oh piss off with your "educate yourself" drivel. Some people disagree with you. This does not mean they're not educated. It means they haven't bought in to the idea that the EU is the bastion of democracy. It's not, and pretending it is because the power is vested in a group appointed by a group selected from a body elected by the people in an election that is not necessarily representative, does not make it so.
No, these are the EU parliament. This is why it's non binding. The EU didn't feel the need to give the democratically elected assembly any actual power.
I see him as more of a publicity hound than a con man. He doesn't believe the earth is flat, but he's playing a character that does. He's a lot of fun if you're in on the joke.
Sure, it's nothing more than a historical curiosity. Pretty much all we'll learn from this is related to the document. But some people are intrigued by a puzzle.
Mazda, maybe, but Mitsubishi Motors isn't going anywhere. Their motor division may be relatively small comapred with the multinationals, but Nissan and the massive Mitshubishi Group are owners and they both have money to spend on EV.
We still ideally want some fossil fuels. Even mostly nuclear France does (mostly through imports).
Nuclear power isn't very economic to turn down. The bulk of the cost is building and running the power station rather than fuel costs, so it costs almost as much to run at reduced capacity. Gas and oil, the bulk of the cost is fuel, so reducing capacity saves money.
Granted, electric cars mitigate this somewhat. They can charge during low power consumption periods; but this doesn't really help regarding the long term cycles (i.e. difference in summer and winter usage).
it will be an incredible feat -- and would likely help guarantee the piston engine's continued survival.
Why is this desirable? A heavy noisy motor with lots of moving parts - decreasing reliability - requiring harmful chemicals and kicking out pollution at street level.
Not criticising the concept. It's good to see improvements, and the internal combustion engine was an impressive invention, but I think after a century and a half, we should expect it to be replaced with better technology.
Assuming treating it as a drill or as an exercise are the only two options, it's tricky to decide what the correct choice is when data is contradictory. One one hand, it is probably better to respond to an exercise than to treat an exercise as a drill, but on the other, it's a lot more likely that it is a drill.
Honestly, I think there was a benefit here. It shows that there are problems in the system aside from this particular mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a certain rationality to them. Devices are often designed to break before harming the user. A simple example is my badge lanyard will unclip if pulled hard enough.
Laws 2 and 3 are the wrong way round though. Machines are typically designed not to break on command. You tend to have safety cutouts and the like to protect the device.
Seems people are a lot more tolerant of advertising, if they get something from it. You can advertise on TV or in magazines with only minor complaints, because you're helping fund the medium. Even then, people are cutting the cord because they prefer streaming services that don't.
Telenav suggests $30 annually per vehicle. Personally, even if all that goes into driver perks, I don't think an effective $300 reduction over a 10 year car lifetime is going to persuade many people to accept this feature.
You have only been here too long when you pour hot grits down Natalie Portman's trousers.
Because they enjoy them? Personally, I watch movies for my enjoyment; not yours.
I wonder what the patent covers though. JIT compilation may well avoid this; and it would result in faster code.
The amount of CPU time you might reasonably get from a JS bot, for the minute or two that it takes to read an article, from a standard PC that's also doing other stuff at the same time is pretty small. How much money do they get per page load? Is it going to cover costs?
It's a format that allows reasonable compression and requires relatively low resources to decompress. It's also still used in most DVB transmissions. So there are uses.
This does strike me as remarkably undercompeititve. They need to disrupt the entrenched business, and this is just duplicating the existing offering
The business model doesn't work that way. It's not like it costs youTube $x per channel, and that it saves them money not to provide them. Some people will pay $40 for a single channel. Some will pay $20 each for 2 of the channels. Others will be willing to pay varying amounts for th channel selection they actually watch. This model allows youTube to offer the widest selection to most people and maximise their own profit.
We've seen a decent number of politically educated people pushing for leaving the EU. It's a good thing is economic stability is your goal, and don't get me wrong - economic stability is a good thing; but it's not the only thing that matters.
