Not really. Unless you like being surrounded by unmanageable swarms of pests you and your ecosystem are not used to (and the diseases they carry), the lack of food (as your new land won't be suitable for agriculture on the same level as the land which has ceased to be farmable), the increased sea levels which have affected the financial capitals of the world, and so on and so on. And if your land happens to be permafrost with lots of methane inside, then it'll get even warmer when it gets just a little bit warm. It's not just about temperature, and if you'd bother to familiarise yourself with this discussion, you'd know that. So no, it wouldn't be a welcome thing, even if your ignorance seems to think it would be.
No-one is saying the fire took out the electronics and killed everyone. People are saying that a very likely scenario is a fire (which can be small) which caused smoke. The pilots, in that situation, would disconnect all electrical systems to isolate which circuit (if any) is causing the fire, starting by pulling them all, and re-enabling them one by one to see if any are failing. If there was a problem with their oxygen supply at that time, then they could have passed out due to a lack of oxygen. It's not the fire which would have killed them, it's the smoke. So yes, it's far more likely than the bizarre conspiracy theories. Just because you don't know these things doesn't mean they aren't out there ready to be known.
Terrorism is the use or threat of force against a people in order to coerce them. That is it. Any disproportionate response which might gain more supporters has nothing to do with it. In fact, if that was their aim, they are not engaged in terrorism, but provoking an attack. These words have meaning, and terrorism doesn't mean what you think it does.
No, terrorism is defined as the use or threat of force against a population in order to coerce them politically. So if they're just doing it, then it's not terrorism, it's being a dick. If they have an agenda they wish to further through their attacks, then they are indeed terrorists. Words have meaning.
No, the only way to combat it is for governments to listen to grievances from parties outside their borders, and to earnestly engage them with diplomacy. It's easier to talk to a concerned citizens' group and find a suitable solution than wait 20 years and talk to their children's terrorist organisation. Your solution isn't a solution but simply ignoring a problem and hoping it doesn't get any worse. We can look at Northern Ireland to see how diplomacy is the most powerful weapon against terrorism.
If it worked as Tesla said it did, which is unlikely. He made up so much nonsense during his final years it's no wonder people on the internet get all loved up for Tesla. If they were true, he'd have been a brilliantly wonderful scientist. As it stands, he was just a brilliant scientist.
On Android you just download an APK file and run it to install it. For it to be easier in iOS the packages have to be either already on your device, or automatically installed when downloaded. Which one is it?:)
The "doom" of which you speak exists. It's well documented. You clearly don't have a clue. You should look at temperatures, sea levels, and the plant species around. If you think we'd live perfectly in such an environment, you either don't know much about humanity, or you're lying.
You don't know just how good Black Cab drivers are. You really don't. Try asking Google Maps for "that street past that place on Essex Road that used to be the Jerk Chicken place, next to that old furniture shop". See how well that works. Go on. And factor in that they know when football games are scheduled, when rush hour hits different places, roadworks, defective traffic lights, detours, etc. Google Maps is great, but it's no cabbie. They will get you precisely where you need to go even if you only know roughly where it is.
Not to mention the obscenely large cabin, the ridiculously small turning circle, and the strangely-powerful engine which makes for some rather interesting overtaking and launching from a red light. They're absolutely genius, and offer a service far beyond their closest competitors the world over.
What if the argument is "Option A is better, but people might think Option B is somehow representative of Option A, damaging Option A through being worse. Also Option B doesn't have to abide by the very strict regulation regarding this industry, whereas Option A does, meaning they are at a disadvantage for simply playing by the rules laid out in the late 19th century"?
Because they know it's of paramount importance to their profession that taxi drivers are taxi drivers - they know where they're going, how much it will cost, recently-inspected vehicles, and that they don't have criminal records. Anything which risks making their profession seem like a bunch of muppets will rub them the wrong way. To them it's a way of life and not just a job. London requires well-functioning taxis in order to operate, and this is a massive step backwards.
In London they *really* know their area - so much so that it takes ~34 months on average to learn enough to pass your test. They don't need GPS they're so good. They also are not allowed to refuse to drive you. And they can't steal from you as the meter is prominently displayed, independently verified, and tipping is not expected let alone demanded.
Even those private minicab businesses have to be licensed (including background checks for drivers and regular vehicle inspections) which Uber does not. This is the problem. It will lead to people being inconvenienced, which is the antithesis of being a London taxi driver.
Nope. It was a law (Section 51 of the London Hackney Carriage Act 1831) stating that if anyone (driver or member of the public) was to feed a Hackney Carriage horse, that they do it from a bag of corn or from hay held in their hand, in order to stop traffic being slowed and to keep the streets clean. Clearly having that on the books with no-one using horses causes no problems for anyone.
It's quite simple - people need taxis to get around. They need to know when they get in one that it's going to be the best possible service. Uber is great, but it requires multiple failures before a driver isn't allowed to pick up "fares" any more, meaning each of those passengers picked up before dismissal will suffer. That is not a great system. London is unique in this regard - its black cab drivers are excellent, and you can be as assured as possible that when you get in one, you will have the best service possible. These are not your average US taxi drivers - these are the real deal.
