If you can create a long haul tractor trailer, that can drive with little/no human intervention, major shipping companies would likely shovel cash in your direction. A quick Google search suggests that the average semi is driven about 45,000 miles per year. If the driver is earning $0.40 per mile, that's a savings of $18,000 per year per truck. FedEx has 20,000 semi trucks in its fleet, Walmart has 6,000. As an aside, I read that the US had a shortage of 50,000 drivers in 2017.
The market might be smaller than passenger vehicles, but the impacts on labor costs are significant. The savings to your average home/consumer are the loss of time while driving, this really doesn't hit your wallet. It's not like you are loosing money by driving the car yourself. For shipping companies the driver is an added expense that needs managers to schedule drivers, and people in HR to manage benefits.
All other things being equal, the plane's computer can realize and react to problems more quickly than a human. We have made planes safer by automating much of the cockpit, and the statistics seem to bare that out. I am not sure putting a human in control more frequently is the answer. You will be adding the very risk that you are trying mitigate. Additionally, will piloting a 2-hour flight once a week really sharpen their skills? I would think the better solution would be to have more time in the simulator focusing on these edge cases, but that probably has diminishing returns, since you cannot hope learn to adapt to every possible condition.
I think we are at a point where we need to accept that flying is as safe as it can ever be. That is not to say that we can't learn from incidents like this, and make improvements, but those improvements will be small, moving the needle very little. The reason I say this is that every time you change the system, you likely add some new unknown risk. You are a fool if you ever think you can achieve perfection.
I genuinely hope that we will get a detailed account of what happened. Something this big was likely more than an intern checking in a bad config file. While embarrassing for those involved, there is likely a good lesson to be learned. It would go a long way in improving my opinion of the company if they shared those lessons.
Your question is interesting. Even if you were not making money on the deal, can I sell shares of my account, and create some time share mechanism to share 4 streaming seats with 50 people? Clearly Netflix doesn't seem to care (yet) that you let your kids use your account, or you left it logged in at your friend's house. This is similar to sharing your internet connection, sure you pay for the subscription, and a few extra people doing it doesn't really hurt, but then people are shocked when the company gets upset because the practice has gotten out of hand, and you are putting undue pressure on the local infrastructure. Big corporations shouldn't be dicks, and prosecute someone for a minor infraction of the rules. Give them a warning and tell them to please stop. But this door swings both ways , consumers also need to own up and admit that what is happening isn't right, and pay the asking price, or stop using the service.
This make a lot of sense. With a drone I can get a direct flight to any hospital in the country. No need to book or charter the flight, and no need to use an airport.
I am not sure it is that simple. In your example, the company was employing two people to answer calls to respond to their typical daily volume of calls. You can't just make the blanket statement that staggering shifts will solve the problem. It gets worse as you scale up. If a large company has 100 people answering calls from 9-5, you can't just reduce that to 80 people in the first two and last two hours and not expect that to impact the amount of time customers spend waiting in the queue.
Most service industry businesses require some number of employees to be on staff at a specific time to handle their customer volume. Yes, restaurants keep cooks and waiters on call to handle sickness and holidays. But, if you reduce their hours from 8 to 6 per shift the restaurant still needs to employ someone during business hours. So that cook who was making $100 per shift is now making $70 with that $30 being paid to someone else. You can't make a cook more productive. It takes some number of minutes to cook the food, put it on a plate, and make it ready to go out to the table. Perhaps you can gain efficiency through automation, but even there the returns are diminishing. There will come a point where there is one person running the show, and removing them halts your operation.
This was a question that struck me too. Surly Verizon can configure the account to never be throttled. You would think that the Fire Service wouldn't want to have to call someone during a crisis to increase their data plan. So while it does look like Verizon screwed up by failing to remove the cap upon request, the Fire Service shares some blame by allowing the cap to be there in the first place. Lessons learned all around.
I don't know that this is strictly a R vs. D problem, as both side are guilty of abusing the courts in this manner. That said your sentiment is correct. Rules issued by executive order, and other similar vehicles can be quickly reversed when the administration changes. This is good in that the executive branch can respond quickly to changing trends, and to some extend the will of the people (or the will of the folks who voted for you). A more permanent change is through legislation, to check the executive branch power, and create a more durable rule/law.
It would be funny to have the local municipality come in and take the property though eminent domain using Apple's valuation. I am sure the county or state could use the extra office space.
$176k is probably 3/4 of an FTE, and considering the City's police budget is about $500m, there probably isn't much room for any kind of wholesale replacement. I have worked with Lotus Notes in the past. It has a lot of faults, but it I recall that the servers were quite robust, and just kept working. In a cash-strapped city budget, it is hard to justify paying for replacement when the current system works, albeit sounds like there is a lot of room for improvement.
