My wife is Taiwanese and there are no school buses. You take public transportation the same as everybody else. And I don't think that the school even subsidizes it. There are a few parents who drive kids but that is certainly the exception.
The funding that CPS gets is based on how many kids they put into foster care. Now I'm not saying that every CPS worker is thinking about that all of the time, but it has slowly affected the culture such that everybody has the reaction to put kids into foster care. Once a kid is in foster care, the standards are much lower. No kid would be removed from a foster family for any of these violations. The case worker would address it verbally and leave it out of the report and or decide that they've resolved it with the foster family and no further action is taken. If their funding were inversely proportional to how many kids ended up in foster families we'd see a much more sane approach. Only the most egregious cases should result in a removal of a kid from their home.
Well I'm not saying that exactly. The OP pointed out security feature on Windows that may or may not have solved this. I don't know if that feature exists on Linux or not. It would actually be harder to implement on Linux since AFAIK there is only one X Server process. But this isn't my area of expertise.
In areas of the world where people live in poorly-insulated huts, per capita energy usage is much lower. So I would suspect the statement to still hold true.
The OP was viewing adult content. It was most likely video. And the GPU has dedicated video decoding hardware. Chrome was probably offloading this and somehow some last rendered frame was in the GPU RAM when the next application launched.
It used to be that the programmer was responsible for clearing sensitive data out of general-purpose memory to ensure that no other process got access to the data. It didn't work out very well. Now, the OS is responsible for clearing out memory prior to handing it to another process. It doesn't really make sense to have every application do something that could be implemented one time, correctly, in the operating system.
I don't doubt your story but the problems we are solving today are more complex than the ones of years ago. In the 1970s if you wrote a nifty way to solve the quadratic equation you might be considered a super star. (Okay that was somewhat of a dramatization) But today we are dealing with much more complex domains. In many cases we are trying to model human behavior. It's simply not possible to solve these problems if we didn't have building blocks. What we really need is a good understanding of the problem we are trying to solve and enough technical skills to turn that understanding into something working. Getting the problem description right is where the heavy lifting should be. If the implementation involves fussing with tools rather than working on the problem, the tools should improve.
Point taken, I should have been more specific. They can't be fired for doing a bad job. When cutbacks do happen, it's based on seniority not work output.
Because kids don't refuse to work. You obviously don't have experience with rural poverty. (And probably urban poverty as well but I don't know about that). In rural areas, you see kids in their preteen years wanting to go to college and break their poverty trap. But they finally just can't stand living with their alcoholic parents who beat and molest them. So they decide to take a year off, work a minimum wage job, and get a safe place to live with intent on finishing their education. But then the realities of living on a minimum wage job set in and they are stuck for life.
So if we could provide those kids with a safe environment where they get enough to eat, they would *love* to go be productive members of society. So the reason it isn't welfare by your definition is that the benefits aren't going to "lazy people who refuse to work." They are going to ambitious kids.
How about we stop taking money from minimum wage earners at the point of the gun in order to give it to rich people in the form of mortgage interest tax deductions!
The reason that privatization may work is that government employees can't be fired. This is especially true for teachers but also applies to pretty much everything government.
When organizations (public or private) get large, bureaucracy starts to take over. Instead of striving for good outcomes for the organization, people start manipulating the situation for their own benefit. In private companies this harms the shareholders. In government it harms the tax payers. It also harms both of their customers since the quality of what is delivered goes downhill.
Normally private companies solve this by getting smaller through sales of assets, bankruptcy, or some other extreme means. Government can't do this so things just keep getting worse and worse.
They would see that the person who provided them the content didn't want them to copy and paste and was willing to comply with the request. Sheep! (Half funny)
The probably thought that you just loved their content so much that you were willing to type the whole thing out in order to better remember it. Now they'll disable copying comments so that others won't copy and paste from there! (Only half funny, unfortunately)
A political process where the maximum speed that can be set is usually the maximum speed determined by the civil engineers but communities have the option to increase safety by setting limits even lower. That seems a pretty reasonable thing to be left up to local control. The only other logical conclusion is that everything should be set by the less accountable federal government including things like zoning rules.
What you are calling arbitrary rules are very carefully decided with the input of a cadre of civil engineers as well as the local communities and based on a consensus. They are no more arbitrary than the fact that we drive on the right-hand side of the road. If you think that something has gone wrong setting the limits, you can get them changed through various processes. Many states have recently increased their limits. This argument is often put forward and falls down the same way. If you're a qualified civil engineer who disagrees with the civil engineering work and want to offer you services for free to a community, they're probably willing to listen. I know that my county is paying a lot of money right now for a traffic study in the area where a school may be expanded. Too bad you didn't bid a lower price.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes there isn't an alternative. The alternative is to use a combination of technology and enforcement to change the behavior of the drivers. If there are reasons this can't be done (because the rules aren't reasonable), we should fix the rules. Nobody is suggesting that human drivers drive one way and autonomous vehicles drive another.
