Which is why they should be going significantly slower than you. Still the same argument.
No, they're in the right lane and going right-lane speed of 50mph. At 50mph, I have time to react; they don't.
Your argument is deceptive because it is incomplete. Your argument, in full, is that "they should be going significantly slower than you and have additional obstacles thrown in their way at random intervals for them to react to versus the alternative situation of not cruising in the right lane." Those additional obstacles--frequent merging on and off of the highway through the right lane--add risk. The lower speed decreases risk.
If I put a weight on a table and also take a different weight off, I haven't reduced the mass in total by that of the weight I've removed.
Medicare, by law, is the lowest rate you can charge. As a result, the list price of services is always high: it's set a step above the Medicare rate schedule.
Because of this, when you have insurance, your insurer negotiates a discount rate. You may get a $2,000 service with a $1,200 discount, and so your insurer is billed at $800--the rate is $2,000, and so more than Medicare, but there's a nice $1,200 discount that doesn't violate the law.
Fascinating, right?
If you don't have insurance, you pay $2,000 out-of-pocket.
If you have really, really shitty insurance and have to pay 100% out-of-pocket, you only pay $800.
HR 676 takes this out even further. 676 aims to expand Medicare to everyone and prohibit private insurance overlapping medicare. That's a single-payer system. Krugman and other proponents claim HR 676 will save 40% in billing, administration, and other overhead.
A public option would have a mainly free-market insurance system, and then we could use the discount rates to benchmark those fair-market prices. You simply mandate that all employers must supply a described basic healthcare tier (or tiers), which the ACA does today, and then you use the discount rate schedules negotiated for each network provider to benchmark a fair-market price. This price is specific to each individual provider in each market.
With a public option, prices go up because the cost of employment incorporates the cost of health insurance, which incorporates the pricing of healthcare. Business owners shop around for an insurer, and so insurers want low premiums; insurers have HMOs and PPOs, and businesses have large groups, and so insurers can negotiate with those networks and with the groups to pressure healthcare providers into lower prices. Healthcare providers, on the other hand, must maintain a certain price structure or else they will fall below their costs in labor plus cost-of-risk, becoming unstable and eventually bankrupt: they can't lower prices below long-term profitability, and so have a solid basis from which to push back. These market pressures thus drive the discount prices down toward healthcare costs.
Proponents of HR 676 don't say how they'll identify the correct price structure in each market. A public option can give you a price structure sample in a market, from a provider, across a region, really at any level, just by peeking into the insurers's negotiated rates. That number comes from an enormous system of wetware processing billions of constantly-changing inputs through a genetics algorithm, selecting for the most-fit outcomes among competing businesses who need low pricing, bounded by the pricing needs of care providers. At first glance, it seems expensive to do this with big data; the truth is it's actually impossible.
Those inputs are constantly changing, and are a result of things like transportation costs, which result from things like location and thus access to suppliers. Some providers reject low-cost supplies because their metrics show a significant increase in complications (patient maiming and death) due to the low quality of such supplies, and so their prices are a little different--all we can see out here is price and performance, and thus need a manual investigation into whether they can and should switch suppliers to accurately gauge if their price is fair and acceptable. In short: the inputs are unknown and unknowable as a whole.
So medicare is the cause of excessively-high healthcare costs in the United States, and new proposals for a single-payer system have likely consequences of extreme costs. We won't be able to control costs well under a single-payer system because we'll have to blindly negotiate, trying to crudely guess at the fair-market price of services.
What about the public option route, with a mandate for employer-provided insurance?
The ACA mandates employers provide healthcare to full-time employees. We all remember when
Closures are a local phenomena, not something that's going to hit continental news. You're not going to hear about a road closure near Berlin off in Paris; you're not even going to hear about it halfway across Germany.