But it's not a privilege for them - they earned it through years of hard work studying "The Knowledge":
The taxicab driver is required to be able to decide routes immediately in response to a passenger's request or traffic conditions, rather than stopping to look at a map, relying on satellite navigation or asking a controller by radio. Consequently, the 'Knowledge'[4] is the in-depth study of a number of pre-set London street routes and places of interest that taxicab drivers in that city must complete to obtain a licence to operate a black cab. It was initiated in 1865, and has changed little since. It is claimed that the training involved ensures that London taxi drivers are experts on London, and have an intimate knowledge of the city. It is the world's most demanding training course for taxicab drivers, and applicants will usually need at least twelve 'appearances' (attempts at the final test), after preparation averaging 34 months, to pass the examination.[4]
They provide a service no-one else can, and that service is essential to the well-functioning of London. There are already non-black-cab taxis in London, and they are inferior in practically every way. Those taxis also have to follow the law, in particular the licensing, background checks for the drivers, and inspections of vehicles, before they can have a meter or take members of the public as passengers.
I've taken taxis in loads of countries, including LA and NYC, and they absolutely suck in comparison. I got off a flight from London to LA and the taxi driver asked me to use the map to show him where to go as he simply didn't know and couldn't figure out the map himself. Obviously he wouldn't last too long as a driver if Uber stops bad drivers from participating, but the problem is people will be inconvenienced before he gets pulled from the system - that's the issue. There is no question that a black cab will provide a great service, but if anyone can start being a cab driver, that is not going to be the case. If you can't rely on public transport, there is no point in having it.
So you are claiming the scientists are all working together, across national boundaries in adversarial countries, falsifying their evidence so well that it can pass peer review without any single one exposing the fraud and collecting their Nobel prize and untold riches in the process, so they can collect money from you? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? You are dismissing science because of what you assume will happen in the political world based on their findings. It's as bizarre as saying germ theory is a hoax because you don't want to subsidize medicare or medicaid. People like you are more dangerous than climate change.
They're expensive because they're worth it. Each black cab driver has passed an extensive testing process which demonstrates their intimate knowledge of the streets of London, being able to navigate through the maze of streets, using routes depending on traffic levels, construction, detours, etc. You can climb in to the back of a black cab, drunkenly mumble your address (or as much of it as you can remember) and the black cab will whisk you home. The black cabs themselves are designed for London streets - their acceleration, turning circles, and number of people they can carry are all optimised for London. They are tightly regulated, and it works - they are demonstrably the best taxi service in the entire world. They already have competition, and it pales in comparison to the professionalism of the fleet as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Unless you like being surrounded by unmanageable swarms of pests you and your ecosystem are not used to (and the diseases they carry), the lack of food (as your new land won't be suitable for agriculture on the same level as the land which has ceased to be farmable), the increased sea levels which have affected the financial capitals of the world, and so on and so on. And if your land happens to be permafrost with lots of methane inside, then it'll get even warmer when it gets just a little bit warm. It's not just about temperature, and if you'd bother to familiarise yourself with this discussion, you'd know that. So no, it wouldn't be a welcome thing, even if your ignorance seems to think it would be.
It hasn't been, though. Maybe where you live, but other parts of the world have had no winter at all.
No-one is saying the fire took out the electronics and killed everyone. People are saying that a very likely scenario is a fire (which can be small) which caused smoke. The pilots, in that situation, would disconnect all electrical systems to isolate which circuit (if any) is causing the fire, starting by pulling them all, and re-enabling them one by one to see if any are failing. If there was a problem with their oxygen supply at that time, then they could have passed out due to a lack of oxygen. It's not the fire which would have killed them, it's the smoke. So yes, it's far more likely than the bizarre conspiracy theories. Just because you don't know these things doesn't mean they aren't out there ready to be known.
Terrorism is the use or threat of force against a people in order to coerce them. That is it. Any disproportionate response which might gain more supporters has nothing to do with it. In fact, if that was their aim, they are not engaged in terrorism, but provoking an attack. These words have meaning, and terrorism doesn't mean what you think it does.
No, terrorism is defined as the use or threat of force against a population in order to coerce them politically. So if they're just doing it, then it's not terrorism, it's being a dick. If they have an agenda they wish to further through their attacks, then they are indeed terrorists. Words have meaning.
No, the only way to combat it is for governments to listen to grievances from parties outside their borders, and to earnestly engage them with diplomacy. It's easier to talk to a concerned citizens' group and find a suitable solution than wait 20 years and talk to their children's terrorist organisation. Your solution isn't a solution but simply ignoring a problem and hoping it doesn't get any worse. We can look at Northern Ireland to see how diplomacy is the most powerful weapon against terrorism.
If it worked as Tesla said it did, which is unlikely. He made up so much nonsense during his final years it's no wonder people on the internet get all loved up for Tesla. If they were true, he'd have been a brilliantly wonderful scientist. As it stands, he was just a brilliant scientist.
Really? There are laws prohibiting the marriage of left-handed people? Or people being bludgeoned to death for being right-handed? You're a fool.
