That is just stupid. If you think that insurance is 'gambling' and that 'you are betting you will have an accident', HAVE AN ACCIDENT. There, you 'won'.
If you make it happen, it's not an accident. Insurance companies go to great lengths to prevent cheating, just like casinos do.
Your comment about bookmakers is equally ill-informed. The only possible way person 'A' has a higher chance of winning than person 'B' is if 'A' can actually affect the outcome, or by making a DIFFERENT bet. In either case, 'A' and 'B' are certainly NOT going to get the same odds.
No, stupid, in almost all types of betting that have variable odds, a well informed person has an increased chance of winning over someone picking bets at random. That's why the odds change. Sports betting is a good example.
Your idea of a 'savings account' and 'loan' also makes no sense. Insurance is most certainly NOT 'every customer pays in more than they get paid out'. It is that on AVERAGE customers pay more (plus the money the insurance company makes on investing the premiums) than the company pays out. That says nothing about an INDIVIDUAL.
You're making my point for me, but fail to see it. When insurance companies raise the premium for an INDIVIDUAL (why are we shouting?), they defeat the purpose of insurance, which is to level an unfair playing field. Or in other words, insurance companies should not look at the risks/expenses for the individual, but for the total number of insured. Bean counters don't see the big picture, and think that if the company makes ten million but lose a million on the most risky customers, raising the premium based on a perceived risk is going to make them more money. In the long run, it will drive customers away.
They are desperately trying to find ways to predict which customers will cause what insurance claims so they can avoid the ones that will actually cost them money while offering favorable rates to those that will just keep paying without ever having an insurance claim. That's the business they're in.
The problem with widely different rates depending on risk is that it makes insurance less attractive.
If, as the insurance companies seem to want, they can calculate the risk very accurately and set the premium accordingly, so every customer pays in more than they get paid out, then customers will be better off putting the money in a savings account and taking up a loan if an accident happens before the savings account is big enough.
The whole insurance principle is based on not knowing. It's gambling. You gamble that you will have an accident, and the insurance company gambles that you won't. A bookmaker will never charge you more for a bet than the next man just because you have a higher chance of winning. He adjusts the odds for everyone, not individually.
Insurance companies need to do the unintuitive thing of treating people more equally, or customers will flee, and the low-premium low-risk customers that stay won't pay enough to finance the business overhead.
Having to ask a human for help is "0% accessible," in your scenario they perform exactly the same as what you're promoting!
Maybe you have no idea what accessibility even is, and this isn't actually a good issue for you to raise?
I spent several years using a wheelchair to get around, so I know a fair bit about this particular problem first hand.
Not having to ask anyone is 100% accessibility, which is desirable. Not being able to do something at all is 0% accessibility. Being able to ask someone is in-between those two, and certainly much preferable to not being able to do something at all.
I truly hopes nobody helps you at all when you one day lack mobility, because you wouldn't appreciate the offer and see it as 0%.
Tesla seem to have realized that hands-on-wheel is inadequate anyway, because the Model 3 has a camera pointed at the driver's face to make sure they are paying attention. It doesn't work yet but Cadillac and Audi have theirs working.
I'm not sure that's a good solution, but a pareto solution creating a divide. There are going to be a lot of people on which it will be very difficult to judge by their face whether they pay attention, whether it be due to eyeglasses, headscarves, brimmed hats, head immobility, disfigurements or other.
Too many solutions these days are "one size fits most" and not inclusive. Even though each of them individually allow the great majority of the population to use products, the combination once all of them are layered on top of each other means that in the end, only Bart Thiswee from Schenectady, NY can use them, because he's the only one generic enough in all ways.
How come so many people think that. With one person it is the persons fault. With a few it is a coincide. With many it is a problem from the company. Companies pay a lot on marketing. These companies what people think that words mean often other things than what the dictionary says.
So the blame is with Tesla for going with the word "autopilot" when they knew people would think it would mean no human interaction us needed.
I take issue with the phrase "the blame". Blame isn't a binary quantity, or even a finite quantity. A person can be at fault for not following instructions, and a company can be at fault for selling a system that tempts bad driving control. The latter does not reduce blame for the former one iota. Think of blame as a disease. If a second person gets it, it doesn't make the first person any better.
It's the difference between constant, can't-miss-a-second attention vs check-it-once-a-minute attention.
"Fully attentive" means can't-miss-a-second, not check-it-once-a-minute.
My brain wanders more, I'm able to glance to the side for a few seconds to look at something interesting on the road and I'm not constantly adjusting speed/steering.