Rotaries are one-lane circles. Roundabouts are multi-lane. Most American installations use a two-lane roundabout instead of a one-lane rotary. I'm finding other information on Google claiming that rotaries are just really big circles; it seems to depend on the writer's region. 2-lane circles have 36 contention points in any case; a 1-lane circle has 8.
The solution of slowing the trucks down but throwing a bunch of shit crossing in and out in front of them trades one problem for another. Imagine if we took a residential zone at 40mph with off-street parking and instead put on-street parking with small children darting across the street randomly, but cut back the speed limit to 30mph. Would that be an improvement?
On the highway, you at least have a clear view; problem being the cars coming onto the highway show up rather suddenly around the curve, you're going rather fast, and you don't have a clear view back there if you're *large*. Often there are trees in the way until they get up around a certain point, so if you're next to the merge lane you can see back down it in your mirror, but you can't see the approach as you approach the merge lane. Cars appear suddenly, and might merge aggressively in front of you--from either side. I've got plenty of time to react with what I can see when I can see it, but someone 10 times my mass doesn't.
EU statistics for 2014 show that heavy trucks were responsible for 15% of deaths caused by road collisions. In the U.S, of 6 million crashes each year, 0.5 million (8.3%) involve trucks, and are responsible for 9% of deaths caused by road collisions. Unfortunately, nobody's doing the statistics of collisions per VMT, and what you really want to know is fatal and non-fatal collisions per vehicle miles traveled. For this particular problem, we want to know the statistics for highway collisions per highway miles traveled.
I thought that Tesla's charger didn't plug into J1772 cars, but J1772 plugged into Tesla's port. Guess they used a completely-different shape instead of a keyed J1772-alike.
As for superchargers, there are other electric cars and other charge ports. You're not going to see Tesla superchargers everywhere; there's a hell of a lot of J1772 density, and truck stops and loading docks will want equipment for Volvo, Isuzu, and Peterbilt offerings. Nobody's installing a $50,000 Tesla Supercharger and a $50,000 ChargePoint charger. Further, Tesla will have a lot of capex and opex trying to maintain a dense enough Supercharger network to compete with the growing CCS network, especially when they have to deal with rest stops and truck stops deploying for all their competitors's vehicles. Get 10% saturation of electric cars and you will see a grab for that market.
Tesla's primary selling point is that they're damned-nice cars. Their competitors are noteworthy, but laughable, in the same way that Mazda is laughable as a Porsche competitor. Oh, yes, the Miata is a fucking nice car; it's not a Carrera 4S.
Pretty much the same thing I said, yeah, though you got modded up and I got +0 Flamebait. Probably not for putting "Iranian" instead of "Iraqi" talking about when we dropped bags of food.
It's not like it's an unfounded assertion. Economic sanctions really do mainly attack a country by starving out its labor force--the civilian population providing the economic productivity which runs the nation-state--which is a less-ugly form of bombing schools and hospitals. If we're going to use force, we should use force on military targets. It's not like we won't win by means of having a ginormous military machine to smash their little toys into powder.
Not talking about superchargers. Tesla charges from J1772 using standard protocols. ChargePoint supplies 150kW chargers today; you need special 3-phase power to get 600VDC.
If there were massive crashes every day, why would they be news?
In all honesty, though, European roads are designed better on average. They have roundabouts but few rotaries, while Americans have rotaries that cause maximal contention points and more crashes. They have long merge lanes and stronger lane-control rules, whereas American highways are designed with the briefest window to get on the highway or else you're getting right back off, and so you're contending with people trying to exit while you're trying to enter. They've also got better driver's education--we learn to operate a car, and my driver's test was three right turns in a parking lot; I failed it; and the proctor passed me in frustration on my fourth try by falsifying some of the numbers.
What we call "advanced driving programs" here--those $350 weekend deals where you ride around a skid pad and learn to deal with slick conditions, sudden hazards, and keeping the vehicle under control while loading the suspension hard--are just part of normal driving requirements in Europe. You don't learn to keep your ass straight when there's weather, you don't get licensed. You have to be able to drive safely and competently in traffic under a wide span of conditions or else you can't get licensed.
