An FMRI "lie detector" only shows you what parts of the brain are active on the assumption that certain parts lighting up mean someone is thinking too much and thus making it up.
Close. First the "reciting from memory" and "making stuff up" parts of the brain are mapped, and then you can tell, based on which part of the brain lights up, whether the person is lying or telling the truth.
No one wants 15 power companies competing to run power lines through your neighborhood, and its a horrible idea from an investment perspective as well.
Why not just 1 power line running through my neighborhood like it is now, but the homeowners can vote on which power company gets to energize it?
In my area, there is only one choice for broadband: Comcast.
Surely you have more choices than that. There's satellite broadband and cellular broadband available just about anywhere, or you could VPN past your ISP's traffic shaping (they can't shape what they can't inspect), or you could get a leased line, or set up a neighborhood Internet co-op.
Now Comcast gets to decide what websites I can visit and at what speed. Or, alternately, I can go to the one other alternative I have (AT&T) and let THEM decide what websites I can visit and at what speed.
While I'm all for renewable energy, We can't live off it in it's present form, you can't ensure a minimum output like coal/nuclear power plants so it would lead to brown/blackouts in the long run if it was taken up more.
If you have a number of photovoltaic arrays spread out over 30 miles, and a storm front approaches at 30 mph, then from the time the power output starts dropping, the grid operator will have an hour to bring more electricity on line before total solar power output drops to zero. They always like to keep a buffer between demand and supply in order to prevent brownouts.
And then while that storm is lowering photovoltaic output, it will be raising wind turbine output. It's kind of nice how that works.
At night when photovoltaics no longer supply any energy, there's also less demand on the grid, so that works out nicely, also.
And then widespread smart meter adoption will help keep demand in line with supply when supply fluctuates. All that remains are conditions when there's no sunlight and no wind power, which generally only happens at night, so that's the only time we'll need conventional power plants, until grid energy storage becomes cheap enough to be viable.
Who's to say it isn't a credit card number stealing web site disguised as a web site "designed to 'educate users about the dangers of phishing'" disguised as a web site to help users determine whether their credit card numbers are stolen?
If they can't provide what I'm paying for they should either A) Improve the service, B) allow other competitors C) be sued by their "customers".
Show me a shortage of something, and I'll show you something priced lower than what the market will bear. So to your list, I'd add: D) raise the price.
Communities are being sued for supplying internet access. Please try again.
Cities are being sued. There's nothing stopping a non-government entity, such as a cooperative, from laying fiber, unless they get greedy and demand status as a legal monopoly.
The free market wont fix it. Nobody else will fix it.
Communities here and there are forming cooperatives and laying fiber. So that's one fix.
Free market doesn't work when there aren't alternatives, and the lack of alternatives is, in many cases, caused by neighborhoods which enter into exclusive contracts with broadband providers. So it only makes sense that the solution is also at the local level.
Seriously, red-light cameras have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money making.
False. The Federal Highway Administration found that red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions but reduce more severe right-angle collisions, saving $50,000 in collisions per intersection per year in medical and repair costs.
In California, if any part of your car enters the intersection while the light is still yellow, then it's "your intersection" for as long as it takes you to get clear of it.
Technically incorrect. If you enter an intersection, even on green, and cannot clearly/reasonably exit the intersection before the red light (usually meaning traffic is piled up in front of you) then you can be cited. Presumably it's for blocking traffic...
But it's still your intersection "for as long as it takes you to get clear of it" whether you are blocking traffic or not.
You also don't have that option with ISPs. There's no free market there.
If you ignore all the DSL ISPs you can choose from (if you can get DSL), satellite broadband, mobile broadband, leased lines, wireless ISPs, and the occasional neighborhood where you have your choice of cable companies, then you would be correct.
If you are lucky you will get to choose between 2 land line monopolies and perhaps one of them might offer something decent.
If you can get DSL, you have your choice of many ISPs! Plus there's satellite broadband, wireless ISPs, mobile broadband, and leased lines. And in many areas, you can choose from more than one cable company to send their signal down your coax (my last 3 neighborhoods in 2 different states were like this).