In other words, you are part of the dangerous problem: people who don't understand that you need to pay full attention to driving when on autopilot. You should not be on the road, because your disregard of Tesla's instructions means you're not just a danger to yourself, but to everybody else too.
I'm kind of wondering what the purpose of autopilot is since it's only to be used by a fully attentive driver. What benefit does it add? And if no benefit, why is it in the car in the first place, since it obviously acts as a lure for those who aren't fully attentive?
My children asked why I started vaping instead of smoking. I explained to them that I know how bad smoking is and didn't want to continue. They asked if vaping was "good" for me. I said that it's almost certainly not but it's most likely less bad for me than smoking.
Well, I have to agree that it almost certainly isn't good for you, but compared to smoking, I am fairly convinced that it's a heck of a lot less risky. I've heard about people overdoing it and getting pneumonia, and some dubious e-liquid that contained Bad Stuff, but everything in moderation. It's like having a beer compared to having a fifth of everclear.
Thanks, that's illuminating. It's likely going to be slightly more than your estimate, if you add charging electricity, cleaning supplies, broken USB cables (don't tell me you got one that lasted 3 years) and other things we didn't think of, but it seems it's still cheaper than smoking for you. And probably less damaging.
Where'd you pull that from? The stores I see selling this have *all* of the flavours in a nicotine-free option.
Link provided in a different post. Keep in mind that availability does not imply usage. Also, you forget those that mix their own flavors and strengths using a strong nicotine based e-juice combined with non-nicotine flavor bases.
Not necessarily. It's not just e-liquid. The cost of vaporizers, tanks, mouth pieces, chargers and electricity isn't zero. And coils and batteries are considered consumables to be replaced.
I'd estimate that the average vaper probably spends twice as much as the e-liquid on the hobby. Some a lot more.
"Smoke the flavors"; that makes no sense. Your lungs have no tastebuds, only your tongue does.
Flavor != taste. Anything except salty, sweet, sour and bitter comes from your nose, not your mouth. And when misting, flavor being detected by the nose is a big part of the equation, for everyone except cloud chasers, at least.
I think there's a good amount of "written before me" attitudes causing problems. Maintaining the code of someone else is seldom attractive to developers, who would rather make their own mark, and refuse to entertain the idea that what they create might be worse than what was already there. Re-inventing the wheel seldom leads to an improvement on the circular shape, centered hub and perpendicular axis.
This is the slowest Linux kernel release process, not the slowest kernel itself.
It could very well be. It's the first new release with pmi (which closes Meltdown like risks, but both makes system calls slower and uses more memory). And the kernel has become more and more bloated. The absolute minimal kernel to run on any given hardware is much bigger today than it was a few years ago. 2.6.17 is the last one I could fit on a floppy. 2.6.35 is the last one that's practically feasible to run on a system with 128 MB RAM or less.
I think it's likely worse than that. The problem is that the "respondents" aren't necessarily people good at spotting where there are problems or what the nature of the problems are.
Just about every Protestant based church has a local board of elders that oversees the church staff.
This is mostly the case for Presbyterian-derived churches (Presbyter = elder), but many other protestant denominations have no concept of elders. They may have people with similar functions, but tend to call them other things like pastors or deacons.
In fact, I'd think most Christians except those from Presbyterian-derived churches would think of Elders as young Mormons knocking on doors.
Christianity is still incredibly popular, so most people know what a church elder is and does.
And, as they all know, church elders are chosen by their community, in part, because of their solid moral values.
Um, no, I bet most people do not know this. Most christian varieties don't have elders, and while they may have heard the word, would have no way of knowing whether they were elected, appointed, graduated to being one, or just got old.
Don't presume that everybody else lives in your tiny world.
Please tell me how they suppose how you'd do the one without the other.
If you went dumpster diving and found printed out e-mails, you would be accessing e-mails while not using an internet network. But there's such a thing as local mail too. And uucp. And many other ways to transfer, deliver or read e-mail that does not require an internet network.
Slashdot Mirror
That is just stupid. If you think that insurance is 'gambling' and that 'you are betting you will have an accident', HAVE AN ACCIDENT. There, you 'won'.
If you make it happen, it's not an accident. Insurance companies go to great lengths to prevent cheating, just like casinos do.
Your comment about bookmakers is equally ill-informed. The only possible way person 'A' has a higher chance of winning than person 'B' is if 'A' can actually affect the outcome, or by making a DIFFERENT bet. In either case, 'A' and 'B' are certainly NOT going to get the same odds.
No, stupid, in almost all types of betting that have variable odds, a well informed person has an increased chance of winning over someone picking bets at random. That's why the odds change. Sports betting is a good example.
