If these cars are smart enough to drive themselves on the highway, why can't they drive themselves away from the charger when they are full, and park themselves? Even better, drop you at the shopping center, go get charged up, then park until you are done shopping and summon them.
When I discovered that my girlfriend liked Star Trek, I bought a small color TV so I could entice her to come to my apartment to watch the original series. We both cheered when NBC announced that there would be a third season.
We were married in 1968 and had two children. We raised them in a very technology-friendly household. They played with my Apple II when I was at work. Today they both have Computer Science degrees and good jobs in the industry.
When my son got married I ended the customary father-of-the-groom speech with “live long and prosper” and the hand gesture. My son, his new wife, and all of their friends, understood me.
So, yes, you can say that Star Trek changed my life.
We (mostly) use password managers;-) I only know one password and it's to decrypt my local password datastore. When that gets corrupted I'll be resetting passwords for weeks. All of my passwords resemble 2r9aIx'DbFbKRU;v4u!LgRn so there's no way I'm remembering or typing any of them in.
Those of us older than 69 also use password managers.
...The problem is that we perceive distance by two mechanisms - focus and convergence. Everybody has fixed convergence - nobody has fixed the focusing issue....
There is a fix for the focusing issue, but it is quite expensive: Holography. You feed each eye with the same light waves that they would have received if they had been looking at the objects being depicted--two virtual images. I suspect this technology is too expensive for today's market, but it is the only good solution to the problem.
...Humans evolved to live here, on Planet Earth. Not on our own star, or on any other star, and humanity's future is right here where we have an entire planet we were built for... not on a foreign star.
I disagree. No matter how inhospitable, we will go there, and try to live there. My opinion is based on history. People migrated out of Africa, where they had evolved, into Eurpoe and Asia, which had relatively inhospitable climates. More recently, people have chosen to live at the South Pole, which is almost as desolate as the Moon.
I heard something similar from Professor John McCarthy in the 1960s: "I don't care how fast it runs if it gets the wrong answer." The context was a speed programming contest.
What we are seeing is not a galaxy that is 13.2 billion years old. Rather, we are seeing a galaxy as it existed 13.2 billion years ago. It is actually quite young, for a galaxy.
For those that have worked in the public sector this is often the norm....
I also saw this when I worked for a town. Because everyone's salary was a line item on the budget, and the townspeople voted for the budget, all the salaries were public information.
The oldest computer I programmed was a Bendix G-15, a computer that used a drum for memory and vacuum tubes for logic. I stumbled on it at Cal Poly, a college in California. They said they had traded a jet engine for it.
The documentation for the computer ended with a letter from Bendix saying that Control Data had taken over responsibility for the computer line, and it was henceforth to be known as the CDC Bendix G-15. When I returned to the main part of the campus I told some students that the engineering lab up the hill had a Control Data computer..They were very impressed—they were making do with an IBM 360, whereas Control Data Coropration was well known for their fast comptuers.
My name isn't very common, but there is a retired medical professional in California who shares it. I occasionally get e-mail on my gmail account directed at him: I have watched him retire, visit resorts and get his fancy car serviced. I once printed out some correspondence directed at him and sent it to his home address using the US Postal Service, but nothing changed. Sometimes I reply to the e-mail explaining that I am a computer programmer in New Hampshire, not a medical professional in California, and once I got a very polite response thanking me for pointing out the problem. Usually, though, I get no response.
Wake me up when they test winter driving in upper New Hampshire.
Even summer driving in certain parts of New Hampshire can be a challenge. I would love to see two driverless cars pass each other on certain parts of the Mount Washington auto road.
International law firm ReedSmith weighs in on this point as well: '[O]nce the Department begins to audit and assess customers located within the city, many of those customers are likely to demand that providers collect the tax going forward. As a result, many providers will likely feel the need to register to collect the taxes, despite lacking nexus, and despite having strong arguments against the Department’s expansive interpretation of its taxing ordinances.'"
International law firm ReedSmith does not appear to have had experience with New Hampshire. When Massachusetts leans on providers who operate in both states to collect Massachusetts sales tax when a Massachusetts resident buys something in New Hampshire, the New Hampshire legislature leans back, making such reporting by the New Hampshire branches illegal.
Some years ago Massachusetts stationed an observer near the parking lot of a New Hampshire liquor store. He would write down the Massachusetts license plates of cars in the lot and relay them to a state trooper just across the state border. When the cars reported would cross the border they would be stopped on a pretext, and fined for having untaxed liquor in the car. New Hampshire stopped this practice by busting the parking lot observer for running a numbers racket.
I predict this case will be similar. The providers will resist collecting the Chicago tax, and if Chicago leans on them, other jurisdictions will lean back.
