The thing about traffic congestion in large cities is that it increases the opportunity cost of driving (which is essentially proportional to the delays caused by the congestion). When the opportunity cost exceeds some threshold, people will stop driving and use alternatives like public transport, walking, etc., or just change their plans. That threshold varies across the population. So what happens if you reduce the overall congestion? The opportunity cost goes down so some number of people who would have previously not driven get on the roads and suddenly your congestion is back exactly where it was. This happens no matter how you reduce congestion unless you somehow manage to adjust things so total demand is less than the capacity of the system.
In a small enough system, simply expanding capacity (adding lanes, more efficient intersections, etc.) can have a substantial impact. Also, if a single bottleneck is causing problems for a large portion of the network, improving the bottleneck can have a significant impact. Some of those technological measures may work for identifying cases where that will help. Unfortunately, there are only two ways to reduce congestion: increase capacity or reduce demand. Increasing capacity has diminishing returns and is not possible in many situations due to conflicting traffic movements or simple lack of space to make any expansions. (Everything from smart road networks to self-organizing traffic are all measures to increase capacity.)
Ultimately, the only long term solution to congestion is to reduce demand. Ironically, the congestion itself is a force in that direction, but, unfortunately, it negatively impacts activities that must use the road network (transit buses, goods transport, etc.). The measures that will have the most impact on congestion will be the ones that remove the demand for driving. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers there. It seems like that requires a massive cultural paradigm shift, especially among the urban planners.
All that said, maybe this competition will result in something novel that can actually be implemented.
Ok, so... what if the museum itself is a failure? Will they try to put the museum into itself? Won't that cause a "divide by zero" or some shit and destroy the universe?
Damn you, Sweden! You were supposed to be good guys!
The curator actually talked about exactly that in an interview with Tom Scott on Youtube.
This isn't actually the first time someone has done this in Canada. I remember round about 20 years or so ago someone used a similar tactic in a federal election. In that case, he used two z's. I think it was in a riding in British Columbia that time.
If one edge piece is flipped as described, the cube does, in fact, become unsolvable. It is not possible to flip a single edge piece without affecting at least one other piece on the cube.
Often, ponds are put in for storm water control. They are often used to store the water until the drainage system downstream has enough capacity to take it away. There are also some potential environmental benefits to having swampy areas (otherwise known as "wetlands"). To top it off, there are all sorts of people who think, "look! a lake! cool!". Of course, they are also great breeding grounds for mosquitos, which is a downside.
I don't know which FA you read, but I saw nothing that suggested that this calendar had anything to say about days of the week. In fact, one part of TFA specifically mentions that it does not start on the same day of the week every year which obviously means that month zero counts in the day of the week progression.
This is not a failure of bitcoin. Suppose you had a stack of companies whose purpose is to store your physical gold and prevent it from being stolen and to serve as an exchange allowing customers to trade gold for currency. Then, it turns out that some of them had inadequate security or were outright crooked and the gold they were storing went missing. This would not be a failure of gold itself. Sure, if sufficient quantities of gold were affected, it would affect the price of gold, but it does not change gold itself. This is the same situation.
The real problem here is the notion that bitcoin is a currency. It really isn't. It's a virtual commodity much like gold, with similar properties save for the fact that gold is physical and bitcoin is not. (Sure, the odds that everyone suddenly decides to pack up their toys and ignore bitcoin are much higher, mostly because there are no "real" uses to bitcoin, unlike gold which has actual uses other than being somewhat "rare" and looking pretty.) The same things that make gold less than idea as an actual currency (or a backer to a currency) apply to bitcoin. Sure, you can use either one as a place holder in a transaction if both parties agree, but you could just as easily use a common fiat currency, chickens, or grains of sand.
Exactly the same thing that happens with a debit card now. The procedures for handling a PIN with a payment card should already be in place pretty much anywhere that accepts debit cards.