The question is do we make the human drivers follow the rules or teach the autonomous vehicles to break them. The former used to be impossible. Now it's well within our grasp. There seems to be an assumption that you can't make the human drivers follow the rules but we certainly can do have the technology to do that now and should start to phase it in.
Not a dumb idea. Just make the right lane of freeways have a 35mph limit and make all of the human-operated cars stay there. Increase the other lanes to a much higher limit like 100mp since the machines can operate safely at that speed. Give people the choice. I bet the self-driving cars fly off the shelves.
We used to live in a world where we could look around, make observations, and figure things out. We didn't need to learn rules academically. We could do it socially. For the natural, observable world this works. But it falls apart when dealing with things that are designed by man and/or are terribly complex.
You can't learn quantum mechanics by observing the world around you. You won't learn advanced software concepts either. Without civil engineering training you can't know the safe speed for a road. And even if you have that training you can't figure that out on-the-fly your first time driving that particular road.
If somebody suggested that they don't need to study medicine to perform surgery because "we're not robots that follow a strict pattern" we would laugh at them. The same is true for operating a 3 ton 300 horsepower machine.
Which advice? To not leave space (so that if you get hit in the rear you're guaranteed to whack the car in front of you)? Or to assume the car in front of you might leave a margin of safety and plan your driving accordingly?
"Do not stop on an acceleration lane unless traffic is too heavy and there is no space for you to enter safely." The reality is that most of us don't stop in an acceleration lane even if traffic is too heavy. We hate it. And people behind us aren't expecting it. It usually results in a rear-end collision. So we have a situation where it's not really safe to merge at all but can be done through excess speed and prayer. The solution to this is (a) slow the freeway down to the posted speed limit and (b) improve the ramp. Why should people be subject to this type of danger just to get to work and back or wherever they are going? Autonomous vehicles are forcing us to confront the fact that our roadways are dangerous. This is a good thing. Why anybody would want to maintain the status quo is beyond me.
It is illegal to speed up when being passed on a two lane road. If you don't have safe distance to complete the pass without exceeding the posted speed limit, you're not supposed to pass. The rules are simple. Now I admit that they are *frustrating* especially when trying to pass trucks that vary their speed an insane amount as they go up and down hills and the times when you can pass are the times when they are going limit+5 instead of limit-20. But it still doesn't mean that staying behind the truck wouldn't be safer.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife is Taiwanese and there are no school buses. You take public transportation the same as everybody else. And I don't think that the school even subsidizes it. There are a few parents who drive kids but that is certainly the exception.
The funding that CPS gets is based on how many kids they put into foster care. Now I'm not saying that every CPS worker is thinking about that all of the time, but it has slowly affected the culture such that everybody has the reaction to put kids into foster care. Once a kid is in foster care, the standards are much lower. No kid would be removed from a foster family for any of these violations. The case worker would address it verbally and leave it out of the report and or decide that they've resolved it with the foster family and no further action is taken. If their funding were inversely proportional to how many kids ended up in foster families we'd see a much more sane approach. Only the most egregious cases should result in a removal of a kid from their home.
Well I'm not saying that exactly. The OP pointed out security feature on Windows that may or may not have solved this. I don't know if that feature exists on Linux or not. It would actually be harder to implement on Linux since AFAIK there is only one X Server process. But this isn't my area of expertise.
Maybe we can find a way to put wind turbines in those stadiums when they're not being used!
In areas of the world where people live in poorly-insulated huts, per capita energy usage is much lower. So I would suspect the statement to still hold true.
The OP was viewing adult content. It was most likely video. And the GPU has dedicated video decoding hardware. Chrome was probably offloading this and somehow some last rendered frame was in the GPU RAM when the next application launched.
But I think the OP mentioned Linux!
It used to be that the programmer was responsible for clearing sensitive data out of general-purpose memory to ensure that no other process got access to the data. It didn't work out very well. Now, the OS is responsible for clearing out memory prior to handing it to another process. It doesn't really make sense to have every application do something that could be implemented one time, correctly, in the operating system.
I don't doubt your story but the problems we are solving today are more complex than the ones of years ago. In the 1970s if you wrote a nifty way to solve the quadratic equation you might be considered a super star. (Okay that was somewhat of a dramatization) But today we are dealing with much more complex domains. In many cases we are trying to model human behavior. It's simply not possible to solve these problems if we didn't have building blocks. What we really need is a good understanding of the problem we are trying to solve and enough technical skills to turn that understanding into something working. Getting the problem description right is where the heavy lifting should be. If the implementation involves fussing with tools rather than working on the problem, the tools should improve.
Point taken, I should have been more specific. They can't be fired for doing a bad job. When cutbacks do happen, it's based on seniority not work output.