Your idea of a 'savings account' and 'loan' also makes no sense. Insurance is most certainly NOT 'every customer pays in more than they get paid out'. It is that on AVERAGE customers pay more (plus the money the insurance company makes on investing the premiums) than the company pays out. That says nothing about an INDIVIDUAL.
You're making my point for me, but fail to see it. When insurance companies raise the premium for an INDIVIDUAL (why are we shouting?), they defeat the purpose of insurance, which is to level an unfair playing field.
Or in other words, insurance companies should not look at the risks/expenses for the individual, but for the total number of insured. Bean counters don't see the big picture, and think that if the company makes ten million but lose a million on the most risky customers, raising the premium based on a perceived risk is going to make them more money. In the long run, it will drive customers away.
They are desperately trying to find ways to predict which customers will cause what insurance claims so they can avoid the ones that will actually cost them money while offering favorable rates to those that will just keep paying without ever having an insurance claim. That's the business they're in.
The problem with widely different rates depending on risk is that it makes insurance less attractive.
If, as the insurance companies seem to want, they can calculate the risk very accurately and set the premium accordingly, so every customer pays in more than they get paid out, then customers will be better off putting the money in a savings account and taking up a loan if an accident happens before the savings account is big enough.
The whole insurance principle is based on not knowing. It's gambling. You gamble that you will have an accident, and the insurance company gambles that you won't.
A bookmaker will never charge you more for a bet than the next man just because you have a higher chance of winning. He adjusts the odds for everyone, not individually.
Insurance companies need to do the unintuitive thing of treating people more equally, or customers will flee, and the low-premium low-risk customers that stay won't pay enough to finance the business overhead.
Having to ask a human for help is "0% accessible," in your scenario they perform exactly the same as what you're promoting!
Maybe you have no idea what accessibility even is, and this isn't actually a good issue for you to raise?
I spent several years using a wheelchair to get around, so I know a fair bit about this particular problem first hand.
Not having to ask anyone is 100% accessibility, which is desirable.
Not being able to do something at all is 0% accessibility.
Being able to ask someone is in-between those two, and certainly much preferable to not being able to do something at all.
I truly hopes nobody helps you at all when you one day lack mobility, because you wouldn't appreciate the offer and see it as 0%.
Driver attention system via a high voltage coil in the seat, just under the drivers crotch.
They won't take their eyes off the road twice.
You underestimate people's kinks.
Tesla seem to have realized that hands-on-wheel is inadequate anyway, because the Model 3 has a camera pointed at the driver's face to make sure they are paying attention. It doesn't work yet but Cadillac and Audi have theirs working.
I'm not sure that's a good solution, but a pareto solution creating a divide. There are going to be a lot of people on which it will be very difficult to judge by their face whether they pay attention, whether it be due to eyeglasses, headscarves, brimmed hats, head immobility, disfigurements or other.
Too many solutions these days are "one size fits most" and not inclusive. Even though each of them individually allow the great majority of the population to use products, the combination once all of them are layered on top of each other means that in the end, only Bart Thiswee from Schenectady, NY can use them, because he's the only one generic enough in all ways.
How come so many people think that. With one person it is the persons fault. With a few it is a coincide. With many it is a problem from the company.
Companies pay a lot on marketing. These companies what people think that words mean often other things than what the dictionary says.
So the blame is with Tesla for going with the word "autopilot" when they knew people would think it would mean no human interaction us needed.
I take issue with the phrase "the blame".
Blame isn't a binary quantity, or even a finite quantity. A person can be at fault for not following instructions, and a company can be at fault for selling a system that tempts bad driving control. The latter does not reduce blame for the former one iota.
Think of blame as a disease. If a second person gets it, it doesn't make the first person any better.
It's the difference between constant, can't-miss-a-second attention vs check-it-once-a-minute attention.
"Fully attentive" means can't-miss-a-second, not check-it-once-a-minute.
My brain wanders more, I'm able to glance to the side for a few seconds to look at something interesting on the road and I'm not constantly adjusting speed/steering.
In other words, you are part of the dangerous problem: people who don't understand that you need to pay full attention to driving when on autopilot. You should not be on the road, because your disregard of Tesla's instructions means you're not just a danger to yourself, but to everybody else too.
I'm kind of wondering what the purpose of autopilot is since it's only to be used by a fully attentive driver. What benefit does it add?
And if no benefit, why is it in the car in the first place, since it obviously acts as a lure for those who aren't fully attentive?
My children asked why I started vaping instead of smoking. I explained to them that I know how bad smoking is and didn't want to continue. They asked if vaping was "good" for me. I said that it's almost certainly not but it's most likely less bad for me than smoking.
