But if you lived in the city, that could easily be 3000 gallons because being stuck in a traffic jam hurts mileage.
So the government gets less gas tax revenue when people are stuck in traffic? That sounds like a good incentive for the government to end traffic congestion.
How thoughtful do you need to be on a timed memorization test? What is the purpose of memorizing something if it doesn't need to be quickly regurgitated in real life? And if it needs to be quickly regurgitated in real life, isn't a timed test exactly the right sort of test for it?
If the test is to check how well you've memorized facts, then the student who has to look them up on his smartwatch will be slower at completing the test than the one who has all the facts in her head. So a simple solution for memorization tests is to set an appropriate time limit that weeds out the cheaters.
Image a world where the main purpose of justice were rehabilitation and societal protection instead of revenge a.k.a. retribution. Would our prisons continue to be depressing, dangerous places, or would they look more like mental health facilities? Would we require a lower standard of proof to separate dangerous people from society, or would it continue to be difficult to give people the help they need and prevent them from causing harm to others? Would there any longer be a point in blacklisting a person from potential employment opportunities and thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty and crime by labeling them an ex-felon after they've been successfully rehabilitated?
If the idea of "pre-crime" sounds too much like Big Brother, maybe it's because our values are somewhat less than enlightened.
I narrowly avoided getting T-boned by a car that had come from several positions behind me, driving in the generously wide lane/shoulder, to make a right turn. He didn't see my signal and was assuming we were all going straight, and had reached my bind spot at just the moment I was starting my turn.
That means either the other car drove off the road, or you weren't far enough to the right. In California, what you did would be a violation of CVC 22100(a):
Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a
right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the
right-hand curb or edge of the roadway
Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
The two are almost word for word identical. Your state probably has the same law. If I were the judge, you would both be charged, you for violating the above law, and the other driver for reckless driving or unsafe pass.
Essentially, if the ship is REALLY Big, you give it the right of way no matter what because really big ships can't turn all that well, don't stop quickly and can cause a LOT of damage to YOU and not them if a collision happens.
More importantly, really big ships must often limit themselves to a very narrow passageway or risk running aground. On the road, this means avoiding low bridges or gross vehicle weight limits, neither of which are relevant in this collision between the self-driving car and the bus.
Most of the time Google's AVs drive in the middle of a lane but "when you're teeing up a right-hand turn in a lane wide enough to handle two streams of traffic, annoyed traffic stacks up behind you.
"So several weeks ago we began giving the self-driving car the capabilities it needs to do what human drivers do: hug the rightmost side of the lane.
I actually speed up a bit before turning to maximize distance between myself and driver behind and turn shallow. This is a bit hard to explain but you angle into the turn and actually do most of your slowing when you are already in the turn
Vastly better to fix the root problem, and make last-mile service a utility like any other, but until that glorious day, Cruz and Rubio are smoking crack on this one.
Wouldn't blocking net neutrality would make it politically easier to fix the root problem?
Why can't the FBI reverse engineer the OS binary, disable the 10 strikes, and install the new OS image on the phone? If the image needs a digital signature, they could brute-force that, install the OS, then brute force the passcode. As long as the FBI is willing to brute-force the one, they ought to be able to brute-force the other, right?
This is true, but one could make the claim that those emissions standards aren't arbitrary because they were whatever was politically possible at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
That's like asking how to get rid of mosquitoes without eliminating standing water.
It's ironic how the red states tend to be the most socialist ones.
Could the low price of gasoline be part of the reason?
That's fine. You lose the ability to adjust to civilized life as you get old. This is not your fault, it's a normal part of aging.
So the government gets less gas tax revenue when people are stuck in traffic? That sounds like a good incentive for the government to end traffic congestion.
That's why we have mass transit.
If your car gets 25 mpg and your odometer shows a change of 7,500 miles at renewal time, how much gas did you use?
Please tell us your thoughts on the flat earth hypothesis, the moon landing hoax, and the government's involvement in 9/11.
What makes you think I think that?
I already explained how a memorization test doesn't need to be closed-book no-notes if the test has an appropriate time limit.
How thoughtful do you need to be on a timed memorization test? What is the purpose of memorizing something if it doesn't need to be quickly regurgitated in real life? And if it needs to be quickly regurgitated in real life, isn't a timed test exactly the right sort of test for it?
If the test is to check how well you've memorized facts, then the student who has to look them up on his smartwatch will be slower at completing the test than the one who has all the facts in her head. So a simple solution for memorization tests is to set an appropriate time limit that weeds out the cheaters.
And why are so many ethnic restaurants located right next to animal clinics?
Image a world where the main purpose of justice were rehabilitation and societal protection instead of revenge a.k.a. retribution. Would our prisons continue to be depressing, dangerous places, or would they look more like mental health facilities? Would we require a lower standard of proof to separate dangerous people from society, or would it continue to be difficult to give people the help they need and prevent them from causing harm to others? Would there any longer be a point in blacklisting a person from potential employment opportunities and thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty and crime by labeling them an ex-felon after they've been successfully rehabilitated?
If the idea of "pre-crime" sounds too much like Big Brother, maybe it's because our values are somewhat less than enlightened.
Isn't that what parole boards do now, only without the financial incentive to get it right?
I'm sure you could find an insurance company to make that bet, for the right premium.
Was it a paved shoulder or unpaved? The answer to this is important in determining whether the shoulder was part of the roadway.
That means either the other car drove off the road, or you weren't far enough to the right. In California, what you did would be a violation of CVC 22100(a):
Also in Arizona:
The two are almost word for word identical. Your state probably has the same law. If I were the judge, you would both be charged, you for violating the above law, and the other driver for reckless driving or unsafe pass.
More importantly, really big ships must often limit themselves to a very narrow passageway or risk running aground. On the road, this means avoiding low bridges or gross vehicle weight limits, neither of which are relevant in this collision between the self-driving car and the bus.
The law says a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. So Google's self-driving cars have been making their right turns illegally until just recently.
I expected better from Google.
That's illegal in California. You're supposed to make the turn from as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
Wouldn't blocking net neutrality would make it politically easier to fix the root problem?
Why can't the FBI reverse engineer the OS binary, disable the 10 strikes, and install the new OS image on the phone? If the image needs a digital signature, they could brute-force that, install the OS, then brute force the passcode. As long as the FBI is willing to brute-force the one, they ought to be able to brute-force the other, right?
This is true, but one could make the claim that those emissions standards aren't arbitrary because they were whatever was politically possible at the time.
Or you throttle demand up and down to meet current supply from wind + nuclear/hydro. Smart meters help with this.
Even cheaper than that would be eye patches.
Seriously, this problem has been solved for centuries. Why are we still discussing it?