Honestly? In my experience, this is more a result of materials sections in papers being incomplete than it is evidence of poor science. Oftentimes, procedures just aren't described in enough detail to repeat something unless you already know how to do it, and even then, small differences in the way you do things can add up. Journals need to raise the word limit on materials and methods sections, because those are usually too low.
I can't comment on how they do it in the UK, but I do know that in some places in both Germany and the US, there are hidden speed cameras (or at least, visible only after it's too late to slow down). They can be quite lucrative for small towns or cities.
My point was not to argue *for* a market system. I was just saying that what the government chooses to do is not the market.
Since they'll have cameras, they could - in theory - report such dangerous behavior on the part of human drivers to the police, with video evidence. If issuing tickets based on non-police video evidence isn't legal now, I'd expect it to be soon. Whether that applies to speeding or just cutting someone off remains to be seen, although car manufacturers would likely get a *lot* of bad press for doing that for speeding as well.
That depends on whether you can turn the self-driving feature(s) off, I think. It may be useful to have one if you like driving sometimes, but can just tell it to park somewhere. It may be that people want specific features that may not be available in all self-driving taxis, or want to have more emergency stuff around for longer trips.
I don't think they can actually reduce the amount they're giving you all that much; if they want people to sign up for this, they have to at least cover gas costs (people who put thought into it will also want them to cover depreciation on the car, of course, but many people won't think of that or care).
Camera-based traffic enforcement is sort of the opposite of market forces, since the government controls that (even if they outsource it). In the short term, insurance is also unlikely to rise that much, at least until the safety of self-driven cars is proven to their liking. Moreover, once that safety is proven, it'll be super cheap to insure them, so there won't necessarily be a market force pushing insurance prices for human drivers upwards. Insurance companies want prices high enough that they make money, but not so low that they push everyone to self-driving cars (which will probably not make as much).
Lumping Europe and Asia together makes far more sense than lumping North America and South America together. NA and SA should properly be two continents, and calling them both "America" is both silly and can lead to confusion.
They can't deny you entry to the US if you're a citizen, and I'm not aware of cases where Americans were forced to unlock their phones at the border (although I could be wrong about that).
Mainly that we don't have any artificial uteruses (uterii?). Even if they had completely intact mammoth DNA - or could create it - it'd be a lot easier to try to put it in an elephant uterus.
Sure, Mexico was definitely planning on taking it over again, but they had no force projection at the time and Texas was self-governing. You're right in that it was a very precarious situation, and things were tense, but it's still not really like Israel/Palestine.
Where does he say that those people aren't allowed to write Youtube and Disney? He's just saying those people are being asshats about it, which is legal but not encouraged.
the mere fact that there was anything to mine to give as evidence is admission of poor taste.
Are you serious? Was it poor taste for Monty Python to have some cast members dress up as Nazis to make fun of them? Was Saving Private Ryan in poor taste for showing Nazi logos? Context is incredibly important when determining if you should be offended by something. If you were showing Nazi clips and then showing exactly why they were wrong, or pointing out "alternative facts" they were using, would that also be in poor taste?
No, it wasn't a smart decision on his part when Disney is involved, but the WSJ really twisted things way out of line.
Well, if people looked at context at all, that wouldn't have been a problem. John Cleese dressed up as a Nazi for a lot of Monty Python skits, but because it was in the context of a skit, it shouldn't be an issue. Should one never be able to show a sign that says "Death To All The Jews"? Even if you're, say, making a documentary about anti-Semites? Or lampooning current white nationalists?
If he was actually supporting the sentiment, then sure, I could see people dropping him really quickly. But he clearly wasn't. It wasn't a good bit, but it also wasn't a reflection of his views.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly? In my experience, this is more a result of materials sections in papers being incomplete than it is evidence of poor science. Oftentimes, procedures just aren't described in enough detail to repeat something unless you already know how to do it, and even then, small differences in the way you do things can add up. Journals need to raise the word limit on materials and methods sections, because those are usually too low.
I can't comment on how they do it in the UK, but I do know that in some places in both Germany and the US, there are hidden speed cameras (or at least, visible only after it's too late to slow down). They can be quite lucrative for small towns or cities.
