I'm interested in whether the car can set an appropriate speed when it comes upon a sign saying "Speed Limit 35 When Children Are Present" or "...When School In Session", and whether the car can read and obey hand signals, and whether the car knows right turns are prohibited at a particular intersection during rush hour.
This doesn't hurt the people who created the fake, or even the people who purchased the fake and used them in their manufacturing. It only hurts end users who have done nothing except purchase a product in retail channels.
Bad reviews from dissatisfied customers (because their device suddenly released its magic smoke and stopped working for no apparent reason) won't hurt the creator or manufacturer?
That's obviously false, as evidenced by the fact that the sun rises earlier when daylight saving time is in effect. If that isn't political will commanding nature, then what is? (In fact, they had to end the trial early in Arizona way back in WWII when they discovered the extra hour of sunlight was scorching the grass.)
What does this provide that a postage meter doesn't?
The ability to keep your mailing address when you move, similar to the way third party webmail services let you keep your e-mail address when you change ISPs, or the way VoIP services let you keep your phone number when you move, or the way DNS lets you keep your URLs the same when you change web hosts.
FTFA:
When Martin Cooper invented the cellphone at Motorola in 1971, his idea began with the simple insight that telephones were attached to places. They were rooted at a home or desk, for exampleâ"and it was simply by coincidence or mutual agreement that the right person was at that location when the call was placed. The cellphone was meant to make telephones about reaching people, not places.
When turnpike operations are sold to such private companies, they have clauses preventing the improvement of alternative roads owned by the state or city that would divert traffic away from the turnpike.
Yes, it's very difficult to compete with someone who has such deep pockets as a government. This is one reason why infrastructure should be financed by its users in proportion to the benefit each person receives from it, instead of paying for infrastructure through unrelated taxes such as the sales tax.
Then open two queues: one for people willing to pay the market price, and the other for people who want the old price. Since the ice is still available at the old price, nobody can complain of being ripped off.
The existence of a queue means that people are willing to pay more for the product. So why not let them? Raise the price as the queue gets longer, and lower the price as the queue gets shorter. This stabilizes and even lets you control the length of the queue.
They should do the same at ballparks on game day. Instead of charging a fixed rate for parking, charge to go through the gate according to the number of cars waiting to get in or out. If you get there really early, you could get in practically for free, and if you tailgate after the game, you can get out practically for free. With shorter queues and a greater ability to save money, everybody wins!
Felonies are also ridiculously easy to get. In the '80s, if two people were caught racing in their cars, it would be a $111 fine. Now, here in Texas, that is a felony.
Rather than a prison sentence followed by automatic eligibility to be re-licensed to be a hazard on the streets again, I think a far more appropriate punishment would be to permanently revoke the person's license until he or she can prove, through a battery of physical and psychological tests, that he or she is no longer a hazard on the road. (This is what they do in Germany.)
But in the USA, for some reason it seems to be considered more humane to make someone a felon and lock them away than to ban them from driving.
Great for private prison profit margins... all paid for on the US taxpayers nickel.
This is why the goals of prisons need to be aligned better with the goals of society. Instead of putting someone away for x years, if private prisons bid against each other on a fixed price to rehabilitate each prisoner, coupled with penalties each time a released prisoner re-offends, private prisons would do their best to rehabilitate each prisoner as quickly, completely, and inexpensively as possible. Isn't this what we all really want?
Would you like to explain how those zones "keep the poor and minorities out of middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods"?
When you force every house to have parking (which people too poor to own cars don't need), you drive up the cost of housing and drive out the poor from the neighborhood.
You also drive out the poor with limits on dwelling units per acre, minimum liveable square footage, and prohibitions against granny flats, dorms, and boarding houses.
No, it's the victims and the rest of society who seek revenge (called "retribution" by lawyer types) who create the need for imprisonment.
Because the main purpose of prisons is revenge and not rehabilitation, prisoners benefit very little from prisons. And because our society decided that people should pay for things in proportion to the benefit they receive from them, it stands to reason that prisoners should not pay for their own incarceration.
Middle and lower income households absorb the greatest percentage of social programs, so why shouldn't they be the ones that contribute the most to them?
Not just food, but also don't tax anything else the poor buy such as clothes, furniture, appliances, automobiles, airline tickets, and so on, or your "progressive" tax will still be regressive.
So you can tax yachts and private aircraft. That's about it, I think.
...when wind varies you need to have other types of power (such as natural gas) ready to pick up the slack.
You're half correct. If you'll recall your demand curve from Econ 101, when demand exceeds supply, there are two ways to reach an equilibrium. Your suggestion, increase supply, is one of those ways. The other, of course, is to reduce demand, as eBay does to prevent too many people from winning the same auction.
Or use something like the Condorcet method to put all the games in order from most to least liked, and then assign each game a percentile ranking based on its position on the list.
I see, you're inflating the cost of a seat by including the infrastructure cost into the seat cost, but not doing the same for buses. Because every bus that's on the road prevents another vehicle from using the same space, there's always an opportunity cost of putting a bus on the road, even if the road is already "paid for".
the highways ALREADY EXIST, and the buses displace cars, so no additional capacity is needed.
So the cars will magically disappear and make room on the highways for buses? I think you made that up.
Even if you accept the lowest of the projected costs for California high speed rail project, the cost is over $500,000 PER SEAT. Show me a bus that costs that much.
