Water rates are also getting quite high...Unfortunately, the solutions (controlling imigration/total population, overall development density, and using nuclear or low-cost fossil fuels energy go against the orthodoxies of the prevailing ruling class)
Water rates have nothing to do with immigration. Most of CA's water is used by farming. As for nuclear, it's the NIMBYs who don't want it. And finally, those subsidies for residential solar: they will be much lower next year. The big corporations (in this case PG&E and the other energy companies) hate residential solar.
I recently put in solar panels. I estimate payback in 5 years, perhaps even less, if energy prices increase by 5% per year.
We tried unregulated taxicabs in America. We decided to regulate them because of external factors (strange people; crime; discrimination; pricing).
I think that many of the problems with taxicabs (using the term to mean hackney cab: those taxis that can be hailed) stem from the necessary regulation mutating into protectionism for the incumbents. The ridiculous cost for medallions in most cities translates into higher taxi ride prices and dirty vehicles.
There will come a time when Uber will favor regulation because Uber will have figured out a way to make the regulation exclude competitors.
Does the onboard driver assist computer phone home with log data to Tesla Motors?
I believe it does phone home, but I think that I read something that implied that Tesla had got physical access to the car also. Since there is no standard for storing and accessing this type of data and the formats are typically proprietary and secret, law enforcement's only way to get it is to ask the manufacturer.
....is the per-mile-driven accident rate greater or less with Autopilot (or equivalent) enabled?
For fatal accidents, the per-mile rate is lower with Autopilot enabled.
But perhaps that doesn't tell the true story. Autopilot cannot be used in many situations, what if those situations are more dangerous? In other words, if the Autopilot can only be enabled on roads that are generally safer, then pure per-mile statistics are misleading.
Trump has the good idea of being new blood. He's already wealthy beyond his own needs
Is he really wealthy, though? Or is it all smoke and mirrors? This article suggests that his whole campaign is a money-making scam, and as has been pointed out elsewhere he may have made less than $500,000 in 2015.
And no, he is not crazy, nor racist
No, he is only channelling Hitler: Just exchanging Jews for Muslims and Mexicans. Technically, that's not racism, practically, it's no different.
The admission follows Theresa May's confession last November that, since the turn of the millennium, secretaries of state have been issuing secret directions under section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, without any judicial authorisation.
I can say with confidence I've never ever experienced the rash of mail problems as plagued here in CO.
Hah, you have never lived in Italy. SOP there is to tear a corner of all interesting packages. This has 2 effects: 1. Mail carrier doesn't have to carry package on small moped. 2. Recipient must go the post office to collect mail, where the office will insist that you open it (while the office staff look over your shoulder) to "make sure that the contents are not damaged." This may be more prevalent if either the recipient or the origin of the package is foreign (bonus points if both are foreign).
The problem is that voting for a third party candidate may mean that the worst candidate (from the voter's perspective) may win.
However, my message is aimed at the DNC grandees who selected Clinton. I hope you don't believe that the voters selected Clinton through the primary process. It's glaringly obvious that the process was rigged. Which brings an interesting question, if the DNC rigs their primaries, what about the Republicans? Was Trump really their preferred candidate, or was there a massive tide of voter discontent, large enough to overcome the rigging? Or did they simply not rig it?
That's my plan. I don't live in a swing state, so there is little to no chance that voting this way will allow Trump to win my state, but it sends a message.
I would rather suffer through 4 years of Donald Trump instead of allowing Hillary Clinton to screw us.
If it were only 4 years... The next president will get to nominate a minimum of 2 judges to the Supreme Court. Probably 3. This will influence life in the USA for decades.
While I don't think that Clinton is a good candidate, I think that Trump will be far, far worse. He is already beholden to wealthy people (his campaign hasn't been self-funded for a long time now), his statements show that he has an utter lack of concern for the liberties that the Framers wanted people to have. His real policies may not be for the benefit of tech billionaires, instead, it is for the benefit of billionaires.
Trump is a proven liar. He used charity money to buy himself a vacation (now he has paid, but only after being called out on the issue).
What's in his tax returns that he is hiding? It's obviously something that shows him in a bad light. My guess is that it shows that his income and net assets are actually far lower than he would like people to know. In other words, his claim to be such a great businessman are in part smoke and mirrors.
In this case, the PM didn't like the way the vote went and instead of doing what the people wanted, he stepped down
Please don't post when you don't have a clue what is going on. The PM led (poorly) the "Remain" campaign. When the country voted against him, it was effectively a no-confidence vote in the PM. His position wasn't tenable.
Actually, I have never taken any illegal drugs. Not even marijuana.