Well, I have to agree that it almost certainly isn't good for you, but compared to smoking, I am fairly convinced that it's a heck of a lot less risky. I've heard about people overdoing it and getting pneumonia, and some dubious e-liquid that contained Bad Stuff, but everything in moderation. It's like having a beer compared to having a fifth of everclear.
Thanks, that's illuminating.
It's likely going to be slightly more than your estimate, if you add charging electricity, cleaning supplies, broken USB cables (don't tell me you got one that lasted 3 years) and other things we didn't think of, but it seems it's still cheaper than smoking for you. And probably less damaging.
Where'd you pull that from? The stores I see selling this have *all* of the flavours in a nicotine-free option.
Link provided in a different post. Keep in mind that availability does not imply usage. Also, you forget those that mix their own flavors and strengths using a strong nicotine based e-juice combined with non-nicotine flavor bases.
Who's ass did you pull those numbers from? Almost every flavor of ejuice is available with different amounts of nicotine.
Availability does not ensure popularity.
This study's survey showed only 1% of users using nicotine free e-liquid.
Vaping is CHEAPER than smoking.
Not necessarily. It's not just e-liquid. The cost of vaporizers, tanks, mouth pieces, chargers and electricity isn't zero. And coils and batteries are considered consumables to be replaced.
I'd estimate that the average vaper probably spends twice as much as the e-liquid on the hobby. Some a lot more.
Nicotine is optional in e-cigs. I know a lot of people that smoke the flavors without nicotine.
That seems doubtful. Only 1-3% of any e-liquid sold is without nicotine, so you knowing "a lot" of people who do that is statistically improbable.
Mind, some might say they only use nicotine free e-liquid in order to increase the chance of being allowed to do it.
"Smoke the flavors"; that makes no sense. Your lungs have no tastebuds, only your tongue does.
Flavor != taste. Anything except salty, sweet, sour and bitter comes from your nose, not your mouth. And when misting, flavor being detected by the nose is a big part of the equation, for everyone except cloud chasers, at least.
I think there's a good amount of "written before me" attitudes causing problems.
Maintaining the code of someone else is seldom attractive to developers, who would rather make their own mark, and refuse to entertain the idea that what they create might be worse than what was already there.
Re-inventing the wheel seldom leads to an improvement on the circular shape, centered hub and perpendicular axis.
This is the slowest Linux kernel release process, not the slowest kernel itself.
It could very well be. It's the first new release with pmi (which closes Meltdown like risks, but both makes system calls slower and uses more memory).
And the kernel has become more and more bloated. The absolute minimal kernel to run on any given hardware is much bigger today than it was a few years ago. 2.6.17 is the last one I could fit on a floppy. 2.6.35 is the last one that's practically feasible to run on a system with 128 MB RAM or less.
Until I upgraded to high sierra to get the most recent spectre/meltdown patches, I had 169 days of uptime on my macbookpro.
# uptime
15:15:36 up 2010 days, 3:10, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
I thought my daily reboots would go away when I upgraded to WinME. No such luck.
The "reboot at least every 43 days" bug that plagued Windows 98 went away when upgrading to Windows Me, though.
I think it's likely worse than that. The problem is that the "respondents" aren't necessarily people good at spotting where there are problems or what the nature of the problems are.
Just about every Protestant based church has a local board of elders that oversees the church staff.
This is mostly the case for Presbyterian-derived churches (Presbyter = elder), but many other protestant denominations have no concept of elders. They may have people with similar functions, but tend to call them other things like pastors or deacons.
In fact, I'd think most Christians except those from Presbyterian-derived churches would think of Elders as young Mormons knocking on doors.
Was Intel expecting? Me, I was expecting one to install the patch.
You don't need a reboot for the Intel patches. Those are microcode updates, which can be applied on a running system.
(Reverting to an earlier version of microcode requires a reboot, though.)
Jass is a very attractive lady, I was very interested in dating her.
I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but c'mon:
https://peopledotcom.files.wor...
Christianity is still incredibly popular, so most people know what a church elder is and does.
And, as they all know, church elders are chosen by their community, in part, because of their solid moral values.
Um, no, I bet most people do not know this. Most christian varieties don't have elders, and while they may have heard the word, would have no way of knowing whether they were elected, appointed, graduated to being one, or just got old.
Don't presume that everybody else lives in your tiny world.
Please tell me how they suppose how you'd do the one without the other.
If you went dumpster diving and found printed out e-mails, you would be accessing e-mails while not using an internet network.
But there's such a thing as local mail too. And uucp. And many other ways to transfer, deliver or read e-mail that does not require an internet network.