Copyright for lifetime of author plus short period is fine and dandy: author's should have a chance to make money from their work, and their family should have some transition time to find alternative sources of income after they die, but past that... no. Just no.
Of course this whole extension thing started with Mickey Mouse. I mean those poor suffering Disney family members, err shareholders. Whatever would they have done without the extension?
You are trolling, of course, but the GPL is a license to use the code that somebody else created. One is free to use is as long as they abide by the terms. That is no different than using BSD, MIT or even proprietary code. In short, if you don't want to abide by the copyright owners terms, then don't use their code.
The Freedom of Information Act does allow a government body to charge for the cost to produce the information requested. This was originally intended to recoup the physical costs of producing photocopies or microfilm. However, since the the footage in question is digitized, how does one come up with a cost of $36,000 to turn it over to the media? I wonder if the prosecuting attorney requested the footage, would the police department had charged the DAs office $36,000? If the answer is no, then neither should it charge the public.
Yes, there are some things about the Universe that are fundamentally unknowable. For instance, anything that we cannot apply the scientific method against is unknowable. This equates to much of theoretical physics and cosmology. It doesn't mean that we can't have theories, but if those theories cannot be tested, then by definition, what they are purporting to explain is unknowable.
The failure of this plan is relying on corporations like Microsoft to do it. Corporations do things that are best for their shareholder's interests. The government and government run schools, on the other hand are for the public interest. While there may be some overlap between the two interests, most often they are not and relying on corporations to come up with curriculum and teaching methods is bound to fail.
For Microsoft and the other corporations involved in this, the students and schools are customers. It is reasonable to expect that Microsoft will push their OS, their programming platform, their web platform, etc., even if it isn't in the best interest of the country as a whole. Why? Because first and foremost, their goal is to maximize their shareholder's equity.
A more neutral approach to this would be to rely on colleges and universities to come up with a recommendation. Obviously, it would need to be coordinated, otherwise, you will have as many opinions as their are participants.
And finally, the question must be asked -- "In the future, will what is being being taught to code today be relevant?" If this were put in place in the 1980s, everybody would have been taught COBOL and FORTRAN. How useful would those skills have been by 2000? Teaching to code is more than learning a language, it is learning to think logically. It is learning to plan. It is learning to question. All of those skills can be taught without programming and are more useful in society than only being taught for programming.
If you want future adults who can code what they are told to code, teach programming. If you want future adults who can think for themselves, teach philosophy -- that way, there will be somebody to tell the coders what to code. There is a reason that parents who are in the 1% send their kids to elite schools that teach philosophy and other humanities along with core subjects. They are raising their kids to be leaders in the future. Sure, they also teach computer programming, for those who are interested, but not for those who are not. After all, in the future, if we all have to program our devices to get them to do what we want, then that is a step backward. That's fine for enthusiasts, but for most of society, it will become a skill as useful as in the past requiring everyone to take Home Ec or Shop class.
And *I* want you not to crash in me/my car/bicycle/motor if *I* happen to be between your A and B.
Statistically, you are safe from that happening. These new cars won't protect you from that. They are designed to protect you from yourself. However, if they are able to be user programmed to take on your own driving persona and aggressiveness, then it is unlikely they will succeed at protecting anybody.
Therefore, I want you car to be overstuffed with as much electronics as possible that can automatically break and avoid me in case you're distracted/busy texting/tired and not very concentrated/completely wasted, etc.
But why should I have to pay for your peace of mind? If you want that protection, then you should pay for it. Of course, most of this paying for it would be in the form of insurance premiums. But there, the math doesn't work. Driving a non-automated vehicle in the future should be no more risky behavior than it is today, so premiums should be comparable. We are told that an automated vehicle is supposed to be safer, so that should mean a decrease in premiums. However, for most people, even with full coverage, there isn't enough premium to decrease to offset the expected cost of these vehicles. As such, there is no return on investment for an individual (commercial fleets might be different).
(That's why I'm happy that features like "CitySafety(tm)" and other such Forward Collision Avoidance Systems are becomming more common place. It used to be only on high end expensive cars like my father's Volvo, now it's even available on the cheapest VW Up! on my local car-sharing).
