When a self-driving car enters a school zone and sees the "speed limit 25 when children are present" sign, how does it know whether a person it sees is a child? Does it always brake just to be on the safe side? And if no "end school zone" sign exists, does it keep on going 25 until it sees the next speed limit sign miles down the road?
Cheap labor versus automation
on
How LEDs Are Made
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There's a surprising amount of manual labor involved with making LEDs.
You have to expect that in a country where manual labor is cheap. In other countries, it makes more economic sense to automate or otherwise fix inefficiencies in the manufacturing process.
Evaluate software not just on purchasing/licensing costs but also on the cost of installing the software, migrating old documents, and training users, and the time required to complete day-to-day tasks. Because sometimes FOSS is only free if your time is worth nothing.
Many cities have erectedbarriers to affordable housing under the guise of maintaining property values. So when young families cannot afford to live in established neighborhoods, that's by design.
It is Comcast creating the bottleneck and it is done deliberately.
Not exactly. They aren't really creating the bottleneck (that's being done by their customers), they're just being negligent in expanding their peering capacity to alleviate it.
Or you could make the case that they are attacking the bottleneck from both the supply and demand sides instead of just the supply side. By charging Netflix a peering fee, they are increasing the price of Netflix which reduces demand for data from Netflix, partially eliminating the bottleneck. Then they use the revenue to increase their bandwidth to Netflix, further eliminating the bottleneck. The demand curve illustrates how this all works.
Governments should assess the societal cost of each inmate who continues to commit crimes and offer half of that to the prison if the inmate emerges properly rehabilitated, perhaps in lieu of the normal per-inmate payments. This would make the profit motive work for us rather than against us as crime is lowered and our streets become safer.
Of course it might result in prisons wanting to release some murderers early because they've been rehabilitated, and some prisons may even refuse some shoplifters if they think the cost of rehabilitating them outweighs the societal cost of them stealing a pack of gum every once in a while, but would either of these results really be so bad?
If every family household had a few acres, we could all effectively grow our own crops. While not all of our needs would be met, we would reduce our dependence on items transported from far away by a fair margin, reducing energy consumption from transportation.
The energy required to transport food from farms to houses is at least an order of magnitude less than the energy consumed by an automobile for commuting. Possibly two orders of magnitude. So the only way that growing your own food at home saves energy is if you don't drive.
They use density and height limits to stop people having to live like caged chickens.
That's how the right wing rationalizes their own flavor of totalitarianism, but I don't want to live in a country where the government doesn't let us live the way we want.
Unfortunately, the right wing favors exclusive zoning that prevent people from living close to their jobs.
I'm not sure having thousands of people crammed per square mile is a great idea.
The right wing uses that same argument to justify taking away people's freedoms and property rights to live the way they want.
Shoving more and more people into dense cities is not sustainable.
If you want to make the land as efficient as possible in growing crops, you need to minimize roof and asphalt area and maximize cropland area. This means people living in tall buildings. Unfortunately, the right wing opposes this, and they use density and height limits to achieve their goal of preventing people from living sustainably.
In essence we all benefit from roads even if we don't drive because that is how food, clothing, and building materials get to where we need to feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves.
We also benefit from railroads, but we don't subsidize the freight rail industry like we do the trucking industry. As a result, there are more trucks on the roads than there need to be. They tear up the asphalt and cause traffic congestion, and as a result we pay more than we would if truckers started paying their fair share (which, of course, they don't want to).
Taxing EVs is productive if the goal is to create the proper incentive not to cause more wear and tear on the roads or contribute more to traffic congestion than necessary. A general tax is incapable of achieving either of these goals, so if the gas tax were replaced with a general tax, we would all pay more taxes than necessary.
Not consuming more fuel than necessary is a worthwhile goal if you believe that markets are more efficient when market failures such as negative externalities (air pollution, etc.) are corrected.
Two other reasons for a gas tax are because it's less regressive than a sales tax, and because it provides the proper incentive not to consume more fuel than necessary (i.e., drive less or drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle). Driving less reduces the need for fewer lane-miles of road, and that saves us all even more money.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be interesting to hear Google's defense in traffic court when the database doesn't match the signs.
When a self-driving car enters a school zone and sees the "speed limit 25 when children are present" sign, how does it know whether a person it sees is a child? Does it always brake just to be on the safe side? And if no "end school zone" sign exists, does it keep on going 25 until it sees the next speed limit sign miles down the road?
Why is using the average (mean or median) any more intellectually honest than using the minimum or maximum values in the same range?
