There is a course in men's studies it is called HISTORY.
History is gender neutral. It talks about all things that happen whether women or men were involved. Women's studies specifically studies women in history. Men's studies doesn't exist because there would be outrage.
This is similar to racism. There is Black studies and there is Mexican studies, there is Islam studies, but if there was White studies, there would be outrage.
There are beauty pageants specifically for Blacks and for Latinos, and then there are beauty pageants that must allow everybody. If there was a beauty pageant that only allowed whites, there would be outrage. Same with awards shows.
Racism and feminism are big business. This is why the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson continue to promote and incite racism and racial divisionism in this country. If we could get past the "something bad happened to a black guy" and get it down to "something bad happened to a person", then we would be making real progress, but the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world would be out of business.
That really stopped me for a second. I mean this is an emergency number, so how can a paltry low number like 30% be used in the same sentence as "as many as". But then I decided to find out what percentage of calls in general are legitimate. The results? 5 to 9% according to one article. 80% according to another article. 45% according to another one. 50% according to another.
So, nobody knows how to measure whether the number of calls to 911 that are legitimate. Therefore, the whole article comes under suspicion.
No but you can have agreements to not approach employees of another company to come work for you. This is different to "We will not employ your staff" which is what Apple got in trouble for previously.
You see "do not poach" clauses as a regular component of contracts where two companies are working very closely on a project together. The no-poach agreement usually runs for the duration of the project plus a period of time (usually 6 or 12 months)
If someone wants to come work for a company and the company is willing to hire them, then it seems like any agreement preventing that would be in violation of the employees fundamental rights of pursuit of happiness.
What a shame to waste good karma. You are of course exactly right, and the article makes no mention of the amount of the actual amounts that the companies benefitted from due to cramming. One hopes they got fined more than they charged, but I kind of doubt it. As much as they were getting per cram, I have to think they made billions.
Your hipster district is obviously different than mine. I have literally never seen the word artisanal other than in your post. I see the word artisan all the time, but I believe in 100% of cases, it is used incorrectly. According to the dictionary it means "using a trained artistic skill". I have seen minimum wage workers slapping sandwiches together called "sandwich artisans". Nope. Slapping sandwiches together in a poor fashion and forgetting half the ingredients is not artisanship.
Every time I read a 3D printer article, it always sounds like a solution desperately seeking a problem. For only slightly more money than just buying the thing at the store, you can print a tacky looking knockoff at home out of inferior materials.
There will be monitors that can display what's passing by the vehicle outside.
Sounds dangerous. Windows are made out of safety glass which resists shattering and significantly decreases the chances of getting cut. Monitors are NOT made out of safety glass. Also monitors and the cameras needed to drive them are more expensive, and provide needless overhead. A window can deliver a view of the outside in real time in analog resolution. A camera and monitor setup is a substandard replacement. One might then ask why we would trust them for image processing and driving the vehicle. Why indeed.
yeah, my last job I was hired for an 8 hour shift, but then it ended up I worked 12 to 16 hours most days. Then there was the time somebody ratted me out to the CEO because I was on my way to work at 10 in the morning instead of sitting at my desk. The answer was that I had been working on an issue since 4 in the morning and had only just had a chance to get a shower and start on my way to work. However, the fact that I was not in my chair was inexcusable. Of course, leaving to go to work while a problem was still open was also inexcusable. The only way to be correct in that situation was to be in two places at once, which I have not yet mastered.
Luckily, they let me go, owing me about $1 million in overtime pay and the promised shares in the company which they did not follow through on.
If someone offered you $500k / y 8/5 would you complain if you were required to do 24/7 support?
Absolutely. If they offered me $500k / y 24/7 however, I would not complain if I were required to do 24/7 support. If you are hired, and the company changes your obligations, then renegotiation is necessary so that you can be adequately compensated for the changes.
It doesn't ever happen, but it absolutely should.
