After being stuck behind some of these idiots for MILES at a time, the instant I get the chance I will punch it to get around them. I will put as much distance between us as I can as they are a traveling accident waiting to happen.
If people didn't tailgate (driving on a road too close to the vehicle in front, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible), it would be perfectly safe to drive 20+ under the speed limit.
They get their driving privileges back because, in the USA, driving is considered essential.
Driving is considered essential because there aren't many alternatives, because not many people use them, because we don't adequately punish bad driving, because driving is considered essential.
I hate to break it to people, techies included, but talking on your phone and driving kills people.
Not exactly. What kills people is diverting your attention away from the road but not adjusting your speed to compensate. If you drive slowly enough, you'll have time to make course corrections and react to hazards in a timely manner even while multitasking.
Every state in the USA has a "basic speed law" which says you should not drive faster than what's safe under the current conditions, no matter what the posted speed limit says. For example, if you can't devote 100% of your attention to the road, then you need to drive more slowly. Therefore, rather than banning cell phones, all we have to do is enforce existing laws against speeding, and possibly raise the penalties. Why do drunk drivers automatically get their driving privileges back after one to two years? It just doesn't make sense to reward poor judgment.
Instead of having flat-rate streaming movies, it's an add-on that dings you per movie.
If the price were to vary by movie, then this would allow Netflix to stream more movies. This is why Amazon is able to stream certain movies that Netflix doesn't.
The "one price fits all" model just doesn't work very well in the real world.
You know, it's bad enough that ISP's, Verizon definitely included, are using bandwidth caps now, which limits the attraction of a service like Netflix.
They really ought to make the caps apply only to peak usage periods, similar to cell plans with "unlimited nights and weekends." Then you could stream or download your movies during the off-peak periods to save money.
Pirates use bittorrent. The nature of the bittorrent protocol is to cut up a file into tiny snippets, and distribute each of the snippets separately, not necessarily to the same destination.
That would make an interesting defense, if you could prove that you aren't making more of the file available than would be protected by Fair Use.
Libraries are allowed to copy the entire content of books. Why should Google be prohibited from doing the same? There seems to be a double standard here.
Fair use. The same way a person can reproduce short snippets of a copyrighted work without violating the copyright, Google Books allows you to search scanned books and view short sections of text at a time.
Name something that was on TV that was so profound and moving that it was absolutely critical that you see it when it first came out, rather than waiting a few months and spending half the price of one month's cable on DVDs to watch it whenever you like.
Showtime and HBO have series that aren't available on DVD within a few months after they air. All of them meet your requirement.
For bonus points, explain why that show was so awesome that you'd rather be watching it than spending that hour conversing with your loved ones.
Because you can watch the show for an hour with your loved ones, then spend the next hour discussing it with them.
It's why I dont go to see shows anymore. Horribly overpriced...
Are they? You'll know they tickets are overpriced if the event doesn't get close to selling out. If it sells out, then the tickets might actually have been too cheap--"below the going rate determined by supply and demand."
I can go to the USPS website to track my packages.
Sort of. If it's Express Mail, it shows you point-by-point tracking details. All other trackable mail services only tell you when it went out for delivery.
The reason USPS is hurting is that UPS is allowed to cherry-pick the profitable package business while avoiding the daily mail responsibility.
False. UPS is not allowed to deliver first class mail.
The USPS is incredibly cheap compared to the commercial alternatives. The USPS goes to EVERY mailbox each day (6 days a week).
What alternative to the USPS is allowed to deliver first class mail?
That's right. None. Since the USPS has a legal monopoly, you can't compare them to the commercial alternatives, because none can exist. If they could, they might do a better job than the USPS.
What are you going to do for the farmers and ranchers who live 50 miles away from the nearest FedEx drop box? Remeber they don't get internet out there either.
It isn't even about the economy now vs the economy of the near future. If it were about the economy, we would already be internalizing negative externalities such as air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Correcting market failures is good for the economy, but the fact that we ignore them proves that we aren't really concerned about the economy at all.
Usage based billing does not encourage us to waste capacity. If the price is set correctly, demand equals supply which means all the capacity is used up. A demand curve illustrates this.
To answer your question, it makes sense to add capacity when doing so increases revenue by more than the amortized cost of the upgrade.
It would be much simpler for each country to tax carbon, and redistribute the revenue equally among all citizens of that country. It would give everyone an incentive to conserve, without being a hardship on anyone.
Markets work best when market failures, such as negative externalities, including carbon emissions, are corrected. If creating CO2 has a nonzero detrimental effect on the environment, then it just makes sense to internalize that cost into the price of, for example, gasoline.
The projected fare they have in mind which is supposed to be 80% of what a price of a ticket on Southwest should cost -- was based on overly optimistic plainly wrong rider-ship forecasts.