Those types of features do have the ability to prevent or minimize some types of accidents and are relatively inexpensive to adopt. In reality, autonomous vehicle safety is based on those same technologies currently available. The part about the car driving to where you want to go doesn't improve safety. You could add the actual safety features to most new vehicles without having them be autonomous.
Driving is a dangerous activity.
No, it's not, really. If it were, insurance premiums would be much higher than they are. Insurance companies aren't in the business of losing money, after all.
Driving causes way much more death than terrorism, illegal aliens, or any other of the bogeyman currently waved by the media. Together with Cancer and Cardiovascular diseases, Driving is among the 3 leading causes of death. (Exact details vary depending on age. Youngs a more likely to die in a car crash, older are more likely to die of cancer or heartstroke).
I'm all for putting as much technology as possible to reduce risks of car crashes, and risks of me dying because I happened to be between your A and B point right at the moment you where distracted by the boobs on the model on some yogurt advertisement rather than paying attention in front of you.
These are just a string of unrelated things to make the statement "Driving is among the 3 leading cause of death..." But it isn't. Having an accident is a leading cause of death and even with autonomous vehicles, it still will be. Why? Because most things don't kill us. As such, most of these types of statements, ie heart disease, stroke, etc., are meaningless when taken out of context. Most people on the planet die do die from heart disease and stroke, but most of them are in third world countries. Likewise, traffic accidents is between 8 and 10 for the leading cause of death (depending on whose list you use), but again, most of it is in third world countries and has to deal with conditions outside the realm of what autonomous vehicles are designed for. You have a greater chance of death from Malaria than you do an auto accident.
In the United States the CDC shows accidents at number 4 for causes of death, but those are accidental deaths, not automobile accidents. Digging into the CD
You've never heard the phrase "patent medicine"? Granted, it usually applied to "snake oil", but the concept has long been valid. For example, U.S. patent 2834711 (1958) is a production method for bacitracin, a continuation of an abandoned patent application first made in 1953.
Patent medicines were never patented, they were trademarked. Bacitracin was first discovered to be an antibiotic in the early 1930s. Like penicillin, it occurred naturally. And was pretty effective. The patent you are referring to was for a way to produce it in greater quantities. In reality, it was about culturing and growing it on a larger scale. That patent didn't prevent anybody from producing it the old way.
Today's drug patents can't be separated from the process to produce them. You cannot come up with a different method to produce them. 100 years ago, this would be unthinkable. Today's pharmaceuticals are more like the former patent medicine/snake oil sellers, trying to bilk the public for whatever they can get. But back then, real pharmaceutical research was about doing things for the common good.
What would you expect. Intel is using a custom kernel optimized for Intel processors and chipsets. The other distros ship generic kernels to work with various processors and chipsets. If you prepare custom kernels for the specific hardware at hand, any of those distros listed in the summary will perform wickedly fast.
Medical technology is growing FAR faster than either medical ethics,
Hippocrates had a pretty good and solid standard of medical ethics, the only part I remember the translation of is his primary rule: "do no harm."
Too bad doctors stop taking the Hippocratic oath, at least in the US and now do a Declaration to Geneva. As such, they no longer profess to do no harm. It is more about not discriminating than doing no harm.
And now a company will patent her genes, and every insurance company will call this a pre-existing condition and deny treatment for anything related to this or its treatment.
That's the American way. Next step is euthanize to remove the mutants from the gene pool, until we're left with a perfect race. I'm pretty sure someone tried this once before...
That is only recently the American way. Previously, medical advances/techniques weren't patented. Polio would still be a problem, as would most advances in medicine in the past 100 years if today's American way was also yesterdays.
Who benefits from this? Microsoft, Apple, etc., are in the business of selling product. There is no doubt that very bright people are employed in these companies, but the first priority of each of them is to maximizing shareholder's value. Unless one wants to hold to the position that what is good for the shareholders is good for the masses, then we should not have big businesses designing the curriculum for the future.
If these companies want to be altruistic, then fine, give the funding to the local school districts and let the local school districts determine what is best for their constituents. We already hear complaints about how big government is not responsive to the local needs of schools. Why would we expect big business to be any different?
I remember a report about this (or, more likely, something similar) many years (20+) ago.
The Brits on the team called it the Stop Cock.
I, too, recall this from around 20 years ago. I believe, it was tested, but there were complications and it was never developed and other methods of reversible IVDs were developed.