On Android you just download an APK file and run it to install it. For it to be easier in iOS the packages have to be either already on your device, or automatically installed when downloaded. Which one is it? :)
The "doom" of which you speak exists. It's well documented. You clearly don't have a clue. You should look at temperatures, sea levels, and the plant species around. If you think we'd live perfectly in such an environment, you either don't know much about humanity, or you're lying.
You don't know just how good Black Cab drivers are. You really don't. Try asking Google Maps for "that street past that place on Essex Road that used to be the Jerk Chicken place, next to that old furniture shop". See how well that works. Go on. And factor in that they know when football games are scheduled, when rush hour hits different places, roadworks, defective traffic lights, detours, etc. Google Maps is great, but it's no cabbie. They will get you precisely where you need to go even if you only know roughly where it is.
1. It's not a false dichotomy
2. Electricity is 100% reliable, the sourcing of it might not be.
Grow up.
Not to mention the obscenely large cabin, the ridiculously small turning circle, and the strangely-powerful engine which makes for some rather interesting overtaking and launching from a red light. They're absolutely genius, and offer a service far beyond their closest competitors the world over.
What if the argument is "Option A is better, but people might think Option B is somehow representative of Option A, damaging Option A through being worse. Also Option B doesn't have to abide by the very strict regulation regarding this industry, whereas Option A does, meaning they are at a disadvantage for simply playing by the rules laid out in the late 19th century"?
Because they know it's of paramount importance to their profession that taxi drivers are taxi drivers - they know where they're going, how much it will cost, recently-inspected vehicles, and that they don't have criminal records. Anything which risks making their profession seem like a bunch of muppets will rub them the wrong way. To them it's a way of life and not just a job. London requires well-functioning taxis in order to operate, and this is a massive step backwards.
In London they *really* know their area - so much so that it takes ~34 months on average to learn enough to pass your test. They don't need GPS they're so good. They also are not allowed to refuse to drive you. And they can't steal from you as the meter is prominently displayed, independently verified, and tipping is not expected let alone demanded.
Munich is in South-East Germany. Google Maps isn't that hard to use, is it? :)
Even those private minicab businesses have to be licensed (including background checks for drivers and regular vehicle inspections) which Uber does not. This is the problem. It will lead to people being inconvenienced, which is the antithesis of being a London taxi driver.
Nope. It was a law (Section 51 of the London Hackney Carriage Act 1831) stating that if anyone (driver or member of the public) was to feed a Hackney Carriage horse, that they do it from a bag of corn or from hay held in their hand, in order to stop traffic being slowed and to keep the streets clean. Clearly having that on the books with no-one using horses causes no problems for anyone.
Neither of those examples were Black Cab drivers. They are trying to protect an excellent reputation as the best taxi drivers you can find anywhere.
It's quite simple - people need taxis to get around. They need to know when they get in one that it's going to be the best possible service. Uber is great, but it requires multiple failures before a driver isn't allowed to pick up "fares" any more, meaning each of those passengers picked up before dismissal will suffer. That is not a great system. London is unique in this regard - its black cab drivers are excellent, and you can be as assured as possible that when you get in one, you will have the best service possible. These are not your average US taxi drivers - these are the real deal.
But it's not a privilege for them - they earned it through years of hard work studying "The Knowledge":
They provide a service no-one else can, and that service is essential to the well-functioning of London. There are already non-black-cab taxis in London, and they are inferior in practically every way. Those taxis also have to follow the law, in particular the licensing, background checks for the drivers, and inspections of vehicles, before they can have a meter or take members of the public as passengers.
I've taken taxis in loads of countries, including LA and NYC, and they absolutely suck in comparison. I got off a flight from London to LA and the taxi driver asked me to use the map to show him where to go as he simply didn't know and couldn't figure out the map himself. Obviously he wouldn't last too long as a driver if Uber stops bad drivers from participating, but the problem is people will be inconvenienced before he gets pulled from the system - that's the issue. There is no question that a black cab will provide a great service, but if anyone can start being a cab driver, that is not going to be the case. If you can't rely on public transport, there is no point in having it.
So you are claiming the scientists are all working together, across national boundaries in adversarial countries, falsifying their evidence so well that it can pass peer review without any single one exposing the fraud and collecting their Nobel prize and untold riches in the process, so they can collect money from you? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? You are dismissing science because of what you assume will happen in the political world based on their findings. It's as bizarre as saying germ theory is a hoax because you don't want to subsidize medicare or medicaid. People like you are more dangerous than climate change.
"Alien" can mean many things, "foreign" and "unknown" are two which aptly describe a base-pair not found in nature.
They're expensive because they're worth it. Each black cab driver has passed an extensive testing process which demonstrates their intimate knowledge of the streets of London, being able to navigate through the maze of streets, using routes depending on traffic levels, construction, detours, etc. You can climb in to the back of a black cab, drunkenly mumble your address (or as much of it as you can remember) and the black cab will whisk you home. The black cabs themselves are designed for London streets - their acceleration, turning circles, and number of people they can carry are all optimised for London. They are tightly regulated, and it works - they are demonstrably the best taxi service in the entire world. They already have competition, and it pales in comparison to the professionalism of the fleet as a whole.