EU statistics for 2014 show that heavy trucks were responsible for 15% of deaths caused by road collisions. In the U.S, of 6 million crashes each year, 0.5 million (8.3%) involve trucks, and are responsible for 9% of deaths caused by road collisions. Unfortunately, nobody's doing the statistics of collisions per VMT, and what you really want to know is fatal and non-fatal collisions per vehicle miles traveled. For this particular problem, we want to know the statistics for highway collisions per highway miles traveled.
The U.S. doesn't allow trucks to ride the left lane in most locales. They ride in the center lane at speed, away from the busy right-lane contention points---you know, the string of constant intersections. Apparently most crashes occur there. Because of the high speed of travel in the left lane, trucks would either need a lot of stopping distance (which nobody is giving them) or a lower speed (causing dangerous lane changes around them, creating additional contention points and more collisions), so banning them from the left lane is sensible.
Okay so 200 years ago, people used to drink strychnine "for health benefits". I offer to you that strychnine is actually toxic and detrimental to your health in any quantity that has any effect whatsoever, and you should stop drinking it.
... oh, I've offered criticism, but no solution. You're right. You should go drink a half a cup of strychnine right now.
You might have noticed my criticism was that we're proving to the Iranian people that they should definitely support their government in destroying the amoral United States which has wrongly attacked them and caused suffering and death to innocent women and children. We're giving their government the moral support of their people to rally war against us. We're giving them the weapons they need to fight us more-effectively.
Administrative incompetence is said to be the deciding factor in America's loss of the Korean war. A lack of moral support among the American people is said to be the deciding factor in America's loss of the Vietnam war. By imposing these sanctions, we're working to ensure Iran's fight against America won't be Iran's Vietnam.
Actually, running 50mph in the right lane for long haul would cause a lot of contention points, with drivers going around the slow trucks and drivers entering and leaving the highway. It's likely we'd see a hell of a lot more collisions than with the truck going 90mph in the left lane for 50 miles at a time.
Actually, you can recharge a Tesla 85kW in an hour on an 80kW charger; ChargePoint's current offerings go as high as 150kW, and can likely charge the battery pack necessary for this truck in short order.
Economic sanctions against a less-developed nation with economic problems means poverty, slower development, and a clear path of blame for the suffering and death of civilians including children.
We rolled tanks straight into Baghdad. Don't tell me we're not geared up to kick Iran's ass. Bush dropped sacks of food before starting the war to make sure the Iranian people had a chance of eating while we disrupted their economy with tanks; economic sanctions are the exact opposite. Why threaten an inconvenience to the rich and a total destruction of life and livelihood to the poor when we can just huff and puff and kick their ass in?
The same thing happened to Cuba. Half a century of sanctions and they got hospitals for the rich and for tourists, and... festering shitholes that will probably kill you with sepsis for the poor. Cuba was a country of few elite and many destitute. Castro didn't care; he blamed us (convenient) and lived a life of luxury into old age.
There was this guy who pulled up a 20-year-old bug in Bugzilla that works because lists are processed by iterating as an expression (e.g. if you do $x = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), you get $x=1; $=x2; $x=3... and end up with $x=5). As a result, if you put the same entry in a hash twice, you get the second one--and, along with a flaw in DBI, he managed to get admin access to Mozilla's bugzilla.
So everyone whined a lot, and said he's just dumb, and he came back a year later and (at 21:45) shot a remote code execution at something he found in perl's CGI docs by using a special case of file handle interpretation.
