The problem with the townhouses is...that too many of them get build without parking...
Don't worry, developers will always build as much parking as their customers want and are willing to pay for. Or should we also dictate to restaurants how many tables and chairs they must put out? Exactly where should a government's meddling in the market end?
City planners seem to think that the only way to solve a shortage (where demand exceeds supply) is to increase supply, but eBay for example proves otherwise.
To save even more weight and batteries, it would also help to use some sort of assistance (example 1, example 2) to get the craft above the clouds and much of the atmosphere before any electric propulsion is needed. A similar concept existed as far back as 1915.
Show me the math for both ICE cars and Tesla, from well-head to road.
The math is here, showing that where you drive is as important as what you drive. But as a sibling post notes, even this math doesn't count the energy required to produce gasoline from scratch.
1) Fossil fuels are a limited supply. Maybe enough for another 50 years. Maybe 100. But still limited.
That's not a problem because science will find a replacement. Not the same science that discovered that global warming is caused by human activity, of course, a different science. So let's just kick the can down the road like we always do and let our children and grandchildren deal with the problem.
Taken to the logical extreme, if you are correct that latency has exactly zero effect on the viewing experience as long as it's reasonably consistent, then bandwidth is irrelevant because you can simply download the entire movie before watching it and it would not impact the viewing experience.
No, I think every additional second between the time you press "play" and the time the movie starts, downgrades the viewing experience slightly, no matter how repeatable that latency is.
with Netflix, you can have 5 second ping and still have a good video watching experience.
That's correct when the buffer is more than 5 seconds long and you don't mind the >5 second delay before the video begins.
So in real life, a faster data connection really does create a better viewing experience, so Verizon is technically correct, but each additional megabit per second provides less and less of an improvement over the previous megabit per second.
Asked if the decision to fail every one of the 30-plus enrollees was fair to every student, Horwitz said that "a few" students had not engaged in misbehavior, and he said that those students were also the best academic performers. Horwitz said he offered to the university that he would continue to teach just those students, but was told that wasn't possible, so he felt he had no choice but to fail everyone and leave the course.
Instead of patching what they call our "antiquated" power grid, perhaps we should actually rethink it... Allowing people to generate power using solar and wind, use it what they want and sell the rest to utilities sounds very good, but it does not reduce the peak capacity that the utilities must have...
That goal is achieved by dynamically pricing electricity always just above market equilibrium to create a small, permanent buffer of excess capacity in order to prevent brownouts and blackouts. That means we need to upgrade our antiquated power grid in order to allow the price to rise and fall in accordance with supply and demand.
The $10/GB should be free (or cheap) during times of light data traffic on the cellular network, similar to "unlimited nights and weekends" voice plans.
It seems his trading bot used a new strategy to outwit the other trading bots and so they sold like crazy, depressing the stock price. There's a technical solution to this technical problem, but as usual the government prefers a more heavy-handed approach.
in some neighbourhoods the wait time actually increases along with the surge price increase.
It makes sense that neighborhoods with a relative oversupply of drivers would see their wait times increase, approaching the wait times in neighborhoods with higher demand.
In San Francisco when they implemented surge pricing for parking, prices went up in some neighborhoods and down in others. But prices on average fell.
At the local level [churches are] exempt from property taxes.
So they don't have to pay for street lights, sidewalk repair, police and fire protection, things like that. That's one good reason to replace property taxes with fees. (Another is to prevent property taxes from causing financial hardship for people on fixed incomes.)
That's true, but other than criminals, who needs to memorize how much a person can deposit before it gets reported?
[The number is too low] When too many transactions get reported and the investigation teams get swamped.
That's an objective metric, certainly better than picking a number out of thin air as the first one appears to have been. Maybe they should write that into the law and also that the number must be re-determined periodically so it's never too high nor too low.
That still doesn't explain why $10,000 is a better number than $9,999 or $10,001. The fact that it's a suspiciously round number suggests negligence on the part of whoever wrote the law.
If inflation causes the number to be too low they can change the law.
How would you know whether the number is too low? Why wasn't that same mechanism used to help write the law long ago when the cost of making changes to the law was much lower?
Lets not go too far into this specific case. It is just an example of how knowing an algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.
You're partially correct. It's an example of how knowing a poorly designed algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.
When you find people gaming the system and the results of that are undesirable, isn't that a good time to refine your algorithm?
What's so magical about the $10,000 number? Why not $9,999, or $10,001? Should it be indexed to inflation? Did someone pull that number out of thin air, and if so, is that a responsible way to write laws?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, developers will always build as much parking as their customers want and are willing to pay for. Or should we also dictate to restaurants how many tables and chairs they must put out? Exactly where should a government's meddling in the market end?