How is it against the law to change the price or offerings of your subscription service? For all the company's faults, they seem to be doing this aboveboard. If you feel that it is no longer a good value, then just cancel the subscription.
There are several problems here. First they disabled the braking for an experimental system without at least some audible warning system. Second, they had a human in the car to monitor the system who would have likely caught the problem had she been paying attention, so their policies, procedures, and quality control are lacking. Finally, the auto braking was disabled because of too many false positives. This tells me that the system wasn't nearly ready for road testing, certainly without more oversight of the vehicle and its operator.
You are correct. Your rights are established by law. Some of those rights are incorporated into the constitution, a document that can be altered. Other rights and responsibilities are established through the legislative process. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret and de-conflict the laws made by the legislature. The do protect your rights, but only as they are recorded in law. There is some room for degree of interpretation, but they could not take up a case, and rule that you are entitled to a free ice cream cone from the nearest shop on the 1st of every month (maybe I need to write my Congressman about this).
In some areas schools have a large number of modular classrooms that require an exterior door be left open so students can pass between the indoor and outdoor areas. The doors are monitored remotely via camera.
There are benefits to either venture (Mars v. Moon), but I think the Moon is far more accessible. Communication with colonists far easier, as is rescue in the event of a serious problem. A tourist could make the moon in a reasonable vacation length of time (funding a Lunar economy). I can see in about 25 years, the costs coming down to the point where an average person could take a 2 week trip-of-a-lifetime vacation. I don't think that would ever be possible with Mars. There is lots of He-3 which some say could be valuable here on Earth, further expanding the economy. It allows you time to build the infrastructure in LEO to facilitate the transfer of people/material, that would later support colonial ventures farther out to Mars. In both cases you are going to be dependent on a lot of resources brought from Earth for at least 25 to maybe 50 years. Why make that first permanent venture so far away? The first colonists to the America's stayed very close to the coast for a reason. In many cases the land first settled wasn't ideal, but was good enough to get a foot hold. I see that as a very good analogy.
This is my though. It would be interesting to see the time spent broken out by year of birth. I wonder if the habits of others follow mine. The TV might be on in the background while preparing dinner, or generally doing other tasks, but when I sit down to actually "watch", I am rarely on one of the big networks, or even the extended cable channels any more.
I suspect that the Billboard stats are skewed. There are more options for artists to remain independent. Correct me if I am wrong, but releasing a song on YouTube doesn't get counted by Billboard.
Not to mention that many laws are created to modify or repeal other sections of the law. The government might want to amend the list of circumstances for blindfolded driving. It can be recursive in nature.
For good or bad, laws are complex, and need to be evaluated holistically, rather than on a per item basis. It might be more helpful to think of laws like the genome for an organism. One gene alone doesn't work, its the interaction between them, turning on and off in sequence that creates life. Speeding is illegal, but what if I am trying to rescue a basket full of kittens? Instead of trying to codify everything, we let lawyers, judges and juries sort out the circumstances, and deconflict the letter of the law.
I am not sure I see this as a case of censorship. It is a lame joke, on a subject that people have very strong feelings about. I think this is more a case of turning off your internal monologue.
I wonder how truck companies deal with this today. If I put a Mack and a Peterson truck side-by-side, I would imagine that very few people could tell the difference without looking at the name badge. I don't recall hearing about Nicola before today. Sounds like they are jealous of Tesla, and figure any publicity is good publicity.
Are these design patents? The Blue Jeans Cable case comes to mind here. I suppose they look similar, but how many ways are there to style a semi-truck?
This is a two part problem, and if they are at all worried about the effort to OCR the documents, then they have the cart before the horse, IMHO. This isn't your average library. You cannot use a high speed book scanner on ancient books. Each will need to be brought out, and each page carefully turned by gloved hands. I am not sure it is much of an exaggeration to say that you could probably hire a few typists to transcribe the text faster than they can do the actual imaging. Once it is digitized, a much larger group of scholars can be included on the difficult task of making it computer readable.
Funding schools in the US varies greatly and is quite complex (lots of exceptions). Most of the funding comes from the local municipality, usually property taxes. The state government also contributes a significant portion of funding, and that is often weighted based on the needs of the district. I live in a fairly wealthy area, and my district receives far less State funds that other areas. Funding is also provided to the state by the Federal government, again often based on need, which is then passed on to individual districts. I think you will find that like your country, it is the same here, where poorer areas receive a larger share of public money. I have found that many poorer districts spend more per student than richer ones.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can create a long haul tractor trailer, that can drive with little/no human intervention, major shipping companies would likely shovel cash in your direction. A quick Google search suggests that the average semi is driven about 45,000 miles per year. If the driver is earning $0.40 per mile, that's a savings of $18,000 per year per truck. FedEx has 20,000 semi trucks in its fleet, Walmart has 6,000. As an aside, I read that the US had a shortage of 50,000 drivers in 2017.