So there are a number of things going on here. For one, perl does some really strange things, and so stuff needs extreme defensive programming because the very language is trying to fuck it all up for you. On top of that, libraries on the back-end--like DBI and the CGI library--don't handle shit very well, at all, and so it becomes possible to pass a parameter as a list and end up overwriting the next parameter to a subroutine call, which lets you do such fun things as disable input validation in DBI; or, even better, actually use perl right, except that the CGI module had a check to see if a variable is a file, but if you gave it a list containing any file it would return true even though many things in the list aren't files. This was all exacerbated by some core perl modules handling user input by turning it into lists, which means end-user input caused polymorphic code.
So imagine what it's like to be a programmer. Can you tell me every function call you make is only doing exactly what you expect? Of course not; there's too much code back there for you to review. You can verify that it also does what you expect--but not that it does nothingand also what you expect. You've got limited time to invest in gaining the certainty of what any particular library or function does in total, so there will only be a subset of such things to which you can attest.
"While traditional lat/long audiences require the app to be open and running, detecting or 'bumping' beacons can occur when apps are not in use," the company writes. "This allows Reveal Mobile to build larger, and more accurate, location-based audiences."
And they issued this statement:
We don't attempt to reverse engineer a device's location if someone opts out of location services, regardless of the data signal it comes from. In looking at our current SDK's behavior, we see how that can be misconstrued. In response to that, we're releasing a new version of our SDK today which will no longer send any data points which could be used to infer location when someone opts out of location sharing.
"It sends things, but we don't use those things for that purpose. I know, it looks weird, but trust us."
Could be worse. The Republican Party forked a few times, merged, and now we have super-right teaparty people who actually throw tantrums in congress running as Republican. The DSA has talked about just running as Democrats, which is terrifying for the same reasons.
Never underestimate the damage caused by party politics--whether that's American political caucuses or open-source RMS-TM conflicts.
Having seen the quality of programming most people put out, the "wtf this library does that?!" line sounds like exactly what happened.
You should see how much asinine shit I go back and un-create when I realize Docker or Ansible or some other such system has capabilities that I'd achieved with poorly-implemented, clunky scripts and clever playbook design. Programmers have it worse: they've got enormous, complex libraries, and they're universally bad at their jobs to the point that the Perl official documentation contained a Hello, World program in 5 lines that was remotely-exploitable--an obvious flaw if you know some obscure facts about how Perl works that even Larry Wall apparently forgot about. (programming r hard)
A lot of people think about programming like "I want to tell the computer to draw a house." No, you want to tell the computer to take a series of sensitive, highly-specific steps resulting in a figure shaped like a house on your screen. When you juggle user input, you have to figure out how that input can affect those steps, and ensure that the broad possibilities all fall into well-defined categories of outcomes, or else you have security vulnerabilities. When you use a third-party library, you're blindly using a pile of code that appears to do the right thing where you're looking, but who knows what it's doing in places you're not looking?
Rather than specifically-engineering each step along the way, programmers generally find a tool that does the job and verify that it produces the right result. That's reasonable enough, and this is what happens.
Seems everyone keeps making Ubuntu/Android/Revolution Remix/ChromiumOS/FirefoxOS phones these days, and we've seen a dozen independent GNU/FLOSS/TOOTHPASTE phones in the past 3 or 4 years. Folks will fall for it again I guess?
I NEVER said only those that join the military serve the nation.. NEVER ONCE.. but again , you took it and ran with it
That's the implicit narrative. It's what people hear when people constantly say "join the military, serve your country" and never calls anything else "service".
I take it you're British, so maybe there's a cultural issue here. In the U.S., many just call the Military or the Police "the Service", and will outright say that people who didn't join the military "never served". We have a direct dialogue that you're not worthy and haven't served your country if you aren't military.
This generates all kinds of artifacts. For a while, there was an organization here calling around and getting pledges from executives that their companies would practice discriminatory hiring practices by only hiring unemployed military Veterans when a candidate pool included one who was adequately qualified--not the best candidate, but "can do the job and is an unemployed military man". The suggestion was that if you're not military, you don't deserve a job, and they'll throw you the scraps from the table after taking care of our servicemen.
