But by the time they dealt with the issue, de-planed everyone, then re-planed everyone, it was close to the 4 hours anyway. People got to their destination eventually, but 3 hours late.
I keep hearing this about driving as a possible alternative. But If this man was actually a doctor seeing actual patients (His wife is too) how much sense does it make for him to drive 5 hours and then come in to work?
It's not irrelevant at all; it's the crux of the argument. The concept of free speech is NOT that you can say what you want without fear of reprisal. The concept in the US is ONLY that the government can't censor you based on your speech's content. That's it.
That's why it's so easy and fun to run up to a bastard anti-abortion protester and smash their stupid anti-abortion placards into smithereens and rip out their flyers from their hand. They can sue me for destroying their property, but they can't do anything about the fact that I shut their fucking speech down.
I never understood the hate directed towards hoodies. They are an especially utilitarian piece of clothing, which allows one to protect oneself from the elements without needing the added accessory of a hat. In an office you can remove it, but it's much more comfortable than a suit jacket.
This. It's actually very difficult to write an email that will work and look the same (mostly) across a wide variety of devices/browsers. You end up having to use things like inline css and deprecated tags and you are very limited on what you can do without screwing up how your email looks on a platform many people use. It sucks.
There is a perfect example of this in theaters right now. In the movie Logan, there's highways in Oklahoma that have essentially robot semi trailers operating on them all the time. Pretty cool actually. But there's a scene where some horses run loose, and the robot semis almost hit them.
Now, lets say the robots are programmed to avoid large animals in the road, but by doing so one swerves into traffic, or brakes suddenly, causing another accident in which someone is killed. Who is to blame? Who is liable?
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. If your son or daughter is run over by a robot semi on the highway, because that semi's AI told it to swerve to avoid the cow in it's path, into their lane, thus crushing them, you will have a completely different attitude. AI is software, but that software is going to be making decisions that normally would require human judgement. You can't sue the semi drive because there is no semi driver. So who do you sue?
No one, because in your world no one needs to be held liable.
So instead you will have to suck up your pain and go visit safespace.breitbart.com.
I don't know. They are certainly building a very nice tower in downtown SF, right near where I work. At the very least, 2 decades from now people will know of the Salesforce Tower, just as they know of the Transamerica Pyramid, and yet not know what either of those companies do.
Sure, but I don't think Intel know or foresaw 10 years ago that this sort of technology would show the promise it shows today. Also, they may have discovered this, say, 8 years ago, rather than 10, by which time other companies would have had, say, a 2-year head start.
Perhaps someone then made the business decision to "see how it pans out" and then decided to look into purchasing a company in the future.
Trains in Tokyo are light-years beyond "standing room only". Until we have public servants literally squishing people into trains to make sure the doors close, you can't really talk about Bart being crowded. At certain times of the day, trains are crowded, yes...but literally NOTHING like this:
So if you haven't been to those places, you should get out more before you talk about how bad BART is. In addition, almost none of those other cities has the feature unique to the Bay Area, which is the bottleneck of the tube under the bay connecting SF to the East Bay.
Or you can do what most major cities around the world do, which is fund mass transit at extremely high levels, to encourage people to not drive.
The Bay Area has some unique geographical features that make the sort of public transit that works extremely well in other places more difficult here; that said, it's still pretty good.
By "discover" do you mean have to park, probably parallel, thus backing up traffic further? A lot fo smaller places and communities don't have the parking available for lots of retail traffic.
Yes, and those cities/towns have just as much right to put in traffic "calming" measures, like speedbumps, roundabouts and other annoyances as you have a right to drive there. It goes both ways.
I think that is what many of these cities are doing, but they probably aren't cooridinating as they should. Try driving through the residential neighborhoods in Berkeley, which figured this out long ago. No one gets off at University to drive through that city because certain parts are very difficult to drive through unless you live there.
Sure, and Fremont is well aware that these are public roads.
Likewise, they are well withing their rights to make it very difficult for you to drive there. They can't prohibit you from taking an offramp into Fremont off of the highway, but they can put a bunch of speedbumps, roundabouts, no-left-turn signals and so forth that you will have to obey or pay attention to, lest you damage your car (or injure others).
By improve do you mean widen? There's only so much you can do without making massive changes. The problem is there's more people driving. The money is better spent encouraging people to to contribute to increasing that 15%.
Slashdot Mirror
But by the time they dealt with the issue, de-planed everyone, then re-planed everyone, it was close to the 4 hours anyway. People got to their destination eventually, but 3 hours late.
I keep hearing this about driving as a possible alternative. But If this man was actually a doctor seeing actual patients (His wife is too) how much sense does it make for him to drive 5 hours and then come in to work?