What a waste of time. The framework already existed for Uber to operate, Uber just chose to illegally ignore it.
So now, I suppose that the legitimate taxi operators who had to front money for licensing and insurance can expect some sort of reimbursement for all of those fees. Alternatively, I guess the legitimate taxi operators can develop an app for hailing a cab and then suddenly they don't have to have permits, licensing or insurance.
Really? 4 data points tell you that? 2 data points really, since in two of them the human was driving and hence they mean exactly nothing for autonomous vehicles.
You get two significant figures with no error bars to be seen out of two data points? Are you an economist by any chance?
There are more than 2 data points. Google also has had 3 of 23 vehicles involved in a crash. but i took the conservative figures and went with the 4 out of 48.
The article spells out that she was required to have the phone on her 24/7 as a condition of employment.
Does it spell out that she was compensated on a 24 hour basis? Didn't think so. F U company, and every other company that requires 24/7 support for 8/5 wages.
Actually, that would be 2 out of 4, since 2 were being controlled by people.
Also, at 10 mph you might as well be standing still. You can't really avoid shit at that speed.
I have avoided people trying to rear-end me at that speed.
I somewhat agree on the 2 out of 4 since they were being driven by people. However, they were almost certainly distracted people looking at readouts and readings from driving their exciting new autonomous car and not paying attention to the other idiots on the road who are trying to run into them..
Alternatively, since 2 out of 4 occurred while the human was driving, it could be argues that the car learned its poor evasive behavior from them. The people also seem to be way below average in terms of avoiding accidents.
The fact that you believe highway driving is "easy" is downright scary.
Does the fact that statistics back up that highway driving is safer than city driving by a factor of 2 also scare you?
Where did I say it is safe to text when driving on the highway? You are making up straw men. The facts are that per 100 millions miles driven, there are about 1.7 fatalities. This is about half the overall rate per 100 million miles driven.
Face it, highway driving is safer. And easier. You don't have pedestrians stepping out from between cars. You don't have people running stop signs and red lights. You don't have kids chasing balls. You don't have delivery and maintenance vehicles stopping in the middle of the road or double parking.
When I drive to work, I observe about 5 people whose actions could kill me if I don't take evasive action. This is in 20 miles of travel. On a highway, I rarely see one such action in 100 miles.
what does it do at four-way stop if it was the second car there but the human in the first car is waving it on?
has it been tested on drivethru fastfood?
if someone is shooting at car, how does the car react?
does it get up to speed on onramps or does it merge into highway traffic going 45mph?
Humans drive the car in the city. Basically the autonomous cars have proven they can take over the easy highway driving and humans will still have to do all of the pain in the butt inner city driving.
You may consider it a lot, but when you consider NONE were the fault of the driver or the car itself then it is nothing at all. We cannot always get out of the way of a driver who is not paying attention. Why do you seem to be blaming the autonomous cars and not the people who caused those accidents?
People in cars do stupid things all day long. Driving is more than going from point A to point B. The autonomous cars so far have gotten sufficiently intelligent to not crash into things on their way from point A to point B. However, they have not yet got to the point of avoiding the stupid idiots on the road. 4 out of 48 to me represents the number of accidents that the autonomous system failed to avoid. The average human driver can expect an accident once every 17.9 years, so basically about 2.68 out of 48.
We could also look at the rate per mile. The accident rate in the U.S. is about 0.3 per 100,000. The rate with the autonomous vehicles is bout 2.4 per 100,000, which is about 10 times as high. The fact that the accidents were not their fault is comforting, but what this really tells me is that the humans are 10 times better at avoiding the other idiots on the road than autonomous cars are.
Because every Australian I have ever talked to has complained about not paying enough for digital music, digital games, and digital movies.
It's like the Australian government commissioned a bunch focus groups, attached electrodes to people's brains, read their minds, and did the exact opposite of what everybody wanted.