Streets packed with parked cars, pedestrians, nearby buildings, et. al. are generally more dangerous precisely because clear lines-of-sight are cut off.
So those streets are more dangerous.
Sane drivers know this, reduce their speed, and then -- making wild hand-waving guesses, here -- wind up with about the same overall level of "dangerousness" as when driving on uncluttered roadways.
Slashdot Mirror
How can a lower speed limit make conditions less safe?
How does the accident happen? Does the speeder get rear-ended? Who tailgates a speeder?
Close. First the "reciting from memory" and "making stuff up" parts of the brain are mapped, and then you can tell, based on which part of the brain lights up, whether the person is lying or telling the truth.
Where have I heard that before?
Why not just 1 power line running through my neighborhood like it is now, but the homeowners can vote on which power company gets to energize it?
Surely you have more choices than that. There's satellite broadband and cellular broadband available just about anywhere, or you could VPN past your ISP's traffic shaping (they can't shape what they can't inspect), or you could get a leased line, or set up a neighborhood Internet co-op.
No, not a municipal government. A cooperative, a business organization.
Or you could get satellite broadband.
Or wireless.
Or form a neighborhood Internet co-op.
Or get your own leased line.
Or VPN past your ISP's traffic shaping.
If you have a number of photovoltaic arrays spread out over 30 miles, and a storm front approaches at 30 mph, then from the time the power output starts dropping, the grid operator will have an hour to bring more electricity on line before total solar power output drops to zero. They always like to keep a buffer between demand and supply in order to prevent brownouts.
And then while that storm is lowering photovoltaic output, it will be raising wind turbine output. It's kind of nice how that works.
At night when photovoltaics no longer supply any energy, there's also less demand on the grid, so that works out nicely, also.
And then widespread smart meter adoption will help keep demand in line with supply when supply fluctuates. All that remains are conditions when there's no sunlight and no wind power, which generally only happens at night, so that's the only time we'll need conventional power plants, until grid energy storage becomes cheap enough to be viable.
Who's to say it isn't a credit card number stealing web site disguised as a web site "designed to 'educate users about the dangers of phishing'" disguised as a web site to help users determine whether their credit card numbers are stolen?
Show me a shortage of something, and I'll show you something priced lower than what the market will bear. So to your list, I'd add: D) raise the price.
That was a city being sued, not a cooperative. Try again.
Cities are being sued. There's nothing stopping a non-government entity, such as a cooperative, from laying fiber, unless they get greedy and demand status as a legal monopoly.
Communities here and there are forming cooperatives and laying fiber. So that's one fix.
Free market doesn't work when there aren't alternatives, and the lack of alternatives is, in many cases, caused by neighborhoods which enter into exclusive contracts with broadband providers. So it only makes sense that the solution is also at the local level.
For one thing, torrents involve a lot of upstream traffic. Upstream bandwidth is in shorter supply than downstream bandwidth.
Then it sounds like there's still room for improvement.
False. The Federal Highway Administration found that red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions but reduce more severe right-angle collisions, saving $50,000 in collisions per intersection per year in medical and repair costs.
But it's still your intersection "for as long as it takes you to get clear of it" whether you are blocking traffic or not.
Does adding an(other) incentive take away learning for the sake of learning?
If you ignore all the DSL ISPs you can choose from (if you can get DSL), satellite broadband, mobile broadband, leased lines, wireless ISPs, and the occasional neighborhood where you have your choice of cable companies, then you would be correct.
If you can get DSL, you have your choice of many ISPs! Plus there's satellite broadband, wireless ISPs, mobile broadband, and leased lines. And in many areas, you can choose from more than one cable company to send their signal down your coax (my last 3 neighborhoods in 2 different states were like this).
Impossible. Your Toyota Corolla isn't the entire model year fleet of vehicles produced by an auto maker.
So those streets are more dangerous.
So those streets are not more dangerous.
Which is it?
If called by an alien panther,
Don't anther.
What's "Snoo"?