And yet, it is the United States, which is the only country which has actually used nuclear weapons to kill other people.
And your point?
So what, would you like to compare death counts among nations? I think you'll find the United States comes out rather well on that account, at least from 1900 onward.
Or perhaps you would prefer they had not been used and another 2 million had to die via conventional means for another 9 months? Would that be better?
Frankly, had nuclear weapons been used in Korea in 1950, perhaps the war would have been over quickly, there wouldn't be a separate South/North today, and millions of dead since that war would we alive today.
As Patton once said, you don't win a war by dying for your country, you win by making the other dumb sonofabitch die for his.
My point was that the poster was worried what North Korea might do at some point in the future if they have nuclear weapons. Lots of countries have nuclear weapons and yet it is the United States that actually deployed them.
Not only did we deploy them, but we did so against predominantly non-military targets, killing 129,000 civilians or about 1/3 the population. Not included in this total is the untold suffering of hundreds of thousands who survived the initial bombing, but were maimed or otherwise wounded, usually, severely. Nor for the large increase in cancers and other health issues for those two cities that persist, even today.
Under no reasonable estimate from would 2 million US lives been at risk if the bombs had not been dropped. Truman, himself, stated in his memoirs that he believed the bombings saved upto 500,000 lives. A number of his advisers were opposed to dropping the bombs as the current mentality was that a naval blockade would have been as effective at preserving American soldiers lives without the collateral damage to the civilian population. Estimates of civilian deaths from a siege, mainly from lack of medicine or food were less than 10,000.
Many historians argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not about ending the war with Japan or protecting American lives. The ware was effectively over prior to that, even though there had not been an official surrender, yet. The argument is that it was a show of force to other nations as to what would happen in you messed with the United States, particularly directed at the Soviet Union.
Again, the point of the post was not to argue the merits of dropping the bombs on Japan. It was simple to point outthe hypocrisy of being against N.Korea using nuclear weapons against their enemies when that is exactly what the US did sixty years earlier.
Yeah, right. Did you know that you are STILL formally at war with them?
I assume you are referring to the United States. The US never declared war with North Korea, so it is impossible to be "STILL at war with them." If you review history, what is often referred to as the Korean War was a civil war between North and South Korea, in which the United States engaged militarily under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council support for the South.
This is not to minimize the sacrifices made by many Americans in the conflict. Only to point out that it wasn't actually a declared a War. The United States has only issued a declaration of war five times (War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II"
And finally, an armistice agreement was signed in 1953, ending the conflict, so even if it was a declared war, it was formally ended sixty-three years ago.
Firearms safety and marksmanship should be a section every year through high school.
Why don't we just leave high school to teaching real subjects. If your goal is for everybody to be trained on how to use a gun at the government's expense, mandatory service in the military would accomplish the same thing and be better training.
Exactly, this will simply waste tax payer dollars and add complexity to a safety device adding to the likelyhood it will fail to perform when needed.
Is the anti-Obama sentiment (or maybe it's the guns above all else sentiment) so strong on slashdot that even research related to improving gun safety is now a problem?
What makes the problem complex is that they are trying to stop the leak while keeping the well. It is a much simpler problem to stop the leak if one is willing to lose the well in the process.
Thank you for the citations, they were very interesting. With regards to buses, the first is a little dated with the chart for buses referring to 1987 through 1993. While many of those buses may still be on the road, there have been improvements over the years. That is an assumption on my part and may not be valid.
With regards to the second one, it appears that a major problem is that many bus manufactures and/or operators are not following the law. In addition, the parts of the US that I have been in, I see very few 60 foot articulated buses, but I am confident they exist. In their defense, I would assume the rational is that they transport twice as many people as a standard bus at less than twice the weight and reduced fuel consumption. Of course, the real reason is probably that they transport twice as many people with half the number of drivers, since that always seem to be the "cost" people are concerned with.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he means the use of the word irregardless.
Copyright for lifetime of author plus short period is fine and dandy: author's should have a chance to make money from their work, and their family should have some transition time to find alternative sources of income after they die, but past that... no. Just no.
Of course this whole extension thing started with Mickey Mouse. I mean those poor suffering Disney family members, err shareholders. Whatever would they have done without the extension?