If it is yours to keep forever and ever or later resell, then i could see charging sales tax on it. However, if it is like Netflix, and you are really renting the movie, then I can't see charging a sales tax on it (nor can I see that for a brick and mortar rental, but they still charge sales tax on those as well.)
No, it is a government tax. It has nothing to do with the company and that is why the company doesn't just bury it in the price. The government is the one who sets the rate, when it should be charged and who ultimately is the benefactor of this tax. However, the government is too lazy to actually put forth the effort to collect it, so they force companies to shoulder this burden. Obviously, this also has the effect of making the company look like the bad guy to the consumer. Charging Sales Tax represents a large administrative load on the company. The government does allow the company to keep a small fraction of a penny for each dollar collected, as recompense for the overhead, but the actual cost of collecting this tax, monthly paperwork and getting the money to the government is estimated by some studys as between 10 and 100 times the amount that the government allows the business to keep to cover administrative costs. I know for my small business the cost of collecting and administration of the sales tax collection was about 200% of the amount of tax collected.
On the low end, they estimate 18 million riders a year. Ok, dividing 18 million by 365 days leaves you with almost 50,000 passengers a day. Divided by two, that's about 24,000 passengers SF->LA, and 24,000 passengers LA->SF each day. If they run 24 trains s day, leaving each hour, that means 1,000 passengers per hour, every hour, every day.
Seems unlikely.
Maybe they'll run trains every two hours, but then they gotta stuff 2,000 people on each train 12 times/day, every day.
The airlines currently serve 7 million passengers between LA and SF. It appears the lowest traffic volume at any point between LA and SF on the 101 is 7.3 million vehicles. At 1.3 average occupants per vehicle, this is about 9.5 million people. Keep in mind that this figure assumes all of the people at the lowest traffic point are going from LA to SF, which is certainly not true. So it appears that the train hopes to capture 120% and probably much higher of the current combined travel methods.
Driving isn't cheap unless your time is cheap. I have other uses for it than to stare at the road.
Most people's time not at work is worth something to them but not to anybody else. Most businesses don't even value your time as what they are paying you. I have known several companies that would have people drive to Houston from here (Oklahoma City) rather than fly, even though flying would actually be cheaper than the mileage. They would have to rent a car in Dallas, which could make it break even depending on the duration. But the company values your time at zero, so they would have you drive the 8 hours instead of fly for an hour.
Well depending on which figure you use, the real cost is between $87 and $219 and those are IRS numbers. It's probably more.
Don't forget, it's not just gas. It's insurance, gas, taxes, wear and tear on the car. And if you're driving something like a Ferrari, I'd expect the cost to be more like $500.
Quite right. But if you are taking your family to San Francisco, the cost is still $219, while the cost of the train is now $344. That is what keeps me driving instead of taking the airlines. It is far cheaper for me to drive to any destination reachable by car if I take my family. It also takes less time by car for anything less than about 500 miles.
Try telling your auto insurance company your car is for "pleasure use only" and you only put 5k miles per year on it, then use it for commuting 50 miles each way daily. See what happens when you get in a wreck and they figure out your car has far more mileage than you claimed.
That's okay, they won't let you have "pleasure use only" unless you have multiple cars.
Your rates change with the number of miles you put on the car yearly.
How do they do that without asking or auditing you yearly? I have only ever had them ask my mileage when I switched carriers.
I admit to being less than sympathetic to people who can't be bothered to be here legally, but if they are here legally, then what is to stop them from offering labor hire with the proper insurance and licensing? If we want to argue that Mexicans shouldn't have to have proper insurance and licensing, then that should apply to the existing businesses as well. I'm sure they would appreciate it, as it would save them a lot of money and allow them to be more competitive. On the other hand, we will have to bear the cost of any accidents they incur during transport.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a course in men's studies it is called HISTORY.
History is gender neutral. It talks about all things that happen whether women or men were involved. Women's studies specifically studies women in history. Men's studies doesn't exist because there would be outrage.