No, only after we decide what the minimum wage needs to accomplish can we decide what the dollar amount should be.
Is that .43 cents or dollars per GiB?
You have to expect that in a country where manual labor is cheap. In other countries, it makes more economic sense to automate or otherwise fix inefficiencies in the manufacturing process.
Evaluate software not just on purchasing/licensing costs but also on the cost of installing the software, migrating old documents, and training users, and the time required to complete day-to-day tasks. Because sometimes FOSS is only free if your time is worth nothing.
And require open standards.
Many cities have erected barriers to affordable housing under the guise of maintaining property values. So when young families cannot afford to live in established neighborhoods, that's by design.
False.
Meanwhile, it would be better for the environment if rural people moved to the cities. Therefore, it's counterproductive to try to protect people from the consequences of their lifestyle choices, as the FCC is attempting to do by subsidizing broadband for rural residents.
What is different about the I-294 compared to other interstates?
I've been on many interstates. How is the I-294 different?
No, people who drive above the speed limit put themselves at risk.
When the normal speed of traffic is above the posted speed limit, self-driving cars will drive the speed limit as legally required but will cruise in the right lane as legally required when driving below the normal speed of traffic.
Not exactly. They aren't really creating the bottleneck (that's being done by their customers), they're just being negligent in expanding their peering capacity to alleviate it.
Or you could make the case that they are attacking the bottleneck from both the supply and demand sides instead of just the supply side. By charging Netflix a peering fee, they are increasing the price of Netflix which reduces demand for data from Netflix, partially eliminating the bottleneck. Then they use the revenue to increase their bandwidth to Netflix, further eliminating the bottleneck. The demand curve illustrates how this all works.
This assumes the wood will still be there and therefore the explosion wasn't quite big enough.
Room and board. Society shouldn't require committing crimes to get these things.
Governments should assess the societal cost of each inmate who continues to commit crimes and offer half of that to the prison if the inmate emerges properly rehabilitated, perhaps in lieu of the normal per-inmate payments. This would make the profit motive work for us rather than against us as crime is lowered and our streets become safer.
Of course it might result in prisons wanting to release some murderers early because they've been rehabilitated, and some prisons may even refuse some shoplifters if they think the cost of rehabilitating them outweighs the societal cost of them stealing a pack of gum every once in a while, but would either of these results really be so bad?
The energy required to transport food from farms to houses is at least an order of magnitude less than the energy consumed by an automobile for commuting. Possibly two orders of magnitude. So the only way that growing your own food at home saves energy is if you don't drive.
That's how the right wing rationalizes their own flavor of totalitarianism, but I don't want to live in a country where the government doesn't let us live the way we want.
Unfortunately, the right wing favors exclusive zoning that prevent people from living close to their jobs.
The right wing uses that same argument to justify taking away people's freedoms and property rights to live the way they want.
If you want to make the land as efficient as possible in growing crops, you need to minimize roof and asphalt area and maximize cropland area. This means people living in tall buildings. Unfortunately, the right wing opposes this, and they use density and height limits to achieve their goal of preventing people from living sustainably.
We also benefit from railroads, but we don't subsidize the freight rail industry like we do the trucking industry. As a result, there are more trucks on the roads than there need to be. They tear up the asphalt and cause traffic congestion, and as a result we pay more than we would if truckers started paying their fair share (which, of course, they don't want to).
Such as the San Joaquin Valley, where dirty air costs up to $1,600 per person per year in medical costs and lost work.
That's the opposite of the right wing, which supports road and fuel subsidies and zoning and density limits that force people to drive more.
Taxing EVs is productive if the goal is to create the proper incentive not to cause more wear and tear on the roads or contribute more to traffic congestion than necessary. A general tax is incapable of achieving either of these goals, so if the gas tax were replaced with a general tax, we would all pay more taxes than necessary.
Not consuming more fuel than necessary is a worthwhile goal if you believe that markets are more efficient when market failures such as negative externalities (air pollution, etc.) are corrected.
The screenshot of what the Google car sees approaching a right turn (scroll almost halfway down the page) shows the car about to violate CVC 22100(a) and possibly also CVC 21717. So there are still some bugs to fix in Google's code.
Another company ought to build a robotic traffic enforcement cop as a way to check Google's work.
Two other reasons for a gas tax are because it's less regressive than a sales tax, and because it provides the proper incentive not to consume more fuel than necessary (i.e., drive less or drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle). Driving less reduces the need for fewer lane-miles of road, and that saves us all even more money.
Here are some.