City planners seem to think that the only way to solve a shortage (where demand exceeds supply) is to increase supply, but eBay for example proves otherwise.
To save even more weight and batteries, it would also help to use some sort of assistance (example 1, example 2) to get the craft above the clouds and much of the atmosphere before any electric propulsion is needed. A similar concept existed as far back as 1915.
The math is here, showing that where you drive is as important as what you drive. But as a sibling post notes, even this math doesn't count the energy required to produce gasoline from scratch.
That's not a problem because science will find a replacement. Not the same science that discovered that global warming is caused by human activity, of course, a different science. So let's just kick the can down the road like we always do and let our children and grandchildren deal with the problem.
And so ends the American Dream.
Taken to the logical extreme, if you are correct that latency has exactly zero effect on the viewing experience as long as it's reasonably consistent, then bandwidth is irrelevant because you can simply download the entire movie before watching it and it would not impact the viewing experience.
No, I think every additional second between the time you press "play" and the time the movie starts, downgrades the viewing experience slightly, no matter how repeatable that latency is.
That's correct when the buffer is more than 5 seconds long and you don't mind the >5 second delay before the video begins.
So in real life, a faster data connection really does create a better viewing experience, so Verizon is technically correct, but each additional megabit per second provides less and less of an improvement over the previous megabit per second.
That goal is achieved by dynamically pricing electricity always just above market equilibrium to create a small, permanent buffer of excess capacity in order to prevent brownouts and blackouts. That means we need to upgrade our antiquated power grid in order to allow the price to rise and fall in accordance with supply and demand.
The $10/GB should be free (or cheap) during times of light data traffic on the cellular network, similar to "unlimited nights and weekends" voice plans.
It seems his trading bot used a new strategy to outwit the other trading bots and so they sold like crazy, depressing the stock price. There's a technical solution to this technical problem, but as usual the government prefers a more heavy-handed approach.
If you use the broader definition that "murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse," and if you recognize that not everything that's legal is also ethically justified, then a government-sanctioned execution can be murder.
So executions are not unethical when they are approved by a government. I would be very, very careful with that line of reasoning.
It makes sense that neighborhoods with a relative oversupply of drivers would see their wait times increase, approaching the wait times in neighborhoods with higher demand.
In San Francisco when they implemented surge pricing for parking, prices went up in some neighborhoods and down in others. But prices on average fell.
To return to the old version:
1. Go to maps.google.com
2. Click on the ? icon in the lower right corner
3. Click "return to classic Google Maps"
But there doesn't seem to be a way to make it permanent.
I wonder if they've considered adding airbags to help cushion the fall, protect the rocket from water damage, and provide flotation?
So they don't have to pay for street lights, sidewalk repair, police and fire protection, things like that. That's one good reason to replace property taxes with fees. (Another is to prevent property taxes from causing financial hardship for people on fixed incomes.)
The brine won't kill anything if it's sufficiently disbursed.
That's one theory. Here is another.
Yes. Return what you stole and stay in your room until you've learned your lesson.
That also happens to be a power of 10? There's only a 1 in 10 chance of that happening in real life, so that's not likely.
Someday the number will need to be raised, so why not plan for the inevitable?
That's true, but other than criminals, who needs to memorize how much a person can deposit before it gets reported?
That's an objective metric, certainly better than picking a number out of thin air as the first one appears to have been. Maybe they should write that into the law and also that the number must be re-determined periodically so it's never too high nor too low.
So instead of fixing the algorithm, they wrote a new law making it illegal to exploit the algorithm.
That's your federal government at work!
That still doesn't explain why $10,000 is a better number than $9,999 or $10,001. The fact that it's a suspiciously round number suggests negligence on the part of whoever wrote the law.
How would you know whether the number is too low? Why wasn't that same mechanism used to help write the law long ago when the cost of making changes to the law was much lower?
You're partially correct. It's an example of how knowing a poorly designed algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.
When you find people gaming the system and the results of that are undesirable, isn't that a good time to refine your algorithm?
What's so magical about the $10,000 number? Why not $9,999, or $10,001? Should it be indexed to inflation? Did someone pull that number out of thin air, and if so, is that a responsible way to write laws?
If lack of competition is the disease and we use regulation to mask the symptoms, won't we end up with more regulation while the disease persists?
"Whenever faced with a problem, some people say `Lets use regulation.'
Now, they have two problems."
(With apologies to D. Tilbrook)