Actually, ordinary loans from banks are exactly the same as loans from the Fed. When an ordinary commercial bank makes a loan, they are also effectively printing money digitally. By definition, with a reserve ratio of less than 100% and outstanding loans more than the total assets on reserve, money must have been created to make those loans. In short, "borrowing" from a commercial bank (loan, credit card, line of credit) is also not "real borrowing". Take a look at http://www.positivemoney.org/ for one explanation of why that is the case (yes, that is a UK based site, but the central bank system is the same in the UK). There are plenty of others out there.
Today it is perfectly legal to mint a $16 trillion coin, deposit it at the federal reserve, and use that to buy back all of our debt. That would cause massive amounts of inflation not seen since the days of the Weimar Republic, but it would not be bankruptcy.
That is not actually correct. Inflation is controlled by the money actually in circulation, however it came to be. Borrowing money under the "fractional reserve" system adds money to circulation for the duration of the loan. A certain amount of money needs to be in circulation to maintain liquidity and avoid deflation. Any more than that steady state, whether from borrowing or printing money, leads to inflation. Simply printing money to pay off existing debt does not increase the amount of money in circulation and, thus, has no impact on inflation. That assumes it will be used to pay off existing debt, of course, rather than making room to borrow even more.
It is a common misconception that just printing money at all leads to inflation. Printing too much leads to inflation. But so does borrowing too much.
Not quite correct, actually. Both Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee were on longer than 4 seasons. Pertwee was on for 5 seasons and Tom Baker was on for 7 seasons.
Can't say I've had the distinction of driving in Boston. But I have driven in various areas in over 20 US states and 10 Canadian provinces and territories. The traffic lights are "red yellow green" (left to right) or "red yellow green" top to bottom. For other configurations (turn arrows and such), there are nearly universally consistent variations.
Of course, what's really fun is trying to figure out the lights at 6+ way intersections.
Just pointing out that green is not the problem for me (red/green colour blind) because the green traffic lights have a markedly different lightness. Green traffic lights look white to me and red ones don't. Rather, I can't tell the red and amber lights apart because the lightness of red and amber is too close. But don't let that confuse you too much. You have noticed that the lights are always in the same order, right? Guess why.
Limited supply or not, manual typewriters are the right answer for several reasons:
1. From the submission, it seems that everything else that is not in limited supply is too expensive in either cash terms or electricity usage. 2. High technology devices are more likely to fail, and if they fail, are much more difficult (or impossible) to fix. 3. Even if the limited electricity supply goes away, a manual typewriter still works. 4. A decently constructed manual typewriter will outlast any electronic device.
Imagine a world run by librarians...all information is free and uncensored but we all have to speak in whisper voices and women have to wear their hair in buns and sensible shoes and tearing pages out of library books would punishable by a year in jail.
Women would have to wear their hair in sensible shoes? That would be interesting to see.
Sure, that works a treat. But it does require someone in reasonable proximity with such a rig and it still doesn't tell you *which* receiver happens to be operating. Certainly not practical for the sort of tracing the tin foil hat brigade is worried about.
The problem here is that there are two different words. "flame" and "inflame". "inflame" is not using the "in-" prefix. You can add "-able" to either one, with the usual meaning. That then gives "flammable" and "inflammable". You can then theoretically add "in-" meaning "not" to "flammable" which gives "inflammable". This is clearly an absurd situation since you now have two conflicting meanings which usually cannot be separated in context. (For the record, "inflame" does not have strictly the same meaning as "flame".)
In my part of the world, "inflammable" is generally thought to mean "not burnable" but there is enough confusion that it is better to avoid using the word altogether.
Those vans only find the "leakage" in local proximity. They can't, for instance, identify which house has a set if it were pointed at London from, say, Paris. And even if the *low power* GPS receiver circut is transmitting something receivable, it would only be retransmitting the signal already coming from the satellite, not the location information which never enters the radio circuitry.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about traffic congestion in large cities is that it increases the opportunity cost of driving (which is essentially proportional to the delays caused by the congestion). When the opportunity cost exceeds some threshold, people will stop driving and use alternatives like public transport, walking, etc., or just change their plans. That threshold varies across the population. So what happens if you reduce the overall congestion? The opportunity cost goes down so some number of people who would have previously not driven get on the roads and suddenly your congestion is back exactly where it was. This happens no matter how you reduce congestion unless you somehow manage to adjust things so total demand is less than the capacity of the system.