This is similar to racism. There is Black studies and there is Mexican studies, there is Islam studies, but if there was White studies, there would be outrage.
There are beauty pageants specifically for Blacks and for Latinos, and then there are beauty pageants that must allow everybody. If there was a beauty pageant that only allowed whites, there would be outrage. Same with awards shows.
Racism and feminism are big business. This is why the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson continue to promote and incite racism and racial divisionism in this country. If we could get past the "something bad happened to a black guy" and get it down to "something bad happened to a person", then we would be making real progress, but the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world would be out of business.
That really stopped me for a second. I mean this is an emergency number, so how can a paltry low number like 30% be used in the same sentence as "as many as". But then I decided to find out what percentage of calls in general are legitimate. The results? 5 to 9% according to one article. 80% according to another article. 45% according to another one. 50% according to another.
So, nobody knows how to measure whether the number of calls to 911 that are legitimate. Therefore, the whole article comes under suspicion.
No but you can have agreements to not approach employees of another company to come work for you. This is different to "We will not employ your staff" which is what Apple got in trouble for previously. You see "do not poach" clauses as a regular component of contracts where two companies are working very closely on a project together. The no-poach agreement usually runs for the duration of the project plus a period of time (usually 6 or 12 months)
If someone wants to come work for a company and the company is willing to hire them, then it seems like any agreement preventing that would be in violation of the employees fundamental rights of pursuit of happiness.
What a shame to waste good karma. You are of course exactly right, and the article makes no mention of the amount of the actual amounts that the companies benefitted from due to cramming. One hopes they got fined more than they charged, but I kind of doubt it. As much as they were getting per cram, I have to think they made billions.
Your hipster district is obviously different than mine. I have literally never seen the word artisanal other than in your post. I see the word artisan all the time, but I believe in 100% of cases, it is used incorrectly. According to the dictionary it means "using a trained artistic skill". I have seen minimum wage workers slapping sandwiches together called "sandwich artisans". Nope. Slapping sandwiches together in a poor fashion and forgetting half the ingredients is not artisanship.
I will run the company into the ground for the next two years and then leave, taking a 'severance bonus' of 2 years salary and stock options,
Stock Options? What, is he expecting the next CEO to do better?
Every time I read a 3D printer article, it always sounds like a solution desperately seeking a problem. For only slightly more money than just buying the thing at the store, you can print a tacky looking knockoff at home out of inferior materials.
There will be monitors that can display what's passing by the vehicle outside.
Sounds dangerous. Windows are made out of safety glass which resists shattering and significantly decreases the chances of getting cut. Monitors are NOT made out of safety glass. Also monitors and the cameras needed to drive them are more expensive, and provide needless overhead. A window can deliver a view of the outside in real time in analog resolution. A camera and monitor setup is a substandard replacement. One might then ask why we would trust them for image processing and driving the vehicle. Why indeed.
yeah, my last job I was hired for an 8 hour shift, but then it ended up I worked 12 to 16 hours most days. Then there was the time somebody ratted me out to the CEO because I was on my way to work at 10 in the morning instead of sitting at my desk. The answer was that I had been working on an issue since 4 in the morning and had only just had a chance to get a shower and start on my way to work. However, the fact that I was not in my chair was inexcusable. Of course, leaving to go to work while a problem was still open was also inexcusable. The only way to be correct in that situation was to be in two places at once, which I have not yet mastered.
Luckily, they let me go, owing me about $1 million in overtime pay and the promised shares in the company which they did not follow through on.
If someone offered you $500k / y 8/5 would you complain if you were required to do 24/7 support?
Absolutely. If they offered me $500k / y 24/7 however, I would not complain if I were required to do 24/7 support. If you are hired, and the company changes your obligations, then renegotiation is necessary so that you can be adequately compensated for the changes.
It doesn't ever happen, but it absolutely should.
What a waste of time. The framework already existed for Uber to operate, Uber just chose to illegally ignore it.