First show us where it says the cost is $500,000 per seat, because I think you made that up.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm interested in whether the car can set an appropriate speed when it comes upon a sign saying "Speed Limit 35 When Children Are Present" or "...When School In Session", and whether the car can read and obey hand signals, and whether the car knows right turns are prohibited at a particular intersection during rush hour.
Do they make generic printers?
Bad reviews from dissatisfied customers (because their device suddenly released its magic smoke and stopped working for no apparent reason) won't hurt the creator or manufacturer?
That's obviously false, as evidenced by the fact that the sun rises earlier when daylight saving time is in effect. If that isn't political will commanding nature, then what is? (In fact, they had to end the trial early in Arizona way back in WWII when they discovered the extra hour of sunlight was scorching the grass.)
How would it know you have a layover in St. Louis?
The ability to keep your mailing address when you move, similar to the way third party webmail services let you keep your e-mail address when you change ISPs, or the way VoIP services let you keep your phone number when you move, or the way DNS lets you keep your URLs the same when you change web hosts.
FTFA:
Yes, it's very difficult to compete with someone who has such deep pockets as a government. This is one reason why infrastructure should be financed by its users in proportion to the benefit each person receives from it, instead of paying for infrastructure through unrelated taxes such as the sales tax.
Then open two queues: one for people willing to pay the market price, and the other for people who want the old price. Since the ice is still available at the old price, nobody can complain of being ripped off.
The existence of a queue means that people are willing to pay more for the product. So why not let them? Raise the price as the queue gets longer, and lower the price as the queue gets shorter. This stabilizes and even lets you control the length of the queue.
They should do the same at ballparks on game day. Instead of charging a fixed rate for parking, charge to go through the gate according to the number of cars waiting to get in or out. If you get there really early, you could get in practically for free, and if you tailgate after the game, you can get out practically for free. With shorter queues and a greater ability to save money, everybody wins!
That used to be called "heresy," and it also came with consequences. What's old is new again.
It's also Google's problem if they don't want a lot of users stuck on older versions of Android.
Rather than a prison sentence followed by automatic eligibility to be re-licensed to be a hazard on the streets again, I think a far more appropriate punishment would be to permanently revoke the person's license until he or she can prove, through a battery of physical and psychological tests, that he or she is no longer a hazard on the road. (This is what they do in Germany.)
But in the USA, for some reason it seems to be considered more humane to make someone a felon and lock them away than to ban them from driving.
This is why the goals of prisons need to be aligned better with the goals of society. Instead of putting someone away for x years, if private prisons bid against each other on a fixed price to rehabilitate each prisoner, coupled with penalties each time a released prisoner re-offends, private prisons would do their best to rehabilitate each prisoner as quickly, completely, and inexpensively as possible. Isn't this what we all really want?
That's a silly law. It should be the other way around: no industry allowed in the residential zone.
When you force every house to have parking (which people too poor to own cars don't need), you drive up the cost of housing and drive out the poor from the neighborhood.
You also drive out the poor with limits on dwelling units per acre, minimum liveable square footage, and prohibitions against granny flats, dorms, and boarding houses.
No, it's the victims and the rest of society who seek revenge (called "retribution" by lawyer types) who create the need for imprisonment.
Because the main purpose of prisons is revenge and not rehabilitation, prisoners benefit very little from prisons. And because our society decided that people should pay for things in proportion to the benefit they receive from them, it stands to reason that prisoners should not pay for their own incarceration.
That's like asking prisoners to pay for their imprisonment. Remember, the purpose of the zoning code is to keep the poor and minorities out of middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods, and that in turn restricts economic mobility, keeping the poor dependent on social programs for their livelihood. For example, the market would build more affordable housing if it weren't prevented from building it.
(Side note: this is similar to the way motorists support separated bicycling infrastructure, in order to get bicyclists out of their way. And then they complain that bicyclists aren't paying their fair share for those separated facilities.)
So I think the people who actually want those social programs (the wealthy) that keep the poor poor should be the ones to pay for them.
Not just food, but also don't tax anything else the poor buy such as clothes, furniture, appliances, automobiles, airline tickets, and so on, or your "progressive" tax will still be regressive.
So you can tax yachts and private aircraft. That's about it, I think.
I'm seeing a pattern here.
Somehow, I don't think that the mindset that got us into this mess is capable of getting us out of it.
Comcast may be "a terrible company," but this is still very worrisome.
You're half correct. If you'll recall your demand curve from Econ 101, when demand exceeds supply, there are two ways to reach an equilibrium. Your suggestion, increase supply, is one of those ways. The other, of course, is to reduce demand, as eBay does to prevent too many people from winning the same auction.
Unfortunately, IEEE 754 doesn't provide a way to indicate the level of precision (number of significant figures) of the answer.
Are you saying that science has found a way around the second law of thermodynamics?
That's illegal on freeways where pulling over is only allowed for emergencies.
Or use something like the Condorcet method to put all the games in order from most to least liked, and then assign each game a percentile ranking based on its position on the list.
I see, you're inflating the cost of a seat by including the infrastructure cost into the seat cost, but not doing the same for buses. Because every bus that's on the road prevents another vehicle from using the same space, there's always an opportunity cost of putting a bus on the road, even if the road is already "paid for".
So the cars will magically disappear and make room on the highways for buses? I think you made that up.
First show us where it says the cost is $500,000 per seat, because I think you made that up.