Trump was a response to a really bad choice essentially between the highly unpopular Hillary Clinton, and Trump; who is extremely unpopular to his opponents, but appeals to some people because of his brashness. It's not really a democratic process.
Right. Despite my criticism above, I'm still fairly pro-EU, but feel the organisation needed some fairly hefty reforms. Ironically, I think the UK being outside of the EU might mean they actually fix most of the aspects that were causing problems in the UK.
Seems to work reasonably well in Switzerland, and even for US constitutional amendments. There are hurdles to getting things on the ballot, so it's not absolute democracy, but it does create a lot more involvement of the populace in lawmaking.
A lot of Europe is in the wrong time zone. Spain wants to stay in sync with France. Portugal is on UTC (or UTC+1 in summer) same as the UK and Ireland. They tried +1/+2 for a few years in the 1990's to match Spain, but it wasn't popular.
I'd say Spain and possibly France are in the wrong timezones, but they seem to like to be in the same timezone as each other and Germany.
So why was this only a non-binding resolution? Why didn't they go the whole hog and introduce legislation to actually make the commission review the costs and benefits?
So, who were the candidates for president? How many votes did the second place get? (The answer, is zero, because the president is appointed in a really stupid way that in no way reflects democracy).
It's a shame the EU wasn't structured in such a way as to keep them accountable. Who are they directly accountable to? Parliament as a whole, the cabinet, or the head of government? If I object to a decision by my commissioner, who do I contact to make this objection known? The fact that I live in a country where the government doesn't represent the people doesn't excuse the EU from being crap here.
I have two objections to the EU Parliament - firstly, STV is not mandatory. Secondly, it has no ability to initiate legislation. The only elected body of a nominally democratic institution only has the power to rubber stamp, or reject legislation.
Oh piss off with your "educate yourself" drivel. Some people disagree with you. This does not mean they're not educated. It means they haven't bought in to the idea that the EU is the bastion of democracy. It's not, and pretending it is because the power is vested in a group appointed by a group selected from a body elected by the people in an election that is not necessarily representative, does not make it so.
No, these are the EU parliament. This is why it's non binding. The EU didn't feel the need to give the democratically elected assembly any actual power.
If insulting a world leaders was seen as a violation of this policy, pretty much anyone who posts about politics would be muted.
Which is more than any other crypto-currency, and it fluctuates pretty wildly.
I see him as more of a publicity hound than a con man. He doesn't believe the earth is flat, but he's playing a character that does. He's a lot of fun if you're in on the joke.
Even if they are, does that make what they say incorrect? Surely whether the statements are true or false is independent of who posts them.
It may well be, but at least we'll know.
Sure, it's nothing more than a historical curiosity. Pretty much all we'll learn from this is related to the document. But some people are intrigued by a puzzle.
Mazda, maybe, but Mitsubishi Motors isn't going anywhere. Their motor division may be relatively small comapred with the multinationals, but Nissan and the massive Mitshubishi Group are owners and they both have money to spend on EV.
We still ideally want some fossil fuels. Even mostly nuclear France does (mostly through imports).
Nuclear power isn't very economic to turn down. The bulk of the cost is building and running the power station rather than fuel costs, so it costs almost as much to run at reduced capacity. Gas and oil, the bulk of the cost is fuel, so reducing capacity saves money.
Granted, electric cars mitigate this somewhat. They can charge during low power consumption periods; but this doesn't really help regarding the long term cycles (i.e. difference in summer and winter usage).
Why is this desirable? A heavy noisy motor with lots of moving parts - decreasing reliability - requiring harmful chemicals and kicking out pollution at street level.
Not criticising the concept. It's good to see improvements, and the internal combustion engine was an impressive invention, but I think after a century and a half, we should expect it to be replaced with better technology.
Assuming treating it as a drill or as an exercise are the only two options, it's tricky to decide what the correct choice is when data is contradictory. One one hand, it is probably better to respond to an exercise than to treat an exercise as a drill, but on the other, it's a lot more likely that it is a drill.
Honestly, I think there was a benefit here. It shows that there are problems in the system aside from this particular mistake.