So now, I suppose that the legitimate taxi operators who had to front money for licensing and insurance can expect some sort of reimbursement for all of those fees. Alternatively, I guess the legitimate taxi operators can develop an app for hailing a cab and then suddenly they don't have to have permits, licensing or insurance.
Really? 4 data points tell you that? 2 data points really, since in two of them the human was driving and hence they mean exactly nothing for autonomous vehicles.
You get two significant figures with no error bars to be seen out of two data points? Are you an economist by any chance?
There are more than 2 data points. Google also has had 3 of 23 vehicles involved in a crash. but i took the conservative figures and went with the 4 out of 48.
The article spells out that she was required to have the phone on her 24/7 as a condition of employment.
Does it spell out that she was compensated on a 24 hour basis? Didn't think so. F U company, and every other company that requires 24/7 support for 8/5 wages.
Actually, that would be 2 out of 4, since 2 were being controlled by people. Also, at 10 mph you might as well be standing still. You can't really avoid shit at that speed.
I have avoided people trying to rear-end me at that speed.
I somewhat agree on the 2 out of 4 since they were being driven by people. However, they were almost certainly distracted people looking at readouts and readings from driving their exciting new autonomous car and not paying attention to the other idiots on the road who are trying to run into them..
Alternatively, since 2 out of 4 occurred while the human was driving, it could be argues that the car learned its poor evasive behavior from them. The people also seem to be way below average in terms of avoiding accidents.
The fact that you believe highway driving is "easy" is downright scary.
Does the fact that statistics back up that highway driving is safer than city driving by a factor of 2 also scare you? Where did I say it is safe to text when driving on the highway? You are making up straw men. The facts are that per 100 millions miles driven, there are about 1.7 fatalities. This is about half the overall rate per 100 million miles driven.
Face it, highway driving is safer. And easier. You don't have pedestrians stepping out from between cars. You don't have people running stop signs and red lights. You don't have kids chasing balls. You don't have delivery and maintenance vehicles stopping in the middle of the road or double parking.
When I drive to work, I observe about 5 people whose actions could kill me if I don't take evasive action. This is in 20 miles of travel. On a highway, I rarely see one such action in 100 miles.
what does it do at four-way stop if it was the second car there but the human in the first car is waving it on?
has it been tested on drivethru fastfood?
if someone is shooting at car, how does the car react?
does it get up to speed on onramps or does it merge into highway traffic going 45mph?
Humans drive the car in the city. Basically the autonomous cars have proven they can take over the easy highway driving and humans will still have to do all of the pain in the butt inner city driving.
You may consider it a lot, but when you consider NONE were the fault of the driver or the car itself then it is nothing at all. We cannot always get out of the way of a driver who is not paying attention. Why do you seem to be blaming the autonomous cars and not the people who caused those accidents?
People in cars do stupid things all day long. Driving is more than going from point A to point B. The autonomous cars so far have gotten sufficiently intelligent to not crash into things on their way from point A to point B. However, they have not yet got to the point of avoiding the stupid idiots on the road. 4 out of 48 to me represents the number of accidents that the autonomous system failed to avoid. The average human driver can expect an accident once every 17.9 years, so basically about 2.68 out of 48.
We could also look at the rate per mile. The accident rate in the U.S. is about 0.3 per 100,000. The rate with the autonomous vehicles is bout 2.4 per 100,000, which is about 10 times as high. The fact that the accidents were not their fault is comforting, but what this really tells me is that the humans are 10 times better at avoiding the other idiots on the road than autonomous cars are.
That's great news!
Because every Australian I have ever talked to has complained about not paying enough for digital music, digital games, and digital movies.
It's like the Australian government commissioned a bunch focus groups, attached electrodes to people's brains, read their minds, and did the exact opposite of what everybody wanted.
