No, I insulted you. I asked a simple question. That you refuse to answer indicates you are lying about your abilities. I have worked at a law office in a legal capacity. You have never worked at a law office in a legal capacity. That's all I can gather, other than you assert that 18.5 years of cleaning toilets in a law office makes one a legal expert.
Ah, so a lying sack of shit, trolling for those who would correct your wrong opinion presented as fact. Have fun cleaning the toilets for lawyers. Does theirs smell better?
Having lived in Texas, Alaska, and outside the US, everywhere I've lived, the natural gas is almost exactly the same as electricity. Every house I've lived in had water, electricity and gas. I've never lived anywhere where gas was rare. Also, having worked with a fleet, the CNG cars all had CNG maps. Places where you could fill up, if you got lost or had an emergency and couldn't make it back to "base". CNG is already lots of places. I've been to Mobile gas stations in TX with CNG at the pump, like anything else (well, it was off to the side, next to the propane bottle refil area).
Here, the code requires the hot water heater be in a pan large enough to hold a complete discharge, or have the pressure relief piped outside the house. Most opt for the latter.
Also, the pressure relief is insufficient for most things equipped with one. If in an actual fire, the pressure build-up would be faster than the relief, resulting in a catastrophic failure of the water heater.
I was reading the comments you were responding to. You posted a non sequitur. Whether people "may" not want to own them has no bearing on whether you would.
That, and to make your point, you'd have to make no distinction between the smallest car and and the largest trucks.
Trials in absentia are common. Does Sweden not perform them? Does Sweden guarantee a speedy trial? In the US, the rules around it allow for defense delays, but not prosecutorial. So holding back trial because the defendant is evading arrest is a valid reason to delay a trail indefinitely.
I note, even after my comments, you avoided saying what you did. You aren't a lawyer. You aren't a para-legal. You are "immersed" in a janitorial career.
Given that you refuse to answer a clear and simple question, I can only assume it's the worst possible option.
You drive in to work. You no longer park at work. You "advertise" a ride back towards home. Any takes, your car is a taxi. No takers, your car drives home and parks there until time to get off work. For me, the cost of driving home (and back) is less than the cost of parking.
Take out the cost of the medallion (not needed for a private car) and a driver, and you've eliminated most of the cost. Depreciation is another big cost in the ride that people don't think about, because the owned car is silently depreciating. Since the medallion monopoly was invented for protection of/from drivers, and they are gone, then there'd be no reason to artificially limit the vehicles for driverless taxi.
Doesn't take the wind out of anything. What are you renting and why? It'd be available, just like I can rent a 100 year old motorbike, or a horse. I might not know how to ride either, but they are available now. Those that wish to ride them learn to do so, or go on supervised rides.
That's common now. Most people who move houses do rent or hire to do it. It's only the college-age that pack everything they own into a 30-year old 2-door car to move.
Nobody is saying anything that would prevent a human from driving. The basic human right is travel, not piloting the vehicle. And that basic human right is still guaranteed. And driving on a track would still be allowed. But get your unsafe ass off my roads. Despite your delusions to the contrary, you aren't above average, and average is pretty damn low.
Again, if your transportation system can't handle safe human drivers, then it probably can't handle a host of other problems too.
The number of safe human drivers is so small as to not be a factor. The number of unsafe licensed drivers exceeds the number safe human drivers by many orders of magnitudes.
[blah blah blah] severely constrain human freedom
Ah, so it's all about having the freedom to drive, not about the number of dead people, safety, efficiency, or the "best" solution. If Khallow can't drive down the road naked, smeared in jello, then it's a bad solution.
The question isn't whether they can handle them, but what would the roads look like if human drivers were banned. You could abolish all traffic rules if they were negotiated in real-time between the cars. No lights, cars just driving through intersections full-speed, interlacing with ones going other directions. "Linking" at highway speeds, becoming trains, rather than cars, for better efficiency (of both road and aerodynamics), and other changes. But human drivers in the mix turn driverless cars into computer-driven cars, rather than a new transport mode.
The event horizon is the "surface" of the black hole. Th singularity is the "center" of the black hole. They are the same, so long as the crust of the earth and the core of the earth are the same.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I insulted you. I asked a simple question. That you refuse to answer indicates you are lying about your abilities. I have worked at a law office in a legal capacity. You have never worked at a law office in a legal capacity. That's all I can gather, other than you assert that 18.5 years of cleaning toilets in a law office makes one a legal expert.
Ah, so a lying sack of shit, trolling for those who would correct your wrong opinion presented as fact. Have fun cleaning the toilets for lawyers. Does theirs smell better?