Because kids don't refuse to work. You obviously don't have experience with rural poverty. (And probably urban poverty as well but I don't know about that). In rural areas, you see kids in their preteen years wanting to go to college and break their poverty trap. But they finally just can't stand living with their alcoholic parents who beat and molest them. So they decide to take a year off, work a minimum wage job, and get a safe place to live with intent on finishing their education. But then the realities of living on a minimum wage job set in and they are stuck for life. So if we could provide those kids with a safe environment where they get enough to eat, they would *love* to go be productive members of society. So the reason it isn't welfare by your definition is that the benefits aren't going to "lazy people who refuse to work." They are going to ambitious kids. How about we stop taking money from minimum wage earners at the point of the gun in order to give it to rich people in the form of mortgage interest tax deductions!
The reason that privatization may work is that government employees can't be fired. This is especially true for teachers but also applies to pretty much everything government. When organizations (public or private) get large, bureaucracy starts to take over. Instead of striving for good outcomes for the organization, people start manipulating the situation for their own benefit. In private companies this harms the shareholders. In government it harms the tax payers. It also harms both of their customers since the quality of what is delivered goes downhill. Normally private companies solve this by getting smaller through sales of assets, bankruptcy, or some other extreme means. Government can't do this so things just keep getting worse and worse.
I wish I hadn't commented so that I could moderate, but I guess you already got the +5
The TSA does not work for the airline. They work for the airport. There's a huge difference there.
They would see that the person who provided them the content didn't want them to copy and paste and was willing to comply with the request. Sheep! (Half funny)
The probably thought that you just loved their content so much that you were willing to type the whole thing out in order to better remember it. Now they'll disable copying comments so that others won't copy and paste from there! (Only half funny, unfortunately)
A political process where the maximum speed that can be set is usually the maximum speed determined by the civil engineers but communities have the option to increase safety by setting limits even lower. That seems a pretty reasonable thing to be left up to local control. The only other logical conclusion is that everything should be set by the less accountable federal government including things like zoning rules.
What you are calling arbitrary rules are very carefully decided with the input of a cadre of civil engineers as well as the local communities and based on a consensus. They are no more arbitrary than the fact that we drive on the right-hand side of the road. If you think that something has gone wrong setting the limits, you can get them changed through various processes. Many states have recently increased their limits. This argument is often put forward and falls down the same way. If you're a qualified civil engineer who disagrees with the civil engineering work and want to offer you services for free to a community, they're probably willing to listen. I know that my county is paying a lot of money right now for a traffic study in the area where a school may be expanded. Too bad you didn't bid a lower price.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes there isn't an alternative. The alternative is to use a combination of technology and enforcement to change the behavior of the drivers. If there are reasons this can't be done (because the rules aren't reasonable), we should fix the rules. Nobody is suggesting that human drivers drive one way and autonomous vehicles drive another. The question is do we make the human drivers follow the rules or teach the autonomous vehicles to break them. The former used to be impossible. Now it's well within our grasp. There seems to be an assumption that you can't make the human drivers follow the rules but we certainly can do have the technology to do that now and should start to phase it in.
Not a dumb idea. Just make the right lane of freeways have a 35mph limit and make all of the human-operated cars stay there. Increase the other lanes to a much higher limit like 100mp since the machines can operate safely at that speed. Give people the choice. I bet the self-driving cars fly off the shelves.
We used to live in a world where we could look around, make observations, and figure things out. We didn't need to learn rules academically. We could do it socially. For the natural, observable world this works. But it falls apart when dealing with things that are designed by man and/or are terribly complex. You can't learn quantum mechanics by observing the world around you. You won't learn advanced software concepts either. Without civil engineering training you can't know the safe speed for a road. And even if you have that training you can't figure that out on-the-fly your first time driving that particular road. If somebody suggested that they don't need to study medicine to perform surgery because "we're not robots that follow a strict pattern" we would laugh at them. The same is true for operating a 3 ton 300 horsepower machine.
Which advice? To not leave space (so that if you get hit in the rear you're guaranteed to whack the car in front of you)? Or to assume the car in front of you might leave a margin of safety and plan your driving accordingly?
Nothing. They hit driverless cars at the same rate they hit cars with drivers. The interesting thing is that the reverse doesn't happen.
"Do not stop on an acceleration lane unless traffic is too heavy and there is no space for you to enter safely." The reality is that most of us don't stop in an acceleration lane even if traffic is too heavy. We hate it. And people behind us aren't expecting it. It usually results in a rear-end collision. So we have a situation where it's not really safe to merge at all but can be done through excess speed and prayer. The solution to this is (a) slow the freeway down to the posted speed limit and (b) improve the ramp. Why should people be subject to this type of danger just to get to work and back or wherever they are going? Autonomous vehicles are forcing us to confront the fact that our roadways are dangerous. This is a good thing. Why anybody would want to maintain the status quo is beyond me.
It is illegal to speed up when being passed on a two lane road. If you don't have safe distance to complete the pass without exceeding the posted speed limit, you're not supposed to pass. The rules are simple. Now I admit that they are *frustrating* especially when trying to pass trucks that vary their speed an insane amount as they go up and down hills and the times when you can pass are the times when they are going limit+5 instead of limit-20. But it still doesn't mean that staying behind the truck wouldn't be safer.