It's not irrelevant at all; it's the crux of the argument. The concept of free speech is NOT that you can say what you want without fear of reprisal. The concept in the US is ONLY that the government can't censor you based on your speech's content. That's it.
That's why it's so easy and fun to run up to a bastard anti-abortion protester and smash their stupid anti-abortion placards into smithereens and rip out their flyers from their hand. They can sue me for destroying their property, but they can't do anything about the fact that I shut their fucking speech down.
This is a site for nerds, rude square.
Yep. I wear a hoodie all the time to work.
I never understood the hate directed towards hoodies. They are an especially utilitarian piece of clothing, which allows one to protect oneself from the elements without needing the added accessory of a hat. In an office you can remove it, but it's much more comfortable than a suit jacket.
And virtually all home networks these days are connected to the internet, even if only tangentially.
I guess he did not like getting the boot.
And stupid hashtags. Back in my day it was the pound sign.
This. It's actually very difficult to write an email that will work and look the same (mostly) across a wide variety of devices/browsers. You end up having to use things like inline css and deprecated tags and you are very limited on what you can do without screwing up how your email looks on a platform many people use. It sucks.
But it's better than text only.
Wow. This is impressive nerdness.
It is news for nerds, though. Grammar nerds.
But you don't control what the AI does.
There is a perfect example of this in theaters right now. In the movie Logan, there's highways in Oklahoma that have essentially robot semi trailers operating on them all the time. Pretty cool actually. But there's a scene where some horses run loose, and the robot semis almost hit them.
Now, lets say the robots are programmed to avoid large animals in the road, but by doing so one swerves into traffic, or brakes suddenly, causing another accident in which someone is killed. Who is to blame? Who is liable?
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. If your son or daughter is run over by a robot semi on the highway, because that semi's AI told it to swerve to avoid the cow in it's path, into their lane, thus crushing them, you will have a completely different attitude. AI is software, but that software is going to be making decisions that normally would require human judgement. You can't sue the semi drive because there is no semi driver. So who do you sue?
No one, because in your world no one needs to be held liable.
So instead you will have to suck up your pain and go visit safespace.breitbart.com.
I don't know. They are certainly building a very nice tower in downtown SF, right near where I work. At the very least, 2 decades from now people will know of the Salesforce Tower, just as they know of the Transamerica Pyramid, and yet not know what either of those companies do.
I understand what you are getting at, but you should pick another example, as this is actually legal.
What is illegal is FALSELY shouting Fire in a theater.
Sure, but I don't think Intel know or foresaw 10 years ago that this sort of technology would show the promise it shows today. Also, they may have discovered this, say, 8 years ago, rather than 10, by which time other companies would have had, say, a 2-year head start.
Perhaps someone then made the business decision to "see how it pans out" and then decided to look into purchasing a company in the future.
Trains in Tokyo are light-years beyond "standing room only". Until we have public servants literally squishing people into trains to make sure the doors close, you can't really talk about Bart being crowded. At certain times of the day, trains are crowded, yes...but literally NOTHING like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So if you haven't been to those places, you should get out more before you talk about how bad BART is. In addition, almost none of those other cities has the feature unique to the Bay Area, which is the bottleneck of the tube under the bay connecting SF to the East Bay.
Or you can do what most major cities around the world do, which is fund mass transit at extremely high levels, to encourage people to not drive.
The Bay Area has some unique geographical features that make the sort of public transit that works extremely well in other places more difficult here; that said, it's still pretty good.
By "discover" do you mean have to park, probably parallel, thus backing up traffic further? A lot fo smaller places and communities don't have the parking available for lots of retail traffic.
Yes, and those cities/towns have just as much right to put in traffic "calming" measures, like speedbumps, roundabouts and other annoyances as you have a right to drive there. It goes both ways.
I think that is what many of these cities are doing, but they probably aren't cooridinating as they should. Try driving through the residential neighborhoods in Berkeley, which figured this out long ago. No one gets off at University to drive through that city because certain parts are very difficult to drive through unless you live there.
Sure, and Fremont is well aware that these are public roads.
Likewise, they are well withing their rights to make it very difficult for you to drive there. They can't prohibit you from taking an offramp into Fremont off of the highway, but they can put a bunch of speedbumps, roundabouts, no-left-turn signals and so forth that you will have to obey or pay attention to, lest you damage your car (or injure others).
By improve do you mean widen? There's only so much you can do without making massive changes. The problem is there's more people driving. The money is better spent encouraging people to to contribute to increasing that 15%.
By "fixing" do you mean widen? Which usually actually ADDS to congestion on many cases?
But it's a public university, as I recall, not a private one. It gets a huge amount of grants from the state and federal government.
If the facilities on campus are subject to ADA laws, wouldn't those same laws apply to online content from the university?