The market might be smaller than passenger vehicles, but the impacts on labor costs are significant. The savings to your average home/consumer are the loss of time while driving, this really doesn't hit your wallet. It's not like you are loosing money by driving the car yourself. For shipping companies the driver is an added expense that needs managers to schedule drivers, and people in HR to manage benefits.
All other things being equal, the plane's computer can realize and react to problems more quickly than a human. We have made planes safer by automating much of the cockpit, and the statistics seem to bare that out. I am not sure putting a human in control more frequently is the answer. You will be adding the very risk that you are trying mitigate. Additionally, will piloting a 2-hour flight once a week really sharpen their skills? I would think the better solution would be to have more time in the simulator focusing on these edge cases, but that probably has diminishing returns, since you cannot hope learn to adapt to every possible condition.
I think we are at a point where we need to accept that flying is as safe as it can ever be. That is not to say that we can't learn from incidents like this, and make improvements, but those improvements will be small, moving the needle very little. The reason I say this is that every time you change the system, you likely add some new unknown risk. You are a fool if you ever think you can achieve perfection.
I genuinely hope that we will get a detailed account of what happened. Something this big was likely more than an intern checking in a bad config file. While embarrassing for those involved, there is likely a good lesson to be learned. It would go a long way in improving my opinion of the company if they shared those lessons.
Your question is interesting. Even if you were not making money on the deal, can I sell shares of my account, and create some time share mechanism to share 4 streaming seats with 50 people? Clearly Netflix doesn't seem to care (yet) that you let your kids use your account, or you left it logged in at your friend's house. This is similar to sharing your internet connection, sure you pay for the subscription, and a few extra people doing it doesn't really hurt, but then people are shocked when the company gets upset because the practice has gotten out of hand, and you are putting undue pressure on the local infrastructure. Big corporations shouldn't be dicks, and prosecute someone for a minor infraction of the rules. Give them a warning and tell them to please stop. But this door swings both ways , consumers also need to own up and admit that what is happening isn't right, and pay the asking price, or stop using the service.
This make a lot of sense. With a drone I can get a direct flight to any hospital in the country. No need to book or charter the flight, and no need to use an airport.
I am not sure it is that simple. In your example, the company was employing two people to answer calls to respond to their typical daily volume of calls. You can't just make the blanket statement that staggering shifts will solve the problem. It gets worse as you scale up. If a large company has 100 people answering calls from 9-5, you can't just reduce that to 80 people in the first two and last two hours and not expect that to impact the amount of time customers spend waiting in the queue.
Most service industry businesses require some number of employees to be on staff at a specific time to handle their customer volume. Yes, restaurants keep cooks and waiters on call to handle sickness and holidays. But, if you reduce their hours from 8 to 6 per shift the restaurant still needs to employ someone during business hours. So that cook who was making $100 per shift is now making $70 with that $30 being paid to someone else. You can't make a cook more productive. It takes some number of minutes to cook the food, put it on a plate, and make it ready to go out to the table. Perhaps you can gain efficiency through automation, but even there the returns are diminishing. There will come a point where there is one person running the show, and removing them halts your operation.
This was a question that struck me too. Surly Verizon can configure the account to never be throttled. You would think that the Fire Service wouldn't want to have to call someone during a crisis to increase their data plan. So while it does look like Verizon screwed up by failing to remove the cap upon request, the Fire Service shares some blame by allowing the cap to be there in the first place. Lessons learned all around.
I don't know that this is strictly a R vs. D problem, as both side are guilty of abusing the courts in this manner. That said your sentiment is correct. Rules issued by executive order, and other similar vehicles can be quickly reversed when the administration changes. This is good in that the executive branch can respond quickly to changing trends, and to some extend the will of the people (or the will of the folks who voted for you). A more permanent change is through legislation, to check the executive branch power, and create a more durable rule/law.
It would be funny to have the local municipality come in and take the property though eminent domain using Apple's valuation. I am sure the county or state could use the extra office space.
$176k is probably 3/4 of an FTE, and considering the City's police budget is about $500m, there probably isn't much room for any kind of wholesale replacement. I have worked with Lotus Notes in the past. It has a lot of faults, but it I recall that the servers were quite robust, and just kept working. In a cash-strapped city budget, it is hard to justify paying for replacement when the current system works, albeit sounds like there is a lot of room for improvement.