You are trolling, of course, but the GPL is a license to use the code that somebody else created. One is free to use is as long as they abide by the terms. That is no different than using BSD, MIT or even proprietary code. In short, if you don't want to abide by the copyright owners terms, then don't use their code.
The Freedom of Information Act does allow a government body to charge for the cost to produce the information requested. This was originally intended to recoup the physical costs of producing photocopies or microfilm. However, since the the footage in question is digitized, how does one come up with a cost of $36,000 to turn it over to the media? I wonder if the prosecuting attorney requested the footage, would the police department had charged the DAs office $36,000? If the answer is no, then neither should it charge the public.
Yes, there are some things about the Universe that are fundamentally unknowable. For instance, anything that we cannot apply the scientific method against is unknowable. This equates to much of theoretical physics and cosmology. It doesn't mean that we can't have theories, but if those theories cannot be tested, then by definition, what they are purporting to explain is unknowable.
First, there was everything. Then it changed.
That begs the question, then, of what caused it to change?
The failure of this plan is relying on corporations like Microsoft to do it. Corporations do things that are best for their shareholder's interests. The government and government run schools, on the other hand are for the public interest. While there may be some overlap between the two interests, most often they are not and relying on corporations to come up with curriculum and teaching methods is bound to fail.
For Microsoft and the other corporations involved in this, the students and schools are customers. It is reasonable to expect that Microsoft will push their OS, their programming platform, their web platform, etc., even if it isn't in the best interest of the country as a whole. Why? Because first and foremost, their goal is to maximize their shareholder's equity.
A more neutral approach to this would be to rely on colleges and universities to come up with a recommendation. Obviously, it would need to be coordinated, otherwise, you will have as many opinions as their are participants.
And finally, the question must be asked -- "In the future, will what is being being taught to code today be relevant?" If this were put in place in the 1980s, everybody would have been taught COBOL and FORTRAN. How useful would those skills have been by 2000? Teaching to code is more than learning a language, it is learning to think logically. It is learning to plan. It is learning to question. All of those skills can be taught without programming and are more useful in society than only being taught for programming.
If you want future adults who can code what they are told to code, teach programming. If you want future adults who can think for themselves, teach philosophy -- that way, there will be somebody to tell the coders what to code. There is a reason that parents who are in the 1% send their kids to elite schools that teach philosophy and other humanities along with core subjects. They are raising their kids to be leaders in the future. Sure, they also teach computer programming, for those who are interested, but not for those who are not. After all, in the future, if we all have to program our devices to get them to do what we want, then that is a step backward. That's fine for enthusiasts, but for most of society, it will become a skill as useful as in the past requiring everyone to take Home Ec or Shop class.
And *I* want you not to crash in me/my car/bicycle/motor if *I* happen to be between your A and B.
Statistically, you are safe from that happening. These new cars won't protect you from that. They are designed to protect you from yourself. However, if they are able to be user programmed to take on your own driving persona and aggressiveness, then it is unlikely they will succeed at protecting anybody.
Therefore, I want you car to be overstuffed with as much electronics as possible that can automatically break and avoid me in case you're distracted/busy texting/tired and not very concentrated/completely wasted, etc.
But why should I have to pay for your peace of mind? If you want that protection, then you should pay for it. Of course, most of this paying for it would be in the form of insurance premiums. But there, the math doesn't work. Driving a non-automated vehicle in the future should be no more risky behavior than it is today, so premiums should be comparable. We are told that an automated vehicle is supposed to be safer, so that should mean a decrease in premiums. However, for most people, even with full coverage, there isn't enough premium to decrease to offset the expected cost of these vehicles. As such, there is no return on investment for an individual (commercial fleets might be different).
(That's why I'm happy that features like "CitySafety(tm)" and other such Forward Collision Avoidance Systems are becomming more common place. It used to be only on high end expensive cars like my father's Volvo, now it's even available on the cheapest VW Up! on my local car-sharing).
Those types of features do have the ability to prevent or minimize some types of accidents and are relatively inexpensive to adopt. In reality, autonomous vehicle safety is based on those same technologies currently available. The part about the car driving to where you want to go doesn't improve safety. You could add the actual safety features to most new vehicles without having them be autonomous.
Driving is a dangerous activity.
No, it's not, really. If it were, insurance premiums would be much higher than they are. Insurance companies aren't in the business of losing money, after all.