In a small enough system, simply expanding capacity (adding lanes, more efficient intersections, etc.) can have a substantial impact. Also, if a single bottleneck is causing problems for a large portion of the network, improving the bottleneck can have a significant impact. Some of those technological measures may work for identifying cases where that will help. Unfortunately, there are only two ways to reduce congestion: increase capacity or reduce demand. Increasing capacity has diminishing returns and is not possible in many situations due to conflicting traffic movements or simple lack of space to make any expansions. (Everything from smart road networks to self-organizing traffic are all measures to increase capacity.)
Ultimately, the only long term solution to congestion is to reduce demand. Ironically, the congestion itself is a force in that direction, but, unfortunately, it negatively impacts activities that must use the road network (transit buses, goods transport, etc.). The measures that will have the most impact on congestion will be the ones that remove the demand for driving. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers there. It seems like that requires a massive cultural paradigm shift, especially among the urban planners.
All that said, maybe this competition will result in something novel that can actually be implemented.
Ok, so... what if the museum itself is a failure? Will they try to put the museum into itself? Won't that cause a "divide by zero" or some shit and destroy the universe?
Damn you, Sweden! You were supposed to be good guys!
The curator actually talked about exactly that in an interview with Tom Scott on Youtube.
$diety? That sounds like someone or something that's always going on diets or something like that.
This isn't actually the first time someone has done this in Canada. I remember round about 20 years or so ago someone used a similar tactic in a federal election. In that case, he used two z's. I think it was in a riding in British Columbia that time.
CIRA de-certified Brandon Gray years ago, actually.
If one edge piece is flipped as described, the cube does, in fact, become unsolvable. It is not possible to flip a single edge piece without affecting at least one other piece on the cube.
Often, ponds are put in for storm water control. They are often used to store the water until the drainage system downstream has enough capacity to take it away. There are also some potential environmental benefits to having swampy areas (otherwise known as "wetlands"). To top it off, there are all sorts of people who think, "look! a lake! cool!". Of course, they are also great breeding grounds for mosquitos, which is a downside.
In North America, the cashier almost always stands.
I don't know which FA you read, but I saw nothing that suggested that this calendar had anything to say about days of the week. In fact, one part of TFA specifically mentions that it does not start on the same day of the week every year which obviously means that month zero counts in the day of the week progression.
This is not a failure of bitcoin. Suppose you had a stack of companies whose purpose is to store your physical gold and prevent it from being stolen and to serve as an exchange allowing customers to trade gold for currency. Then, it turns out that some of them had inadequate security or were outright crooked and the gold they were storing went missing. This would not be a failure of gold itself. Sure, if sufficient quantities of gold were affected, it would affect the price of gold, but it does not change gold itself. This is the same situation.
The real problem here is the notion that bitcoin is a currency. It really isn't. It's a virtual commodity much like gold, with similar properties save for the fact that gold is physical and bitcoin is not. (Sure, the odds that everyone suddenly decides to pack up their toys and ignore bitcoin are much higher, mostly because there are no "real" uses to bitcoin, unlike gold which has actual uses other than being somewhat "rare" and looking pretty.) The same things that make gold less than idea as an actual currency (or a backer to a currency) apply to bitcoin. Sure, you can use either one as a place holder in a transaction if both parties agree, but you could just as easily use a common fiat currency, chickens, or grains of sand.
Exactly the same thing that happens with a debit card now. The procedures for handling a PIN with a payment card should already be in place pretty much anywhere that accepts debit cards.
Actually, ordinary loans from banks are exactly the same as loans from the Fed. When an ordinary commercial bank makes a loan, they are also effectively printing money digitally. By definition, with a reserve ratio of less than 100% and outstanding loans more than the total assets on reserve, money must have been created to make those loans. In short, "borrowing" from a commercial bank (loan, credit card, line of credit) is also not "real borrowing". Take a look at http://www.positivemoney.org/ for one explanation of why that is the case (yes, that is a UK based site, but the central bank system is the same in the UK). There are plenty of others out there.
