If you can't stop between the time that the light goes yellow and the time that it goes red, and you enter the intersection on red anyway, then you should have your brakes fixed because you're a danger to the other people on the road.
Feel free to blame testing as well. In the US you can get a test for basically free, there's no mandatory education, the test itself is ~30 insultingly stupid multiple-choice questions ("You see a pedestrian in the crosswalk ahead. Do you A) slow down or stop, B) go around them, or C) honk?" is not actually as fictional as you'd might like to believe). The driving portion is also simple, 10 minutes or so, basically drive in a neighborhood, emergency stop when told to after being warned that its coming up, reverse a little, parallel park. You can miss 30% on both portions and still get your license, and if you fail you can try again the very next day.
As a British ex-pat living in Texas I wish I was exaggerating any of that, but I'm really not.
So you want people slamming on their brakes the instant they see yellow?
If they can safely stop, then yes. Anyone should also be leaving enough of a gap to stop if the car in front of them stops too, for any reason.
The fact that things like this are disputed reminds me regularly of how much of a joke the US driver's test is compared to most other country's versions.
Yup. People should treat the yellow light as a red light, with the added benefit of showing you that the red light grace period was in effect when it changed just before you entered the intersection so that you don't worry that you broke the law. Instead, people treat it as if it was a green light with a note that its going to change soon. If there's a yellow and you can safely stop, you stop.
If you enter on yellow it should be because you were going to fast and were too close to stop safely, so leaving before it turns red shouldn't be a problem. People should be treating yellow lights as red lights with a grace period, not as the end of the green lights.
The real problem comes when people reduce the yellow light length after installing traffic cameras - that's just wrong.
a big part of why I subscribe is that I don't want to spend time doing that math.
Same here. Its like having an unlimited plan on your mobile instead of counting minutes even if you rarely go over - its one less thing to think about and once the price comes down enough what you're really paying for is the convenience of swapping a known quantity for an unknown one. At $9.99/mo or whatever its generally well worth it.
I'd do the same for movies too - at $29 or even $49 / mo for all major studios I'd spend far more every year than I do today, but would still happily sign up.
I don't know where you find all those batch-processing programs that don't need to process a lot of data, because that's pretty much the only case that doesn't need speed.
Actually most of those spend their days waiting on some form of database.
But it's not. Gmail on Chrome allows you to drag and drop attachments to the desktop. FF and IE on Windows don't support that feature.
Even more to the point, mobile devices might not even have the same concept of "a desktop". I'm sure that my smartwatch doesn't, and it shouldn't either.
Binary compatibility is far simpler than usage compatibility.
Same here. We can have developers working and running "natively" on Windows machines and OS X machines, then deploying to Linux for testing and production without any fear whatsoever that there'll be any kind of an OS-level compatibility error.
No, because math. A single minimum-wage employee working 12 hours a day costs around $35K/year. Automation is almost never expensive if it can truly replace humans, regardless of the up-front cost.
Oh, please. A kiosk in a fast-food restaurant operates what, 12 hours a day, 365 days a year? That's 4,380 hours per year. If they only last for a year and cost as much as $20K to install and operate for that year, they're cheaper than someone making $5/hr. Automation was inevitable regardless of wages.
Compared to creating content at the level of a blockbuster movie, implementing terrible DRM is basically free. Sure, you're forcing everyone who wants to watch it to do some stupid crap like downloading a random Windows executable, but the incremental cost to the creator rounds to zero. The incremental inconvenience to the consumers rounds up to infinity, but it turns out that they want to watch it anyway and generally don't care so they'll just do the thing.
To most people, giving them the choice of being able to watch Dr. Strange after double-clicking some weird EXE or being able to watch the latest $4 budget indie production just by playing it, they'll pick the EXE every single time.
In fairness, if I found out that teh guvmnt was putting significant quantities of sugar in my water I'd be a little upset too. It would certainly make washing up more challenging.
on the only device you're carrying with you at all times.
Assuming that you also had your headphones with you, of course. And if people are expected to have ready access to headphones then they probably also have ready access to another radio.
Or because it doesn't work very well, and adding in a feature that doesn't deliver the crisp sound that people expect from a digital device will result in an increase in support calls. People will also complain that it doesn't work without wired headphones. So lots of bad press, most people don't care (but will still be influenced by the press), the company has a higher support cost, and there's no additional revenue attached to it.
How can it be a "free" model of supply and demand when the costs are artificially lowered to undercut their competition? That's classic short-term monopoly behavior.
Unfortunately, many of those funds are increasingly invested by other funds, which end up being bought by "regular folk" or teachers pension funds or what have you. It all comes around.
Probably because Uber doesn't scale. The shitty shuttle really does cost $12 with a thin margin. Uber exists in a bubble where VC funding is being used to dramatically undercut their competition at thoroughly unprofitable rates. Once the competition does go away, do you really think that Uber would still be under $12?
A lot of them are only making money if you ignore all of their fees. Between insurance, gas, depreciation, downtime, the full boat of taxes and everything else they often make far less than minimum wage.
Worse - they put an awful lot of good, solid companies out of business while they "disrupt" and then disappear - in this case, paying whoever the can to change whatever regulations they want along the way without any particular regard as to how they may affect others.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't stop between the time that the light goes yellow and the time that it goes red, and you enter the intersection on red anyway, then you should have your brakes fixed because you're a danger to the other people on the road.