So from my perspective... yes you did. Maybe I'm reading wrong due to a giant body of seawater between our two nations.
interesting as providing power generation for the whole US isn't at all what I said
My argument was that a military can't operate without a strong economy behind it; yours was that the army has some engineers. I don't think those engineers can possibly keep an orphaned military running all on their own: their supply chain would collapse.
The military supply chain isn't just the military; it's the entire production chain which supplies the military. That production chain also needs supplies. The military's job is basically to be a door guard in front of the supply chain, mainly so that the supply chain can sustain itself.
Perhaps, again, the context didn't come across the first time.
As for your welfare bill..LOL.. that's some seriously weak sauce and I mean SERIOUSLY bud
It was an absurd argument to reflect yours. I said that without the people maintaining our country's infrastructure, the military's supply chain would collapse, as it gets fed by the productive infrastructure of our entire nation; you said the military has engineers that can fix roads. Well, okay, then let's see the military keep the whole god damned country running, since that's exactly what needs to happen if the supplies are going to keep flowing to the military.
I didn't get the part about trying to be a part of a group; when they got to the part about information, that made sense. I often hover around people when they have information, and then lose interest when I can't learn anything more by hanging near them.
Group cohesion has never really driven me. An intense distrust in my own understanding of things has. It's not a good way to make friends--I'm often dismissive of peoples's limited understanding (especially on things like economics) because I recognize a past version of myself that believed the same things and was wrong, and people kind of want you to agree with them and stop thinking.
One day, someone is going to go Preston Brooks on me for asking a question nobody wanted asked.
Oh there are some fantastic engineers in the military; there just aren't enough of them to run the whole damned thing. They're reliant on being able to source parts, which come from a company which sources materials. Those are all predicated on having a population that can actually eat and live.
It's been said that, at current technology, a nation's military can be as much as 10% of its population before the nation can't keep up and collapses under the strain. That number may be higher with constantly-advancing technology, but it's not very high.
As for the next disaster, I wonder how many military could volunteer to help if they're all busy doing all the farming, road repair, oil refining, communications infrastructure, and power generation for the entire United States. Currently we expend several times as many American workers on keeping all of that running as we have in the military in total; if we ceased that, then the military might have to somehow make inroads to the entire continent to provide aid--how, I have no idea, because there wouldn't exactly be an abundance of material aid to provide, seeing as how our production and distribution networks for things like food would collapse promptly.
I live in a country where we look down on the hard-working men and women who keep everything running. Construction workers who must be too stupid to think for themselves, only able to walk back and forth carrying bricks and bolts. Burger flippers who can't get a real job. Retail cashiers who must have failed middle-school, or else they'd be scientists or astronauts. People who work hard, think on their feet, and have to interact with customers. People who we interact with every day. People we rely on for survival. One day without these people and there will be riots; one week and there won't be a country left, only blood, starvation, and tribal groups of confused and terrified men and women who don't understand why their shower stopped working.
I am tired of hearing that the only people who serve our nation are those who join the military machine. I am tired of the great body of hard-working, dedicated Americans being looked down upon because they chose to serve on the front-lines of our nation's greatest needs, to provide the very life-blood that keeps us going. I am tired of being told that there are so very few men of notable worth, that they are unimportant because they did not simply chose a particular job to get started out of high school.
It goes and it goes, all the way down to the poor who struggle to survive, but whom we attack continuously for their failure. We threaten to take away their very means to live for not being as glorious as the rest of us. They are too dirty and poor for our concern. I am tired of the downwards social comparison and I have no particular care to tolerate it.
Good luck getting a handful of men to run an entire continent. Perhaps while you are at it you can pass a new welfare bill by which we tax only the military servicemen, and they surely can provide for all of our needs so the rest of us need do nothing.
