If a pedestrian weighed 3000 pounds, had four rubber tires for traction, and walked at 20 MPH, then he'd have about as long a stopping distance as a car.
What if the car were moving at the same speed as a pedestrian? Which would have the longer stopping distance, the car or the pedestrian?
The crime of jaywalking didn't exist until cars came along. Streets were once shared spaces for everyone. Cars were slaughtering people left and right, so to protect their own interests, the automobile lobby came up with the term "jaywalking" to ridicule the victims, and they also managed to get legislators on their side.
Meanwhile, in San Francisco, motorists violate the right-of-way of pedestrians more often than the other way around. (See the linked article above for proof.)
And are you aware that crosswalks can be unmarked? The details vary between jurisdiction about how to identify an unmarked crosswalk.
Pedestrians don't always have the right of way even in a crosswalk. It's first-come first-served.
And this brings up the catch-22: a pedestrian doesn't have the right-of-way in a crosswalk until he or she is already in the crosswalk. By that time, it may be too late.
If they had been honest about what they were doing, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But they defrauded consumers, emissions technicians, and the government. Remember, markets work best when market failures such as information asymmetry are eliminated.
If everyone had to pay an extra $5 per cup of coffee, and if all that extra revenue were redistributed equally to everyone (even those who don't drink coffee), then I think we would collectively drink a lot less coffee, and nobody except the heaviest coffee drinkers would be worse financially. Poor people who don't drink coffee would benefit the most in proportion to their income.
Would people go for a revenue-neutral coffee tax where everyone gets free money?
Why wait for autonomous cars to handle freeway traffic congestion when freeway traffic congestion is already obsolete? The technology already exists, we just have to get the wealthy people to support such a progressive tax.
A generator is just a motor with different circuitry. Maybe they could turn the windmills into giant fans whenever more wind is needed like on hot, breezeless days.
I'm talking about the article, written by Victoria Fine at Slate.com, that talks about how to make a website red. That one doesn't use the word "program" or "programming" anywhere.
You're referring to Olga Khazan's article in the Atlantic, which mentions Fine's article but again not using the word "programming" in that context. Khazan's article then goes on to refer to another article, this one by Elma Mulqueeny, who uses the word "program" and "programmer" but in the context of, "say you wanted to write a simple code to create a Christmas tree with a countdown to Christmas. You'd use a series of simple 'if this, then that' logic instructions".
Slashdot Mirror
You make it sound like whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral. If only the world were that simple.
The great majority of them are from out of state and therefore don't get to vote on the issue, except with their wallets.
That's amazing! So a 355 watt panel will cost 355*0.55=195 cents!
Who are you talking to? Who wants to have streets only for pedestrians?
What if the car were moving at the same speed as a pedestrian? Which would have the longer stopping distance, the car or the pedestrian?
Are you saying that jaywalkers caused fish to spoil in the summer?
All things being equal, does a car have a longer stopping distance than a pedestrian?
The crime of jaywalking didn't exist until cars came along. Streets were once shared spaces for everyone. Cars were slaughtering people left and right, so to protect their own interests, the automobile lobby came up with the term "jaywalking" to ridicule the victims, and they also managed to get legislators on their side.
Meanwhile, in San Francisco, motorists violate the right-of-way of pedestrians more often than the other way around. (See the linked article above for proof.)
And are you aware that crosswalks can be unmarked? The details vary between jurisdiction about how to identify an unmarked crosswalk.
Pedestrians don't always have the right of way even in a crosswalk. It's first-come first-served.
And this brings up the catch-22: a pedestrian doesn't have the right-of-way in a crosswalk until he or she is already in the crosswalk. By that time, it may be too late.
That's a good case for diesel-electric hybrids. During the cleaning cycle, supplement the 20% engine power with electric locomotion.
Instead of always trying to increase supply to match demand, why not sometimes reduce demand to match supply? That's how eBay works.
Did first gear really have such a low gear ratio?
If they had been honest about what they were doing, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But they defrauded consumers, emissions technicians, and the government. Remember, markets work best when market failures such as information asymmetry are eliminated.
If everyone had to pay an extra $5 per cup of coffee, and if all that extra revenue were redistributed equally to everyone (even those who don't drink coffee), then I think we would collectively drink a lot less coffee, and nobody except the heaviest coffee drinkers would be worse financially. Poor people who don't drink coffee would benefit the most in proportion to their income.
Would people go for a revenue-neutral coffee tax where everyone gets free money?
Why wait for autonomous cars to handle freeway traffic congestion when freeway traffic congestion is already obsolete? The technology already exists, we just have to get the wealthy people to support such a progressive tax.
But it was just an accident.
No, streets were retrofitted for cars. We had streets long before we had cars, silly!
And two ton steel boxes shouldn't be sharing the road with 40 ton steel boxes.
Are you a glass half full person or a glass half empty person?
A generator is just a motor with different circuitry. Maybe they could turn the windmills into giant fans whenever more wind is needed like on hot, breezeless days.
I'm talking about the article, written by Victoria Fine at Slate.com, that talks about how to make a website red. That one doesn't use the word "program" or "programming" anywhere.
You're referring to Olga Khazan's article in the Atlantic, which mentions Fine's article but again not using the word "programming" in that context. Khazan's article then goes on to refer to another article, this one by Elma Mulqueeny, who uses the word "program" and "programmer" but in the context of, "say you wanted to write a simple code to create a Christmas tree with a countdown to Christmas. You'd use a series of simple 'if this, then that' logic instructions".
No, to her it is "coding." She never used the word "programming" in her article.
Is there no difference between a programmer and a computer scientist?
What do you think it means?
In the USA, it means nothing more than the light is about to change to red (CVC 21452).