I live in a modest home in suburban New Hampshire. I've lived here over 40 years, so my mortgage is paid off. Government in New Hampshire is mostly paid for by property taxes, so I probably pay more than homeowners do in places where government has other sources of revenue. My home is worth about $350,000 and I pay a little over $8,000 per year in property taxes. In addition, maintenance, including replacing furniture, averages about $8,000 per year, and fire insurance another $1,800. The furniture replacement cost is highly variable: the average over the last few years has been about $3,500 per year but in 2013 it was less than $1000. You get that kind of fluctuation when you have an old house.
"Suburban" in New Hampshire means you have paved roads which are plowed by the town in the winter but you are not within walking distance of stores and restaurants. "Urban" means you don't need a car for shopping, and "rural" means you plow your own unpaved roads.
When costs scale with the number of people and revenue doesn't, it's inevitable that zoning will end up discouraging new residential construction, particularly high density residential contruction.
This is captured by the aphorism "Trees don't send their children to school".
I definitely agree that the ability to make commentary anonymously is, and should be protected. I do not agree that intentionally dishonest commentary should be protected, whether it is anonymous or not.
The problem, from the point of view of the accuser, is that he does not trust the court system to judge his intentions. Even though he is honest, he fears that the powerful person he has accused will hire a skilled lawyer like Paul Bergen to persuade the court that he is lying.
Even though I tell the truth, I am still subject to extra-judicial retaliation if someone powerful is hurt by the truth.
Not via libel laws, you're not. And that's what this discussion is about. In the U.S., truth is often described as an "absolute defense" against libel.
Perhaps I misapprehended the subject of the discussion. I was discussing the value of anonymity when issuing accusations.
In any case, even if malice were certain, I do not think it is a good idea to unmask anonymous speakers, even if a court decides that the plantiff would likely prevail in a defamation suit. I feel that the privilege of anonymous criticism of the powerful is precious to our freedom, and I would rather let 1000 liars go unpunished than chill the speech of one Deep Throat.
But this is what I have already said several times: anonymous criticism IS perfectly legal. It's anonymous LIBEL that is not. Criticize all you want, as long as you are telling the truth. But you don't get to legally call somebody a murderer, or a pedophile, or even a thief if you know it isn't true. You keep failing to make the distinction between real criticism and lies.
Even though I tell the truth, I am still subject to extra-judicial retaliation if someone powerful is hurt by the truth.
But again, why should you be able to tell lies about people anonymously? What is the reason?
You should be able to tell the truth anonymously, all you like, with no repercussions. And guess what? Legally, you are. But you still haven't explained to me why you should be able to lie.
Why should there be a different standard for anonymous speech than there is for any other speech? Why should you be given a pass for dishonestly damaging someone's reputation? What possible societal benefit is there to that? I don't see one.
If you tell lies about other people publicly, no matter how much you may dislike them, you should fear retaliation. You have injured that person. And that injury can sometimes be very severe.
But again, as long as you stick to the truth, you are covered. The truth is a defense against libel.
It is all too easy for powerful people to persuade the courts and the public that their detractors are evil, and should be outed (if anonymous) and punished. That is the fear that causes accusers to try to remain anonymous. Even if an accusation can be proven true, that will not defend you against extra-legal retaliation from the powerful person, unless the truth is so damning that he loses his power.
It is not the ability to lie that I am defending; that is just a consequence of defending the ability to speak the truth without fear of retaliation from those who are hurt by the truth.
See? The law isn't as bad as you seemed to think it is. People don't get to break another's anonymity in court for no reason. They first have to show that they would likely prevail in their defamation suit first.
That's the law's way of ensuring that anonymous speech is legitimate, but only to the same legal extent that any other speech is legitimate.
I think your circular argument gives the court too much credit. You assume that there must have been a showing of malice because that is required to prevail against a public figure, and decide that because the court granted the action, there must have been a showing of malice.
Perhaps I am reading the document incorrectly, but it seems to me that the court granted the unmasking action based on the speech having been a factual accusation that Bill Hadley had broken the law. I don't see the question of malice being addressed explicitly in the document, though since it references section 2-615 malice might be covered there.
In any case, even if malice were certain, I do not think it is a good idea to unmask anonymous speakers, even if a court decides that the plantiff would likely prevail in a defamation suit. I feel that the privilege of anonymous criticism of the powerful is precious to our freedom, and I would rather let 1000 liars go unpunished than chill the speech of one Deep Throat.
Slashdot Mirror
If these cars are smart enough to drive themselves on the highway, why can't they drive themselves away from the charger when they are full, and park themselves? Even better, drop you at the shopping center, go get charged up, then park until you are done shopping and summon them.