How is it against the law to change the price or offerings of your subscription service? For all the company's faults, they seem to be doing this aboveboard. If you feel that it is no longer a good value, then just cancel the subscription.
There are several problems here. First they disabled the braking for an experimental system without at least some audible warning system. Second, they had a human in the car to monitor the system who would have likely caught the problem had she been paying attention, so their policies, procedures, and quality control are lacking. Finally, the auto braking was disabled because of too many false positives. This tells me that the system wasn't nearly ready for road testing, certainly without more oversight of the vehicle and its operator.
You are correct. Your rights are established by law. Some of those rights are incorporated into the constitution, a document that can be altered. Other rights and responsibilities are established through the legislative process. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret and de-conflict the laws made by the legislature. The do protect your rights, but only as they are recorded in law. There is some room for degree of interpretation, but they could not take up a case, and rule that you are entitled to a free ice cream cone from the nearest shop on the 1st of every month (maybe I need to write my Congressman about this).
In some areas schools have a large number of modular classrooms that require an exterior door be left open so students can pass between the indoor and outdoor areas. The doors are monitored remotely via camera.
There are benefits to either venture (Mars v. Moon), but I think the Moon is far more accessible. Communication with colonists far easier, as is rescue in the event of a serious problem. A tourist could make the moon in a reasonable vacation length of time (funding a Lunar economy). I can see in about 25 years, the costs coming down to the point where an average person could take a 2 week trip-of-a-lifetime vacation. I don't think that would ever be possible with Mars. There is lots of He-3 which some say could be valuable here on Earth, further expanding the economy. It allows you time to build the infrastructure in LEO to facilitate the transfer of people/material, that would later support colonial ventures farther out to Mars. In both cases you are going to be dependent on a lot of resources brought from Earth for at least 25 to maybe 50 years. Why make that first permanent venture so far away? The first colonists to the America's stayed very close to the coast for a reason. In many cases the land first settled wasn't ideal, but was good enough to get a foot hold. I see that as a very good analogy.
This is my though. It would be interesting to see the time spent broken out by year of birth. I wonder if the habits of others follow mine. The TV might be on in the background while preparing dinner, or generally doing other tasks, but when I sit down to actually "watch", I am rarely on one of the big networks, or even the extended cable channels any more.
I suspect that the Billboard stats are skewed. There are more options for artists to remain independent. Correct me if I am wrong, but releasing a song on YouTube doesn't get counted by Billboard.
And yet still no examples of felonies that an average person might commit on a daily basis.
Not to mention that many laws are created to modify or repeal other sections of the law. The government might want to amend the list of circumstances for blindfolded driving. It can be recursive in nature.
For good or bad, laws are complex, and need to be evaluated holistically, rather than on a per item basis. It might be more helpful to think of laws like the genome for an organism. One gene alone doesn't work, its the interaction between them, turning on and off in sequence that creates life. Speeding is illegal, but what if I am trying to rescue a basket full of kittens? Instead of trying to codify everything, we let lawyers, judges and juries sort out the circumstances, and deconflict the letter of the law.
I am not sure I see this as a case of censorship. It is a lame joke, on a subject that people have very strong feelings about. I think this is more a case of turning off your internal monologue.
I wonder how truck companies deal with this today. If I put a Mack and a Peterson truck side-by-side, I would imagine that very few people could tell the difference without looking at the name badge. I don't recall hearing about Nicola before today. Sounds like they are jealous of Tesla, and figure any publicity is good publicity.
Are these design patents? The Blue Jeans Cable case comes to mind here. I suppose they look similar, but how many ways are there to style a semi-truck?
This is a two part problem, and if they are at all worried about the effort to OCR the documents, then they have the cart before the horse, IMHO. This isn't your average library. You cannot use a high speed book scanner on ancient books. Each will need to be brought out, and each page carefully turned by gloved hands. I am not sure it is much of an exaggeration to say that you could probably hire a few typists to transcribe the text faster than they can do the actual imaging. Once it is digitized, a much larger group of scholars can be included on the difficult task of making it computer readable.
Funding schools in the US varies greatly and is quite complex (lots of exceptions). Most of the funding comes from the local municipality, usually property taxes. The state government also contributes a significant portion of funding, and that is often weighted based on the needs of the district. I live in a fairly wealthy area, and my district receives far less State funds that other areas. Funding is also provided to the state by the Federal government, again often based on need, which is then passed on to individual districts. I think you will find that like your country, it is the same here, where poorer areas receive a larger share of public money. I have found that many poorer districts spend more per student than richer ones.
Mrs. Butterworth? The Jolly Green Giant? My world is coming to an end!