Having lived in Texas, Alaska, and outside the US, everywhere I've lived, the natural gas is almost exactly the same as electricity. Every house I've lived in had water, electricity and gas. I've never lived anywhere where gas was rare. Also, having worked with a fleet, the CNG cars all had CNG maps. Places where you could fill up, if you got lost or had an emergency and couldn't make it back to "base". CNG is already lots of places. I've been to Mobile gas stations in TX with CNG at the pump, like anything else (well, it was off to the side, next to the propane bottle refil area).
It's not as uncommon as you imply.
Here, the code requires the hot water heater be in a pan large enough to hold a complete discharge, or have the pressure relief piped outside the house. Most opt for the latter.
Also, the pressure relief is insufficient for most things equipped with one. If in an actual fire, the pressure build-up would be faster than the relief, resulting in a catastrophic failure of the water heater.
No worse than liquid gasoline petroleum fuel.
Yeah, but Logan in Dark Angel drove one of those, so it can't be all bad.
So you are a typesetter for a law firm? Or do you just clean the toilets?
I was reading the comments you were responding to. You posted a non sequitur. Whether people "may" not want to own them has no bearing on whether you would.
That, and to make your point, you'd have to make no distinction between the smallest car and and the largest trucks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
It's less common than I thought, but still happens.
That's because you can be unsafe and not crash. You are defining "unsafe" as someone who has crashed. Not as someone driving poorly and unsafely.
That's the disconnect.
She wasn't an ex. Your guesses are all wrong. You are a presumptuous idiot. But thanks for trying.
A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter`s consent;
He had consent to have sex (with conditions that were not met). The realization that the conditions were not met was not know until later.
/My reading of NY law would have his acts legal in NY. But I'm not an NY lawyer.
Trials in absentia are common. Does Sweden not perform them? Does Sweden guarantee a speedy trial? In the US, the rules around it allow for defense delays, but not prosecutorial. So holding back trial because the defendant is evading arrest is a valid reason to delay a trail indefinitely.
I note, even after my comments, you avoided saying what you did. You aren't a lawyer. You aren't a para-legal. You are "immersed" in a janitorial career.
Given that you refuse to answer a clear and simple question, I can only assume it's the worst possible option.
Nah, the US. Almost as good as Romania.
If self driving cars become a thing, I'll still own a car.
Nothing anyone said ever even hinted at anything that would contradict that. That you go there shows you are looking for a fight. Why?
You drive in to work. You no longer park at work. You "advertise" a ride back towards home. Any takes, your car is a taxi. No takers, your car drives home and parks there until time to get off work. For me, the cost of driving home (and back) is less than the cost of parking.
Take out the cost of the medallion (not needed for a private car) and a driver, and you've eliminated most of the cost. Depreciation is another big cost in the ride that people don't think about, because the owned car is silently depreciating. Since the medallion monopoly was invented for protection of/from drivers, and they are gone, then there'd be no reason to artificially limit the vehicles for driverless taxi.
Doesn't take the wind out of anything. What are you renting and why? It'd be available, just like I can rent a 100 year old motorbike, or a horse. I might not know how to ride either, but they are available now. Those that wish to ride them learn to do so, or go on supervised rides.
That's common now. Most people who move houses do rent or hire to do it. It's only the college-age that pack everything they own into a 30-year old 2-door car to move.
Nobody is saying anything that would prevent a human from driving. The basic human right is travel, not piloting the vehicle. And that basic human right is still guaranteed. And driving on a track would still be allowed. But get your unsafe ass off my roads. Despite your delusions to the contrary, you aren't above average, and average is pretty damn low.
Again, if your transportation system can't handle safe human drivers, then it probably can't handle a host of other problems too.
The number of safe human drivers is so small as to not be a factor. The number of unsafe licensed drivers exceeds the number safe human drivers by many orders of magnitudes.
[blah blah blah] severely constrain human freedom
Ah, so it's all about having the freedom to drive, not about the number of dead people, safety, efficiency, or the "best" solution. If Khallow can't drive down the road naked, smeared in jello, then it's a bad solution.
Even perfect driving by an omniscient being isn't going to be much better than the usual near perfect, law abiding human driver.
Your human ideal doesn't exist. The computers do.
The question isn't whether they can handle them, but what would the roads look like if human drivers were banned. You could abolish all traffic rules if they were negotiated in real-time between the cars. No lights, cars just driving through intersections full-speed, interlacing with ones going other directions. "Linking" at highway speeds, becoming trains, rather than cars, for better efficiency (of both road and aerodynamics), and other changes. But human drivers in the mix turn driverless cars into computer-driven cars, rather than a new transport mode.
The event horizon is the "surface" of the black hole. Th singularity is the "center" of the black hole. They are the same, so long as the crust of the earth and the core of the earth are the same.