Since you made a (wrong) guess about me, I am going to take a guess about you: someone you know has had their lives ruined by illegal drugs.
I am not arguing that drugs don't devastate people's lives. I am quite sure they do. So do alcohol and gambling. I am arguing that making them illegal makes the devastation worse and spreads the damage to people who might not be damaged by drugs. How many people die from taking adulterated drugs or overdosing because strengths vary? A legal source could be made responsible for ensuring the quality of drugs.
If making drugs illegal actually stopped people from taking them, then you might have a point, but it doesn't and it is the cause of lots of misery in Mexico and further south.
So tell me how this is all that much different than observing you having a conversation with someone on the public street, or keeping a log of who enters your front door during the day?
It's not passive. The stingray device has to broadcast a signal that is equivalent to "I am the best cell tower around here". In other words, it tricks your device into talking to it, instead of the real cell tower.
Imagine that you employ a cleaner for your house and a policeman delays the real cleaner and impersonates the cleaner in order to get access to your house and search it. Do you think that this would be valid search?
Illicit drug use has historically shown to be a public health and welfare problem. Opium is the prime example, but other recreational drugs have similar negative affects upon users.
You failed, once again, to get the point. The question is not whether drugs have negative consequences.
The issue is not that illicit drugs are bad (although, I don't accept that this is fully true: what about marijuana?), the issue is that making drugs illegal may cause more problems for society than legalizing them.
You do know that countries that have legalized some drugs have shown an overall benefit to society from legalization, don't you?
Making drugs illegal does not prevent people from obtaining them. However, the illicit nature of drugs drives the illegal drug trade, which is responsible for many, many deaths.
completely subverted the meaning of the words of the English language to benefit your political views?
Some time after Trump supporters decided that they had to rely on minor semantic differences to allow them to ignore his obvious racism. It's not hard to find examples: you just don't want to look.
What if both the windows computer and the printer are behind the NAT?
If the printer is already compromised, yes. Note that "printer" in this scenario is more likely a print server, which could be running Windows, or perhaps a Linux/SAMBA box.
There might also be more scope for this with "cloud" print services, but I really don't know.
I think, yes, but very unlikely. If the user tries to print using a printer that is outside the NAT, then that printer could compromise the Windows installation.
Say what you want about Trump, but he knows business and isn't easily swayed by political spin.
If you think that you know what Trump will actually do if he wins the presidency, then I have a bridge to sell you. If you have been paying attention, apart from a few crazy ideas, he has not stated any detailed policies (or, if he has, he has backtracked on them).
Also, "Trump knows business"? You know that his investment performance is very little different from the average gains in Manhattan real estate, don't you? Effectively, he hasn't beaten the market. He is just another ordinary person who was born with a silver spoon and has managed to not screw it up. It's not a great achievement.
Slashdot Mirror
How much was squandered in the Middle East? Trillions squandered so that Cheney and friends could make a few millions.
Water rates have nothing to do with immigration. Most of CA's water is used by farming. As for nuclear, it's the NIMBYs who don't want it. And finally, those subsidies for residential solar: they will be much lower next year. The big corporations (in this case PG&E and the other energy companies) hate residential solar.
I recently put in solar panels. I estimate payback in 5 years, perhaps even less, if energy prices increase by 5% per year.
I think that many of the problems with taxicabs (using the term to mean hackney cab: those taxis that can be hailed) stem from the necessary regulation mutating into protectionism for the incumbents. The ridiculous cost for medallions in most cities translates into higher taxi ride prices and dirty vehicles.
There will come a time when Uber will favor regulation because Uber will have figured out a way to make the regulation exclude competitors.
I believe it does phone home, but I think that I read something that implied that Tesla had got physical access to the car also. Since there is no standard for storing and accessing this type of data and the formats are typically proprietary and secret, law enforcement's only way to get it is to ask the manufacturer.
For fatal accidents, the per-mile rate is lower with Autopilot enabled.
But perhaps that doesn't tell the true story. Autopilot cannot be used in many situations, what if those situations are more dangerous? In other words, if the Autopilot can only be enabled on roads that are generally safer, then pure per-mile statistics are misleading.
Is he really wealthy, though? Or is it all smoke and mirrors? This article suggests that his whole campaign is a money-making scam, and as has been pointed out elsewhere he may have made less than $500,000 in 2015.
No, he is only channelling Hitler: Just exchanging Jews for Muslims and Mexicans. Technically, that's not racism, practically, it's no different.
Hah, you have never lived in Italy. SOP there is to tear a corner of all interesting packages. This has 2 effects: 1. Mail carrier doesn't have to carry package on small moped. 2. Recipient must go the post office to collect mail, where the office will insist that you open it (while the office staff look over your shoulder) to "make sure that the contents are not damaged." This may be more prevalent if either the recipient or the origin of the package is foreign (bonus points if both are foreign).