Feel free to blame testing as well. In the US you can get a test for basically free, there's no mandatory education, the test itself is ~30 insultingly stupid multiple-choice questions ("You see a pedestrian in the crosswalk ahead. Do you A) slow down or stop, B) go around them, or C) honk?" is not actually as fictional as you'd might like to believe). The driving portion is also simple, 10 minutes or so, basically drive in a neighborhood, emergency stop when told to after being warned that its coming up, reverse a little, parallel park. You can miss 30% on both portions and still get your license, and if you fail you can try again the very next day.
As a British ex-pat living in Texas I wish I was exaggerating any of that, but I'm really not.
So you want people slamming on their brakes the instant they see yellow?
If they can safely stop, then yes. Anyone should also be leaving enough of a gap to stop if the car in front of them stops too, for any reason.
The fact that things like this are disputed reminds me regularly of how much of a joke the US driver's test is compared to most other country's versions.
Yup. People should treat the yellow light as a red light, with the added benefit of showing you that the red light grace period was in effect when it changed just before you entered the intersection so that you don't worry that you broke the law. Instead, people treat it as if it was a green light with a note that its going to change soon. If there's a yellow and you can safely stop, you stop.
If you enter on yellow it should be because you were going to fast and were too close to stop safely, so leaving before it turns red shouldn't be a problem. People should be treating yellow lights as red lights with a grace period, not as the end of the green lights.
The real problem comes when people reduce the yellow light length after installing traffic cameras - that's just wrong.
a big part of why I subscribe is that I don't want to spend time doing that math.
Same here. Its like having an unlimited plan on your mobile instead of counting minutes even if you rarely go over - its one less thing to think about and once the price comes down enough what you're really paying for is the convenience of swapping a known quantity for an unknown one. At $9.99/mo or whatever its generally well worth it.
I'd do the same for movies too - at $29 or even $49 / mo for all major studios I'd spend far more every year than I do today, but would still happily sign up.
payola is only used for promotion (e.g. new music), your local radio station isn't being paid to play the Beatles.
Oddly enough, the music charts are generally also only full of new music, and rarely if ever contain a Beatles album. Weird, huh.
I don't know where you find all those batch-processing programs that don't need to process a lot of data, because that's pretty much the only case that doesn't need speed.
Actually most of those spend their days waiting on some form of database.
But it's not. Gmail on Chrome allows you to drag and drop attachments to the desktop. FF and IE on Windows don't support that feature.
Even more to the point, mobile devices might not even have the same concept of "a desktop". I'm sure that my smartwatch doesn't, and it shouldn't either.
Binary compatibility is far simpler than usage compatibility.
Same here. We can have developers working and running "natively" on Windows machines and OS X machines, then deploying to Linux for testing and production without any fear whatsoever that there'll be any kind of an OS-level compatibility error.
No, because math. A single minimum-wage employee working 12 hours a day costs around $35K/year. Automation is almost never expensive if it can truly replace humans, regardless of the up-front cost.
Oh, please. A kiosk in a fast-food restaurant operates what, 12 hours a day, 365 days a year? That's 4,380 hours per year. If they only last for a year and cost as much as $20K to install and operate for that year, they're cheaper than someone making $5/hr. Automation was inevitable regardless of wages.
Compared to creating content at the level of a blockbuster movie, implementing terrible DRM is basically free. Sure, you're forcing everyone who wants to watch it to do some stupid crap like downloading a random Windows executable, but the incremental cost to the creator rounds to zero. The incremental inconvenience to the consumers rounds up to infinity, but it turns out that they want to watch it anyway and generally don't care so they'll just do the thing.
To most people, giving them the choice of being able to watch Dr. Strange after double-clicking some weird EXE or being able to watch the latest $4 budget indie production just by playing it, they'll pick the EXE every single time.
In fairness, if I found out that teh guvmnt was putting significant quantities of sugar in my water I'd be a little upset too. It would certainly make washing up more challenging.
Well said.
Nice analogy - well said.
on the only device you're carrying with you at all times.
Assuming that you also had your headphones with you, of course. And if people are expected to have ready access to headphones then they probably also have ready access to another radio.
Or because it doesn't work very well, and adding in a feature that doesn't deliver the crisp sound that people expect from a digital device will result in an increase in support calls. People will also complain that it doesn't work without wired headphones. So lots of bad press, most people don't care (but will still be influenced by the press), the company has a higher support cost, and there's no additional revenue attached to it.
What's not to love?
How can it be a "free" model of supply and demand when the costs are artificially lowered to undercut their competition? That's classic short-term monopoly behavior.
Unfortunately, many of those funds are increasingly invested by other funds, which end up being bought by "regular folk" or teachers pension funds or what have you. It all comes around.
Probably because Uber doesn't scale. The shitty shuttle really does cost $12 with a thin margin. Uber exists in a bubble where VC funding is being used to dramatically undercut their competition at thoroughly unprofitable rates. Once the competition does go away, do you really think that Uber would still be under $12?
A lot of them are only making money if you ignore all of their fees. Between insurance, gas, depreciation, downtime, the full boat of taxes and everything else they often make far less than minimum wage.
So paying off the government to eliminate their competition through uneven regulation is ... good for business?
Worse - they put an awful lot of good, solid companies out of business while they "disrupt" and then disappear - in this case, paying whoever the can to change whatever regulations they want along the way without any particular regard as to how they may affect others.
My guess is that whenever they get the longer-distance charging working, the next version just won't have a port at all.
And everyone will complain about that too.