If it is yours to keep forever and ever or later resell, then i could see charging sales tax on it. However, if it is like Netflix, and you are really renting the movie, then I can't see charging a sales tax on it (nor can I see that for a brick and mortar rental, but they still charge sales tax on those as well.)
well, vat/sales/whatever tax is a company tax.
No, it is a government tax. It has nothing to do with the company and that is why the company doesn't just bury it in the price. The government is the one who sets the rate, when it should be charged and who ultimately is the benefactor of this tax. However, the government is too lazy to actually put forth the effort to collect it, so they force companies to shoulder this burden. Obviously, this also has the effect of making the company look like the bad guy to the consumer. Charging Sales Tax represents a large administrative load on the company. The government does allow the company to keep a small fraction of a penny for each dollar collected, as recompense for the overhead, but the actual cost of collecting this tax, monthly paperwork and getting the money to the government is estimated by some studys as between 10 and 100 times the amount that the government allows the business to keep to cover administrative costs. I know for my small business the cost of collecting and administration of the sales tax collection was about 200% of the amount of tax collected.
On the low end, they estimate 18 million riders a year. Ok, dividing 18 million by 365 days leaves you with almost 50,000 passengers a day. Divided by two, that's about 24,000 passengers SF->LA, and 24,000 passengers LA->SF each day. If they run 24 trains s day, leaving each hour, that means 1,000 passengers per hour, every hour, every day.
Seems unlikely.
Maybe they'll run trains every two hours, but then they gotta stuff 2,000 people on each train 12 times/day, every day.
The airlines currently serve 7 million passengers between LA and SF. It appears the lowest traffic volume at any point between LA and SF on the 101 is 7.3 million vehicles. At 1.3 average occupants per vehicle, this is about 9.5 million people. Keep in mind that this figure assumes all of the people at the lowest traffic point are going from LA to SF, which is certainly not true. So it appears that the train hopes to capture 120% and probably much higher of the current combined travel methods.
Driving isn't cheap unless your time is cheap. I have other uses for it than to stare at the road.
Most people's time not at work is worth something to them but not to anybody else. Most businesses don't even value your time as what they are paying you. I have known several companies that would have people drive to Houston from here (Oklahoma City) rather than fly, even though flying would actually be cheaper than the mileage. They would have to rent a car in Dallas, which could make it break even depending on the duration. But the company values your time at zero, so they would have you drive the 8 hours instead of fly for an hour.
The cost of my labor per hour is a lot higher than $70. Any trip where I can do even an hour of writing instead of driving is more than paid for.
Assuming you can get someone to pay you that labor cost at any given moment at your whim.
Well depending on which figure you use, the real cost is between $87 and $219 and those are IRS numbers. It's probably more.
Don't forget, it's not just gas. It's insurance, gas, taxes, wear and tear on the car. And if you're driving something like a Ferrari, I'd expect the cost to be more like $500.
Quite right. But if you are taking your family to San Francisco, the cost is still $219, while the cost of the train is now $344. That is what keeps me driving instead of taking the airlines. It is far cheaper for me to drive to any destination reachable by car if I take my family. It also takes less time by car for anything less than about 500 miles.
Try telling your auto insurance company your car is for "pleasure use only" and you only put 5k miles per year on it, then use it for commuting 50 miles each way daily. See what happens when you get in a wreck and they figure out your car has far more mileage than you claimed.
That's okay, they won't let you have "pleasure use only" unless you have multiple cars.
Your rates change with the number of miles you put on the car yearly.
How do they do that without asking or auditing you yearly? I have only ever had them ask my mileage when I switched carriers.
I admit to being less than sympathetic to people who can't be bothered to be here legally, but if they are here legally, then what is to stop them from offering labor hire with the proper insurance and licensing? If we want to argue that Mexicans shouldn't have to have proper insurance and licensing, then that should apply to the existing businesses as well. I'm sure they would appreciate it, as it would save them a lot of money and allow them to be more competitive. On the other hand, we will have to bear the cost of any accidents they incur during transport.