The problem is that voting for a third party candidate may mean that the worst candidate (from the voter's perspective) may win.
However, my message is aimed at the DNC grandees who selected Clinton. I hope you don't believe that the voters selected Clinton through the primary process. It's glaringly obvious that the process was rigged. Which brings an interesting question, if the DNC rigs their primaries, what about the Republicans? Was Trump really their preferred candidate, or was there a massive tide of voter discontent, large enough to overcome the rigging? Or did they simply not rig it?
That's my plan. I don't live in a swing state, so there is little to no chance that voting this way will allow Trump to win my state, but it sends a message.
If it were only 4 years ... The next president will get to nominate a minimum of 2 judges to the Supreme Court. Probably 3. This will influence life in the USA for decades.
While I don't think that Clinton is a good candidate, I think that Trump will be far, far worse. He is already beholden to wealthy people (his campaign hasn't been self-funded for a long time now), his statements show that he has an utter lack of concern for the liberties that the Framers wanted people to have. His real policies may not be for the benefit of tech billionaires, instead, it is for the benefit of billionaires. Trump is a proven liar. He used charity money to buy himself a vacation (now he has paid, but only after being called out on the issue).
What's in his tax returns that he is hiding? It's obviously something that shows him in a bad light. My guess is that it shows that his income and net assets are actually far lower than he would like people to know. In other words, his claim to be such a great businessman are in part smoke and mirrors.
Sigh. Did you miss the "log" part of my statement? The USPS has no need to log addresses as part of the delivery process.
Yes, they do. They scan and log the addresses.
Please don't post when you don't have a clue what is going on. The PM led (poorly) the "Remain" campaign. When the country voted against him, it was effectively a no-confidence vote in the PM. His position wasn't tenable.
Since you made a (wrong) guess about me, I am going to take a guess about you: someone you know has had their lives ruined by illegal drugs.
I am not arguing that drugs don't devastate people's lives. I am quite sure they do. So do alcohol and gambling. I am arguing that making them illegal makes the devastation worse and spreads the damage to people who might not be damaged by drugs. How many people die from taking adulterated drugs or overdosing because strengths vary? A legal source could be made responsible for ensuring the quality of drugs.
If making drugs illegal actually stopped people from taking them, then you might have a point, but it doesn't and it is the cause of lots of misery in Mexico and further south.
It's not passive. The stingray device has to broadcast a signal that is equivalent to "I am the best cell tower around here". In other words, it tricks your device into talking to it, instead of the real cell tower.
Imagine that you employ a cleaner for your house and a policeman delays the real cleaner and impersonates the cleaner in order to get access to your house and search it. Do you think that this would be valid search?
You failed, once again, to get the point. The question is not whether drugs have negative consequences.
The issue is not that illicit drugs are bad (although, I don't accept that this is fully true: what about marijuana?), the issue is that making drugs illegal may cause more problems for society than legalizing them.
You do know that countries that have legalized some drugs have shown an overall benefit to society from legalization, don't you?
Making drugs illegal does not prevent people from obtaining them. However, the illicit nature of drugs drives the illegal drug trade, which is responsible for many, many deaths.
And how many of those "bad things" result from the fact that drugs are illegal?
The question is not "are drugs bad", rather, it should be "is there more harm to society from making drugs legal/illegal?"
Some time after Trump supporters decided that they had to rely on minor semantic differences to allow them to ignore his obvious racism. It's not hard to find examples: you just don't want to look.
If the printer is already compromised, yes. Note that "printer" in this scenario is more likely a print server, which could be running Windows, or perhaps a Linux/SAMBA box.
There might also be more scope for this with "cloud" print services, but I really don't know.
I think, yes, but very unlikely. If the user tries to print using a printer that is outside the NAT, then that printer could compromise the Windows installation.
That's clearly because you are not looking.
Tell me, how does being a Trump supporter go down with your Microsoft colleagues?
Perhaps that is because he doesn't appear to be against immigration per se, but only against immigration of certain "races"?
If you think that you know what Trump will actually do if he wins the presidency, then I have a bridge to sell you. If you have been paying attention, apart from a few crazy ideas, he has not stated any detailed policies (or, if he has, he has backtracked on them).
Also, "Trump knows business"? You know that his investment performance is very little different from the average gains in Manhattan real estate, don't you? Effectively, he hasn't beaten the market. He is just another ordinary person who was born with a silver spoon and has managed to not screw it up. It's not a great achievement.
Wow! Above post modded as "Troll". There must be some butt-hurt libertarians with mod points!