Richard Stallman has been advocating this for some time. Here is an example in a Wired article from 2012.
When I discovered that my girlfriend liked Star Trek, I bought a small color TV so I could entice her to come to my apartment to watch the original series. We both cheered when NBC announced that there would be a third season.
We were married in 1968 and had two children. We raised them in a very technology-friendly household. They played with my Apple II when I was at work. Today they both have Computer Science degrees and good jobs in the industry.
When my son got married I ended the customary father-of-the-groom speech with “live long and prosper” and the hand gesture. My son, his new wife, and all of their friends, understood me.
So, yes, you can say that Star Trek changed my life.
What happened to 35-50?
We (mostly) use password managers ;-) I only know one password and it's to decrypt my local password datastore. When that gets corrupted I'll be resetting passwords for weeks. All of my passwords resemble 2r9aIx'DbFbKRU;v4u!LgRn so there's no way I'm remembering or typing any of them in.
Those of us older than 69 also use password managers.
The DEC manual for the DR11-W is here.
The DR11-W was not a printer interface, but a computer-to-computer interface for the PDP-11. Details are here.
...The problem is that we perceive distance by two mechanisms - focus and convergence. Everybody has fixed convergence - nobody has fixed the focusing issue....
There is a fix for the focusing issue, but it is quite expensive: Holography. You feed each eye with the same light waves that they would have received if they had been looking at the objects being depicted--two virtual images. I suspect this technology is too expensive for today's market, but it is the only good solution to the problem.
...Humans evolved to live here, on Planet Earth. Not on our own star, or on any other star, and humanity's future is right here where we have an entire planet we were built for... not on a foreign star.
I disagree. No matter how inhospitable, we will go there, and try to live there. My opinion is based on history. People migrated out of Africa, where they had evolved, into Eurpoe and Asia, which had relatively inhospitable climates. More recently, people have chosen to live at the South Pole, which is almost as desolate as the Moon.
But if I don't have to get the right answer, I can code it instantly.
I heard something similar from Professor John McCarthy in the 1960s: "I don't care how fast it runs if it gets the wrong answer." The context was a speed programming contest.
...The best thing a good manager does is remove restraints and barriers, and filter bullshit. And let the team gel and get their shit done.
Absolutely right!
Please provide more information about your Agile Procreation techniques.
What we are seeing is not a galaxy that is 13.2 billion years old. Rather, we are seeing a galaxy as it existed 13.2 billion years ago. It is actually quite young, for a galaxy.
For those that have worked in the public sector this is often the norm....
I also saw this when I worked for a town. Because everyone's salary was a line item on the budget, and the townspeople voted for the budget, all the salaries were public information.
The oldest computer I programmed was a Bendix G-15, a computer that used a drum for memory and vacuum tubes for logic. I stumbled on it at Cal Poly, a college in California. They said they had traded a jet engine for it.
The documentation for the computer ended with a letter from Bendix saying that Control Data had taken over responsibility for the computer line, and it was henceforth to be known as the CDC Bendix G-15. When I returned to the main part of the campus I told some students that the engineering lab up the hill had a Control Data computer..They were very impressed—they were making do with an IBM 360, whereas Control Data Coropration was well known for their fast comptuers.
My name isn't very common, but there is a retired medical professional in California who shares it. I occasionally get e-mail on my gmail account directed at him: I have watched him retire, visit resorts and get his fancy car serviced. I once printed out some correspondence directed at him and sent it to his home address using the US Postal Service, but nothing changed. Sometimes I reply to the e-mail explaining that I am a computer programmer in New Hampshire, not a medical professional in California, and once I got a very polite response thanking me for pointing out the problem. Usually, though, I get no response.
Wake me up when they test winter driving in upper New Hampshire.
Even summer driving in certain parts of New Hampshire can be a challenge. I would love to see two driverless cars pass each other on certain parts of the Mount Washington auto road.
International law firm ReedSmith weighs in on this point as well: '[O]nce the Department begins to audit and assess customers located within the city, many of those customers are likely to demand that providers collect the tax going forward. As a result, many providers will likely feel the need to register to collect the taxes, despite lacking nexus, and despite having strong arguments against the Department’s expansive interpretation of its taxing ordinances.'"
International law firm ReedSmith does not appear to have had experience with New Hampshire. When Massachusetts leans on providers who operate in both states to collect Massachusetts sales tax when a Massachusetts resident buys something in New Hampshire, the New Hampshire legislature leans back, making such reporting by the New Hampshire branches illegal.
Some years ago Massachusetts stationed an observer near the parking lot of a New Hampshire liquor store. He would write down the Massachusetts license plates of cars in the lot and relay them to a state trooper just across the state border. When the cars reported would cross the border they would be stopped on a pretext, and fined for having untaxed liquor in the car. New Hampshire stopped this practice by busting the parking lot observer for running a numbers racket.