"We are satisfied with the documentation presented in Cambridge Systematics, and conclude that it demonstrates that the model produces results that are reasonable and within expected ranges for the current environmental planning and Business Plan applications of the model. We were very pleased with the content, quality and quantity of the information."
Slashdot Mirror
When you lose your driving privileges, you use alternatives.
If people didn't tailgate (driving on a road too close to the vehicle in front, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible), it would be perfectly safe to drive 20+ under the speed limit.
Driving is considered essential because there aren't many alternatives, because not many people use them, because we don't adequately punish bad driving, because driving is considered essential.
So it's a self-reinforcing loop.
[citation needed]
Not exactly. What kills people is diverting your attention away from the road but not adjusting your speed to compensate. If you drive slowly enough, you'll have time to make course corrections and react to hazards in a timely manner even while multitasking.
Every state in the USA has a "basic speed law" which says you should not drive faster than what's safe under the current conditions, no matter what the posted speed limit says. For example, if you can't devote 100% of your attention to the road, then you need to drive more slowly. Therefore, rather than banning cell phones, all we have to do is enforce existing laws against speeding, and possibly raise the penalties. Why do drunk drivers automatically get their driving privileges back after one to two years? It just doesn't make sense to reward poor judgment.
If the price were to vary by movie, then this would allow Netflix to stream more movies. This is why Amazon is able to stream certain movies that Netflix doesn't.
The "one price fits all" model just doesn't work very well in the real world.
They really ought to make the caps apply only to peak usage periods, similar to cell plans with "unlimited nights and weekends." Then you could stream or download your movies during the off-peak periods to save money.
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's always slashdotted." --Yogi Berra
Are ASCII files more random? How about self-extracting archives?
That would make an interesting defense, if you could prove that you aren't making more of the file available than would be protected by Fair Use.
Libraries are allowed to copy the entire content of books. Why should Google be prohibited from doing the same? There seems to be a double standard here.
Actually, the length of the copied passage is in fact one of the determining factors: "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole."
Fair use. The same way a person can reproduce short snippets of a copyrighted work without violating the copyright, Google Books allows you to search scanned books and view short sections of text at a time.
Showtime and HBO have series that aren't available on DVD within a few months after they air. All of them meet your requirement.
Because you can watch the show for an hour with your loved ones, then spend the next hour discussing it with them.
Are they? You'll know they tickets are overpriced if the event doesn't get close to selling out. If it sells out, then the tickets might actually have been too cheap--"below the going rate determined by supply and demand."
Sort of. If it's Express Mail, it shows you point-by-point tracking details. All other trackable mail services only tell you when it went out for delivery.
False. UPS is not allowed to deliver first class mail.
What alternative to the USPS is allowed to deliver first class mail?
That's right. None. Since the USPS has a legal monopoly, you can't compare them to the commercial alternatives, because none can exist. If they could, they might do a better job than the USPS.
Sure they do.
It isn't even about the economy now vs the economy of the near future. If it were about the economy, we would already be internalizing negative externalities such as air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Correcting market failures is good for the economy, but the fact that we ignore them proves that we aren't really concerned about the economy at all.
Usage based billing does not encourage us to waste capacity. If the price is set correctly, demand equals supply which means all the capacity is used up. A demand curve illustrates this.
To answer your question, it makes sense to add capacity when doing so increases revenue by more than the amortized cost of the upgrade.
Easy solution: auction the name every year for a 1-year license. Facebook wins, the auction winner wins, everybody wins!
It would be much simpler for each country to tax carbon, and redistribute the revenue equally among all citizens of that country. It would give everyone an incentive to conserve, without being a hardship on anyone.
Markets work best when market failures, such as negative externalities, including carbon emissions, are corrected. If creating CO2 has a nonzero detrimental effect on the environment, then it just makes sense to internalize that cost into the price of, for example, gasoline.
By far, the cheapest solution to traffic congestion is not to expand the I-5, but to convert all existing lanes to express lanes. Here's proof: the SR-91 express lanes in Orange County, California "generate net social benefits of at least $12 million per year, compared with a scenario in which the lanes had been built but drivers did not pay to use them."
Absolutely false! An independent peer review found that the forecasts were sound:
Sorry, but high speed rail won't reduce congestion. Two University of Toronto professors have added to the body of evidence showing that highway and road expansion increases traffic by increasing demand. On the flip side, they show that transit expansion doesn't help cure congestion either.
When you understand that traffic congestion is a type of shortage (too many cars, too little road space), and that a shortage is defined as the situation when supply is greater than demand, two solutions immediately become obvious: increase supply, or reduce demand. The least expensive of these two is to reduce demand, and here's proof: the SR-91 express lanes in Orange County, California generate net social benefits of at least $12 million per year, compared with a scenario in which the lanes had been built but drivers did not pay to use them.