Driving causes way much more death than terrorism, illegal aliens, or any other of the bogeyman currently waved by the media.
Together with Cancer and Cardiovascular diseases, Driving is among the 3 leading causes of death. (Exact details vary depending on age. Youngs a more likely to die in a car crash, older are more likely to die of cancer or heartstroke).
I'm all for putting as much technology as possible to reduce risks of car crashes, and risks of me dying because I happened to be between your A and B point right at the moment you where distracted by the boobs on the model on some yogurt advertisement rather than paying attention in front of you.
These are just a string of unrelated things to make the statement "Driving is among the 3 leading cause of death..." But it isn't. Having an accident is a leading cause of death and even with autonomous vehicles, it still will be. Why? Because most things don't kill us. As such, most of these types of statements, ie heart disease, stroke, etc., are meaningless when taken out of context. Most people on the planet die do die from heart disease and stroke, but most of them are in third world countries. Likewise, traffic accidents is between 8 and 10 for the leading cause of death (depending on whose list you use), but again, most of it is in third world countries and has to deal with conditions outside the realm of what autonomous vehicles are designed for. You have a greater chance of death from Malaria than you do an auto accident.
In the United States the CDC shows accidents at number 4 for causes of death, but those are accidental deaths, not automobile accidents. Digging into the CD
You've never heard the phrase "patent medicine"? Granted, it usually applied to "snake oil", but the concept has long been valid. For example, U.S. patent 2834711 (1958) is a production method for bacitracin, a continuation of an abandoned patent application first made in 1953.
Patent medicines were never patented, they were trademarked. Bacitracin was first discovered to be an antibiotic in the early 1930s. Like penicillin, it occurred naturally. And was pretty effective. The patent you are referring to was for a way to produce it in greater quantities. In reality, it was about culturing and growing it on a larger scale. That patent didn't prevent anybody from producing it the old way.
Today's drug patents can't be separated from the process to produce them. You cannot come up with a different method to produce them. 100 years ago, this would be unthinkable. Today's pharmaceuticals are more like the former patent medicine/snake oil sellers, trying to bilk the public for whatever they can get. But back then, real pharmaceutical research was about doing things for the common good.
What would you expect. Intel is using a custom kernel optimized for Intel processors and chipsets. The other distros ship generic kernels to work with various processors and chipsets. If you prepare custom kernels for the specific hardware at hand, any of those distros listed in the summary will perform wickedly fast.
Medical technology is growing FAR faster than either medical ethics,
Hippocrates had a pretty good and solid standard of medical ethics, the only part I remember the translation of is his primary rule: "do no harm."
Too bad doctors stop taking the Hippocratic oath, at least in the US and now do a Declaration to Geneva. As such, they no longer profess to do no harm. It is more about not discriminating than doing no harm.
And now a company will patent her genes, and every insurance company will call this a pre-existing condition and deny treatment for anything related to this or its treatment.
That's the American way. Next step is euthanize to remove the mutants from the gene pool, until we're left with a perfect race. I'm pretty sure someone tried this once before...
That is only recently the American way. Previously, medical advances/techniques weren't patented. Polio would still be a problem, as would most advances in medicine in the past 100 years if today's American way was also yesterdays.
Who benefits from this? Microsoft, Apple, etc., are in the business of selling product. There is no doubt that very bright people are employed in these companies, but the first priority of each of them is to maximizing shareholder's value. Unless one wants to hold to the position that what is good for the shareholders is good for the masses, then we should not have big businesses designing the curriculum for the future.
If these companies want to be altruistic, then fine, give the funding to the local school districts and let the local school districts determine what is best for their constituents. We already hear complaints about how big government is not responsive to the local needs of schools. Why would we expect big business to be any different?
I remember a report about this (or, more likely, something similar) many years (20+) ago.
The Brits on the team called it the Stop Cock.
I, too, recall this from around 20 years ago. I believe, it was tested, but there were complications and it was never developed and other methods of reversible IVDs were developed.
And yet, it is the United States, which is the only country which has actually used nuclear weapons to kill other people.
And your point?
So what, would you like to compare death counts among nations? I think you'll find the United States comes out rather well on that account, at least from 1900 onward.