He suggested physical infiltration of the ship and attaching a GPS spoofer right near the receiver, such that the square of a few meters away is a much-stronger-signal than the square of a few hundred meters away.
From where I stand, McDonalds register operators and WalMart shelf stockers perform some of the most important service for our country. Without the people driving the trucks and maintaining the roads and power service, the military would collapse in a week--right behind the collapse of America as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why they should be going significantly slower than you. Still the same argument.
No, they're in the right lane and going right-lane speed of 50mph. At 50mph, I have time to react; they don't.
Your argument is deceptive because it is incomplete. Your argument, in full, is that "they should be going significantly slower than you and have additional obstacles thrown in their way at random intervals for them to react to versus the alternative situation of not cruising in the right lane." Those additional obstacles--frequent merging on and off of the highway through the right lane--add risk. The lower speed decreases risk.
If I put a weight on a table and also take a different weight off, I haven't reduced the mass in total by that of the weight I've removed.
Medicare, by law, is the lowest rate you can charge. As a result, the list price of services is always high: it's set a step above the Medicare rate schedule.
Because of this, when you have insurance, your insurer negotiates a discount rate. You may get a $2,000 service with a $1,200 discount, and so your insurer is billed at $800--the rate is $2,000, and so more than Medicare, but there's a nice $1,200 discount that doesn't violate the law.
Fascinating, right?
If you don't have insurance, you pay $2,000 out-of-pocket.
If you have really, really shitty insurance and have to pay 100% out-of-pocket, you only pay $800.
HR 676 takes this out even further. 676 aims to expand Medicare to everyone and prohibit private insurance overlapping medicare. That's a single-payer system. Krugman and other proponents claim HR 676 will save 40% in billing, administration, and other overhead.
A public option would have a mainly free-market insurance system, and then we could use the discount rates to benchmark those fair-market prices. You simply mandate that all employers must supply a described basic healthcare tier (or tiers), which the ACA does today, and then you use the discount rate schedules negotiated for each network provider to benchmark a fair-market price. This price is specific to each individual provider in each market.
With a public option, prices go up because the cost of employment incorporates the cost of health insurance, which incorporates the pricing of healthcare. Business owners shop around for an insurer, and so insurers want low premiums; insurers have HMOs and PPOs, and businesses have large groups, and so insurers can negotiate with those networks and with the groups to pressure healthcare providers into lower prices. Healthcare providers, on the other hand, must maintain a certain price structure or else they will fall below their costs in labor plus cost-of-risk, becoming unstable and eventually bankrupt: they can't lower prices below long-term profitability, and so have a solid basis from which to push back. These market pressures thus drive the discount prices down toward healthcare costs.
Proponents of HR 676 don't say how they'll identify the correct price structure in each market. A public option can give you a price structure sample in a market, from a provider, across a region, really at any level, just by peeking into the insurers's negotiated rates. That number comes from an enormous system of wetware processing billions of constantly-changing inputs through a genetics algorithm, selecting for the most-fit outcomes among competing businesses who need low pricing, bounded by the pricing needs of care providers. At first glance, it seems expensive to do this with big data; the truth is it's actually impossible.
Those inputs are constantly changing, and are a result of things like transportation costs, which result from things like location and thus access to suppliers. Some providers reject low-cost supplies because their metrics show a significant increase in complications (patient maiming and death) due to the low quality of such supplies, and so their prices are a little different--all we can see out here is price and performance, and thus need a manual investigation into whether they can and should switch suppliers to accurately gauge if their price is fair and acceptable. In short: the inputs are unknown and unknowable as a whole.
So medicare is the cause of excessively-high healthcare costs in the United States, and new proposals for a single-payer system have likely consequences of extreme costs. We won't be able to control costs well under a single-payer system because we'll have to blindly negotiate, trying to crudely guess at the fair-market price of services.
What about the public option route, with a mandate for employer-provided insurance?