I predict this case will be similar. The providers will resist collecting the Chicago tax, and if Chicago leans on them, other jurisdictions will lean back.
I live in a modest home in suburban New Hampshire. I've lived here over 40 years, so my mortgage is paid off. Government in New Hampshire is mostly paid for by property taxes, so I probably pay more than homeowners do in places where government has other sources of revenue. My home is worth about $350,000 and I pay a little over $8,000 per year in property taxes. In addition, maintenance, including replacing furniture, averages about $8,000 per year, and fire insurance another $1,800. The furniture replacement cost is highly variable: the average over the last few years has been about $3,500 per year but in 2013 it was less than $1000. You get that kind of fluctuation when you have an old house.
"Suburban" in New Hampshire means you have paved roads which are plowed by the town in the winter but you are not within walking distance of stores and restaurants. "Urban" means you don't need a car for shopping, and "rural" means you plow your own unpaved roads.
When costs scale with the number of people and revenue doesn't, it's inevitable that zoning will end up discouraging new residential construction, particularly high density residential contruction.
This is captured by the aphorism "Trees don't send their children to school".
I definitely agree that the ability to make commentary anonymously is, and should be protected. I do not agree that intentionally dishonest commentary should be protected, whether it is anonymous or not.
The problem, from the point of view of the accuser, is that he does not trust the court system to judge his intentions. Even though he is honest, he fears that the powerful person he has accused will hire a skilled lawyer like Paul Bergen to persuade the court that he is lying.
Even though I tell the truth, I am still subject to extra-judicial retaliation if someone powerful is hurt by the truth.
Not via libel laws, you're not. And that's what this discussion is about. In the U.S., truth is often described as an "absolute defense" against libel.
Perhaps I misapprehended the subject of the discussion. I was discussing the value of anonymity when issuing accusations.
In any case, even if malice were certain, I do not think it is a good idea to unmask anonymous speakers, even if a court decides that the plantiff would likely prevail in a defamation suit. I feel that the privilege of anonymous criticism of the powerful is precious to our freedom, and I would rather let 1000 liars go unpunished than chill the speech of one Deep Throat.
But this is what I have already said several times: anonymous criticism IS perfectly legal. It's anonymous LIBEL that is not. Criticize all you want, as long as you are telling the truth. But you don't get to legally call somebody a murderer, or a pedophile, or even a thief if you know it isn't true. You keep failing to make the distinction between real criticism and lies.
Even though I tell the truth, I am still subject to extra-judicial retaliation if someone powerful is hurt by the truth.
But again, why should you be able to tell lies about people anonymously? What is the reason?
You should be able to tell the truth anonymously, all you like, with no repercussions. And guess what? Legally, you are. But you still haven't explained to me why you should be able to lie.
Why should there be a different standard for anonymous speech than there is for any other speech? Why should you be given a pass for dishonestly damaging someone's reputation? What possible societal benefit is there to that? I don't see one.
If you tell lies about other people publicly, no matter how much you may dislike them, you should fear retaliation. You have injured that person. And that injury can sometimes be very severe.
But again, as long as you stick to the truth, you are covered. The truth is a defense against libel.
It is all too easy for powerful people to persuade the courts and the public that their detractors are evil, and should be outed (if anonymous) and punished. That is the fear that causes accusers to try to remain anonymous. Even if an accusation can be proven true, that will not defend you against extra-legal retaliation from the powerful person, unless the truth is so damning that he loses his power.
It is not the ability to lie that I am defending; that is just a consequence of defending the ability to speak the truth without fear of retaliation from those who are hurt by the truth.
See? The law isn't as bad as you seemed to think it is. People don't get to break another's anonymity in court for no reason. They first have to show that they would likely prevail in their defamation suit first.
That's the law's way of ensuring that anonymous speech is legitimate, but only to the same legal extent that any other speech is legitimate.
I think your circular argument gives the court too much credit. You assume that there must have been a showing of malice because that is required to prevail against a public figure, and decide that because the court granted the action, there must have been a showing of malice.
Perhaps I am reading the document incorrectly, but it seems to me that the court granted the unmasking action based on the speech having been a factual accusation that Bill Hadley had broken the law. I don't see the question of malice being addressed explicitly in the document, though since it references section 2-615 malice might be covered there.
In any case, even if malice were certain, I do not think it is a good idea to unmask anonymous speakers, even if a court decides that the plantiff would likely prevail in a defamation suit. I feel that the privilege of anonymous criticism of the powerful is precious to our freedom, and I would rather let 1000 liars go unpunished than chill the speech of one Deep Throat.