Today it is perfectly legal to mint a $16 trillion coin, deposit it at the federal reserve, and use that to buy back all of our debt. That would cause massive amounts of inflation not seen since the days of the Weimar Republic, but it would not be bankruptcy.
That is not actually correct. Inflation is controlled by the money actually in circulation, however it came to be. Borrowing money under the "fractional reserve" system adds money to circulation for the duration of the loan. A certain amount of money needs to be in circulation to maintain liquidity and avoid deflation. Any more than that steady state, whether from borrowing or printing money, leads to inflation. Simply printing money to pay off existing debt does not increase the amount of money in circulation and, thus, has no impact on inflation. That assumes it will be used to pay off existing debt, of course, rather than making room to borrow even more.
It is a common misconception that just printing money at all leads to inflation. Printing too much leads to inflation. But so does borrowing too much.
Not quite correct, actually. Both Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee were on longer than 4 seasons. Pertwee was on for 5 seasons and Tom Baker was on for 7 seasons.
Maybe we can have that Spaceballs sequel, too?
Oh, wait. That's essentially what this is.
Of course, there's an outside chance it won't suck horribly.
Just to point out that 3^3 is *not* a factor of A, B, or C in this case since A, B, and C are the bases (3, 6, and 3 in this case).
Can't say I've had the distinction of driving in Boston. But I have driven in various areas in over 20 US states and 10 Canadian provinces and territories. The traffic lights are "red yellow green" (left to right) or "red yellow green" top to bottom. For other configurations (turn arrows and such), there are nearly universally consistent variations.
Of course, what's really fun is trying to figure out the lights at 6+ way intersections.
Just pointing out that green is not the problem for me (red/green colour blind) because the green traffic lights have a markedly different lightness. Green traffic lights look white to me and red ones don't. Rather, I can't tell the red and amber lights apart because the lightness of red and amber is too close. But don't let that confuse you too much. You have noticed that the lights are always in the same order, right? Guess why.
Limited supply or not, manual typewriters are the right answer for several reasons:
1. From the submission, it seems that everything else that is not in limited supply is too expensive in either cash terms or electricity usage.
2. High technology devices are more likely to fail, and if they fail, are much more difficult (or impossible) to fix.
3. Even if the limited electricity supply goes away, a manual typewriter still works.
4. A decently constructed manual typewriter will outlast any electronic device.
Imagine a world run by librarians...all information is free and uncensored but we all have to speak in whisper voices and women have to wear their hair in buns and sensible shoes and tearing pages out of library books would punishable by a year in jail.
Women would have to wear their hair in sensible shoes? That would be interesting to see.
Full names are not necessarily unique either.
Sure, that works a treat. But it does require someone in reasonable proximity with such a rig and it still doesn't tell you *which* receiver happens to be operating. Certainly not practical for the sort of tracing the tin foil hat brigade is worried about.
The problem here is that there are two different words. "flame" and "inflame". "inflame" is not using the "in-" prefix. You can add "-able" to either one, with the usual meaning. That then gives "flammable" and "inflammable". You can then theoretically add "in-" meaning "not" to "flammable" which gives "inflammable". This is clearly an absurd situation since you now have two conflicting meanings which usually cannot be separated in context. (For the record, "inflame" does not have strictly the same meaning as "flame".)
In my part of the world, "inflammable" is generally thought to mean "not burnable" but there is enough confusion that it is better to avoid using the word altogether.
Those vans only find the "leakage" in local proximity. They can't, for instance, identify which house has a set if it were pointed at London from, say, Paris. And even if the *low power* GPS receiver circut is transmitting something receivable, it would only be retransmitting the signal already coming from the satellite, not the location information which never enters the radio circuitry.
Not only would you see a reduction in trials but you would have an immensely popular sporting event....