The only reason an edit war between aluminum versus aluminium can exist is because there's no template to accommodate both spellings and show the appropriate spelling based on the reader's locale similar to the template to convert between units.
It would be better if there were a way to satisfy both sides of the equation...it may be possible to create localised spellings using templates, but my understanding is that may also be undesirable because of the extra overhead on what is already a heavily loaded system.
Since this monopoly was created by government regulation, we have neither a market free of regulations nor a market free of monopolies. This means Austin chose none, which I allowed by saying "[c]hoose at most one."
No. It only ever creates a new equilibrium where your ISP's profits are higher.
That's only true in a monopoly or oligopoly. In a competitive market, the ISP would be forced to return the money to its customers if it wants to compete with other ISPs.
The word "encourage" implies social engineering. No, I don't want to be manipulated by the government into doing anything. Instead, let's stop encouraging the burning of fossil fuels by internalizing their externalities into the price of electricity and gasoline. Then people would naturally seek out cleaner forms of energy without any government "encouragement" necessary.
Except that Libertarians tend not to believe in externalities because it would require that the government intervene to fix the market failure. Non-intervention gives fossil fuels an advantage above cleaner forms of energy; therefore, Libertarians don't really want the level playing field they claim they do.
It's an example of the wealthy oppressing the poor, like laws that prohibit crossing the street between intersections even when it doesn't violate any vehicle's right of way. Or laws that require bicyclists to stick to the right edge of the roadway when other slow-moving vehicles don't have to.
The core concepts in Word and Excel apply to other free and commercial word processors and spreadsheet software. Yes, the certifications benefit Microsoft more than other vendors, but the important question is whether the MS-based certifications are a net benefit to society as a whole.
First, a single study 50 years ago can not mean studies have "consistently" shown anything.
Second, the claim implies that 85% of drivers is the only correct number, but the study only says a "majority" of drivers. So any number between 51% and 99% is also correct.
Third, the claim assumes that the majority of drivers travel at a reasonable and prudent speed, which is false.
There are just too many shows that I like that either aren't available at all or would cost me $3 an episode to watch.
$3 per episode comes to about $6 per month ($3/episode * 24 episodes/year / 12 months/year). At that price, you can afford to buy a lot of TV shows online for the cost of cable TV.
Slow moving vehicles cause more accidents than speeding ones...
I think you made that up. Please cite your source for that statement.
I passed at least three cars this morning that were impeding traffic flow...
They obviously didn't impede you because you were able to pass. Maybe the freeway was overloaded and everybody (including you) was impeding everyone else. Remember, you aren't just in traffic, you are traffic!
My state has no such limitation, and explicitly authorizes an audible signal as an indication of passing.
If you are in NJ, the law not only authorizes, it actually requires you to use the horn when passing another vehicle. But that law is obsolete.
The non-obsolete law to which I am referring when I say that it's illegal to honk the horn except to warn of danger is the following:
The driver of a motor vehicle shall, when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation, give audible warning with his horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.
1. It's illegal to honk the horn except to warn of danger. If you don't believe me, look it up in your state's driving laws.
2. If your lane is blocked, whether by a boulder or an inattentive driver or a slow-moving vehicle, you don't "have" to honk at it. You can signal and go around the obstruction when the path is clear.
As a bicyclist, it's very frustrating how so few motorists know the law.
Slashdot Mirror
If they made shopping carts out of copper, it would instantly solve shopping cart blight.
The only reason an edit war between aluminum versus aluminium can exist is because there's no template to accommodate both spellings and show the appropriate spelling based on the reader's locale similar to the template to convert between units.
Since this monopoly was created by government regulation, we have neither a market free of regulations nor a market free of monopolies. This means Austin chose none, which I allowed by saying "[c]hoose at most one."
When you refer to a "free market," do you mean a market free of regulations or a market free of monopolies? Choose at most one.
I was in Seattle the first weekend of May this year. I got sunburned.
That's only true in a monopoly or oligopoly. In a competitive market, the ISP would be forced to return the money to its customers if it wants to compete with other ISPs.
You can put it on a neighbornode without violating any terms of service. Your internet connection would only be needed to download updates.
Yes, government involvement is always needed to prevent market failures. Breaking up monopolies is another example.
Just forward the calls to Lenny.
The word "encourage" implies social engineering. No, I don't want to be manipulated by the government into doing anything. Instead, let's stop encouraging the burning of fossil fuels by internalizing their externalities into the price of electricity and gasoline. Then people would naturally seek out cleaner forms of energy without any government "encouragement" necessary.
Except that Libertarians tend not to believe in externalities because it would require that the government intervene to fix the market failure. Non-intervention gives fossil fuels an advantage above cleaner forms of energy; therefore, Libertarians don't really want the level playing field they claim they do.
It's an example of the wealthy oppressing the poor, like laws that prohibit crossing the street between intersections even when it doesn't violate any vehicle's right of way. Or laws that require bicyclists to stick to the right edge of the roadway when other slow-moving vehicles don't have to.
The core concepts in Word and Excel apply to other free and commercial word processors and spreadsheet software. Yes, the certifications benefit Microsoft more than other vendors, but the important question is whether the MS-based certifications are a net benefit to society as a whole.
First, a single study 50 years ago can not mean studies have "consistently" shown anything.
Second, the claim implies that 85% of drivers is the only correct number, but the study only says a "majority" of drivers. So any number between 51% and 99% is also correct.
Third, the claim assumes that the majority of drivers travel at a reasonable and prudent speed, which is false.
Myth busted.
And did you know that 88% of U.S. drivers think they are the safest 50% of all drivers? I don't think we should let them determine the speed limits.
Is that a good reason not to eliminate a market failure?
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy when you claim that you cannot afford to invest in your own future.
$3 per episode comes to about $6 per month ($3/episode * 24 episodes/year / 12 months/year). At that price, you can afford to buy a lot of TV shows online for the cost of cable TV.
You won't need a gigabit connection. Netflix says 4k is around 15 megabits per second.
Why would you want to? Remember, the purpose of retina displays is so you won't see the individual pixels.
I think you made that up. Please cite your source for that statement.
They obviously didn't impede you because you were able to pass. Maybe the freeway was overloaded and everybody (including you) was impeding everyone else. Remember, you aren't just in traffic, you are traffic!
That doesn't make any sense. If you're stopped at a traffic light, how can you be in danger of crashing into anything?
If you are in NJ, the law not only authorizes, it actually requires you to use the horn when passing another vehicle. But that law is obsolete.
The non-obsolete law to which I am referring when I say that it's illegal to honk the horn except to warn of danger is the following:
1. It's illegal to honk the horn except to warn of danger. If you don't believe me, look it up in your state's driving laws.
2. If your lane is blocked, whether by a boulder or an inattentive driver or a slow-moving vehicle, you don't "have" to honk at it. You can signal and go around the obstruction when the path is clear.
As a bicyclist, it's very frustrating how so few motorists know the law.
This is why cities ought to own the copper and let individual households or neighborhoods choose who gets to deliver content over those wires.
(emphasis added)
Because you don't need to see two copies of the same title.