Or perhaps you would prefer they had not been used and another 2 million had to die via conventional means for another 9 months? Would that be better?
Frankly, had nuclear weapons been used in Korea in 1950, perhaps the war would have been over quickly, there wouldn't be a separate South/North today, and millions of dead since that war would we alive today.
As Patton once said, you don't win a war by dying for your country, you win by making the other dumb sonofabitch die for his.
My point was that the poster was worried what North Korea might do at some point in the future if they have nuclear weapons. Lots of countries have nuclear weapons and yet it is the United States that actually deployed them.
Not only did we deploy them, but we did so against predominantly non-military targets, killing 129,000 civilians or about 1/3 the population. Not included in this total is the untold suffering of hundreds of thousands who survived the initial bombing, but were maimed or otherwise wounded, usually, severely. Nor for the large increase in cancers and other health issues for those two cities that persist, even today.
Under no reasonable estimate from would 2 million US lives been at risk if the bombs had not been dropped. Truman, himself, stated in his memoirs that he believed the bombings saved upto 500,000 lives. A number of his advisers were opposed to dropping the bombs as the current mentality was that a naval blockade would have been as effective at preserving American soldiers lives without the collateral damage to the civilian population. Estimates of civilian deaths from a siege, mainly from lack of medicine or food were less than 10,000.
Many historians argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not about ending the war with Japan or protecting American lives. The ware was effectively over prior to that, even though there had not been an official surrender, yet. The argument is that it was a show of force to other nations as to what would happen in you messed with the United States, particularly directed at the Soviet Union.
Again, the point of the post was not to argue the merits of dropping the bombs on Japan. It was simple to point outthe hypocrisy of being against N.Korea using nuclear weapons against their enemies when that is exactly what the US did sixty years earlier.
How about we stop fucking with the world's people and then they'll have no reason to want to blow us up?
Does anyone actually believe that "they hate us fer aar freedoms
Pope Paul VI said it more eloquently: If you want peace, work for justice. Those words, often ignored, are just as true today as they were in 1972.
Yeah, right. Did you know that you are STILL formally at war with them?
I assume you are referring to the United States. The US never declared war with North Korea, so it is impossible to be "STILL at war with them." If you review history, what is often referred to as the Korean War was a civil war between North and South Korea, in which the United States engaged militarily under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council support for the South.
This is not to minimize the sacrifices made by many Americans in the conflict. Only to point out that it wasn't actually a declared a War. The United States has only issued a declaration of war five times (War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II"
And finally, an armistice agreement was signed in 1953, ending the conflict, so even if it was a declared war, it was formally ended sixty-three years ago.
They'll still want to kill us simply because of what we represent, regardless of whether or not we "fuck with them."
And yet, it is the United States, which is the only country which has actually used nuclear weapons to kill other people.
Firearms safety and marksmanship should be a section every year through high school.
Why don't we just leave high school to teaching real subjects. If your goal is for everybody to be trained on how to use a gun at the government's expense, mandatory service in the military would accomplish the same thing and be better training.
Exactly, this will simply waste tax payer dollars and add complexity to a safety device adding to the likelyhood it will fail to perform when needed.
Is the anti-Obama sentiment (or maybe it's the guns above all else sentiment) so strong on slashdot that even research related to improving gun safety is now a problem?
Give me the frequencies. I'll have jammers made in China within a month.
Really? All he is calling for is research into technologies that could possibly be used.
Which is related to either this thread or the original post, how?
What makes the problem complex is that they are trying to stop the leak while keeping the well. It is a much simpler problem to stop the leak if one is willing to lose the well in the process.
The United States is not representative of all governments.
Thank you for the citations, they were very interesting. With regards to buses, the first is a little dated with the chart for buses referring to 1987 through 1993. While many of those buses may still be on the road, there have been improvements over the years. That is an assumption on my part and may not be valid.
With regards to the second one, it appears that a major problem is that many bus manufactures and/or operators are not following the law. In addition, the parts of the US that I have been in, I see very few 60 foot articulated buses, but I am confident they exist. In their defense, I would assume the rational is that they transport twice as many people as a standard bus at less than twice the weight and reduced fuel consumption. Of course, the real reason is probably that they transport twice as many people with half the number of drivers, since that always seem to be the "cost" people are concerned with.
Again, thank you, I stand (or type) corrected.