My point was not to argue *for* a market system. I was just saying that what the government chooses to do is not the market.
Since they'll have cameras, they could - in theory - report such dangerous behavior on the part of human drivers to the police, with video evidence. If issuing tickets based on non-police video evidence isn't legal now, I'd expect it to be soon. Whether that applies to speeding or just cutting someone off remains to be seen, although car manufacturers would likely get a *lot* of bad press for doing that for speeding as well.
That depends on whether you can turn the self-driving feature(s) off, I think. It may be useful to have one if you like driving sometimes, but can just tell it to park somewhere. It may be that people want specific features that may not be available in all self-driving taxis, or want to have more emergency stuff around for longer trips.
I don't think they can actually reduce the amount they're giving you all that much; if they want people to sign up for this, they have to at least cover gas costs (people who put thought into it will also want them to cover depreciation on the car, of course, but many people won't think of that or care).
Camera-based traffic enforcement is sort of the opposite of market forces, since the government controls that (even if they outsource it). In the short term, insurance is also unlikely to rise that much, at least until the safety of self-driven cars is proven to their liking. Moreover, once that safety is proven, it'll be super cheap to insure them, so there won't necessarily be a market force pushing insurance prices for human drivers upwards. Insurance companies want prices high enough that they make money, but not so low that they push everyone to self-driving cars (which will probably not make as much).
Lumping Europe and Asia together makes far more sense than lumping North America and South America together. NA and SA should properly be two continents, and calling them both "America" is both silly and can lead to confusion.
"America" is the US. "North America" includes Canada and Mexico. "The Americas" are the two continents of North America and South America.
They can't deny you entry to the US if you're a citizen, and I'm not aware of cases where Americans were forced to unlock their phones at the border (although I could be wrong about that).
Fair points, then.
Mainly that we don't have any artificial uteruses (uterii?). Even if they had completely intact mammoth DNA - or could create it - it'd be a lot easier to try to put it in an elephant uterus.
Sure, Mexico was definitely planning on taking it over again, but they had no force projection at the time and Texas was self-governing. You're right in that it was a very precarious situation, and things were tense, but it's still not really like Israel/Palestine.
I was specifically responding to you saying "That's a joke?" and equating it to bumfighting videos, not to Disney's actions. Try to stay on track.
Do you understand dark humor? It's like food: not everybody gets it.
Where does he say that those people aren't allowed to write Youtube and Disney? He's just saying those people are being asshats about it, which is legal but not encouraged.
I don't care what meat they are (mostly), they're delicious.
the mere fact that there was anything to mine to give as evidence is admission of poor taste.
Are you serious? Was it poor taste for Monty Python to have some cast members dress up as Nazis to make fun of them? Was Saving Private Ryan in poor taste for showing Nazi logos? Context is incredibly important when determining if you should be offended by something. If you were showing Nazi clips and then showing exactly why they were wrong, or pointing out "alternative facts" they were using, would that also be in poor taste?
No, it wasn't a smart decision on his part when Disney is involved, but the WSJ really twisted things way out of line.
Well said, thank you.
Nobody wants to advertise with him because other people maliciously misrepresented him. It's entirely possible he'd win a libel suit.
Texas was its own independent country at that point, and had been since 1836.
Well, if people looked at context at all, that wouldn't have been a problem. John Cleese dressed up as a Nazi for a lot of Monty Python skits, but because it was in the context of a skit, it shouldn't be an issue. Should one never be able to show a sign that says "Death To All The Jews"? Even if you're, say, making a documentary about anti-Semites? Or lampooning current white nationalists?
If he was actually supporting the sentiment, then sure, I could see people dropping him really quickly. But he clearly wasn't. It wasn't a good bit, but it also wasn't a reflection of his views.
Note that I specifically said "someone else's phone". Please try to make a point next time you comment, it wastes less of everyone else's time.
So we just take asteroids or some moons (Jupiter and Saturn have plenty, after all) and shove them into Mars. Foolproof solution! /s
If we get to the point where we can geo-engineer Mars to be livable by humans, I'm pretty sure we can fix what we've done to Earth as well.
Interesting that you'd choose to attack Republicans in an article about a good tech bill getting bipartisan support.