The ACA mandates employers provide healthcare to full-time employees. We all remember when
Closures are a local phenomena, not something that's going to hit continental news. You're not going to hear about a road closure near Berlin off in Paris; you're not even going to hear about it halfway across Germany.
Rotaries are one-lane circles. Roundabouts are multi-lane. Most American installations use a two-lane roundabout instead of a one-lane rotary. I'm finding other information on Google claiming that rotaries are just really big circles; it seems to depend on the writer's region. 2-lane circles have 36 contention points in any case; a 1-lane circle has 8.
The solution of slowing the trucks down but throwing a bunch of shit crossing in and out in front of them trades one problem for another. Imagine if we took a residential zone at 40mph with off-street parking and instead put on-street parking with small children darting across the street randomly, but cut back the speed limit to 30mph. Would that be an improvement?
On the highway, you at least have a clear view; problem being the cars coming onto the highway show up rather suddenly around the curve, you're going rather fast, and you don't have a clear view back there if you're *large*. Often there are trees in the way until they get up around a certain point, so if you're next to the merge lane you can see back down it in your mirror, but you can't see the approach as you approach the merge lane. Cars appear suddenly, and might merge aggressively in front of you--from either side. I've got plenty of time to react with what I can see when I can see it, but someone 10 times my mass doesn't.
More comprehensively,
EU statistics for 2014 show that heavy trucks were responsible for 15% of deaths caused by road collisions. In the U.S, of 6 million crashes each year, 0.5 million (8.3%) involve trucks, and are responsible for 9% of deaths caused by road collisions. Unfortunately, nobody's doing the statistics of collisions per VMT, and what you really want to know is fatal and non-fatal collisions per vehicle miles traveled. For this particular problem, we want to know the statistics for highway collisions per highway miles traveled.
I thought that Tesla's charger didn't plug into J1772 cars, but J1772 plugged into Tesla's port. Guess they used a completely-different shape instead of a keyed J1772-alike.
As for superchargers, there are other electric cars and other charge ports. You're not going to see Tesla superchargers everywhere; there's a hell of a lot of J1772 density, and truck stops and loading docks will want equipment for Volvo, Isuzu, and Peterbilt offerings. Nobody's installing a $50,000 Tesla Supercharger and a $50,000 ChargePoint charger. Further, Tesla will have a lot of capex and opex trying to maintain a dense enough Supercharger network to compete with the growing CCS network, especially when they have to deal with rest stops and truck stops deploying for all their competitors's vehicles. Get 10% saturation of electric cars and you will see a grab for that market.
Tesla's primary selling point is that they're damned-nice cars. Their competitors are noteworthy, but laughable, in the same way that Mazda is laughable as a Porsche competitor. Oh, yes, the Miata is a fucking nice car; it's not a Carrera 4S.
Pretty much the same thing I said, yeah, though you got modded up and I got +0 Flamebait. Probably not for putting "Iranian" instead of "Iraqi" talking about when we dropped bags of food.
It's not like it's an unfounded assertion. Economic sanctions really do mainly attack a country by starving out its labor force--the civilian population providing the economic productivity which runs the nation-state--which is a less-ugly form of bombing schools and hospitals. If we're going to use force, we should use force on military targets. It's not like we won't win by means of having a ginormous military machine to smash their little toys into powder.
Not talking about superchargers. Tesla charges from J1772 using standard protocols. ChargePoint supplies 150kW chargers today; you need special 3-phase power to get 600VDC.
If there were massive crashes every day, why would they be news?
In all honesty, though, European roads are designed better on average. They have roundabouts but few rotaries, while Americans have rotaries that cause maximal contention points and more crashes. They have long merge lanes and stronger lane-control rules, whereas American highways are designed with the briefest window to get on the highway or else you're getting right back off, and so you're contending with people trying to exit while you're trying to enter. They've also got better driver's education--we learn to operate a car, and my driver's test was three right turns in a parking lot; I failed it; and the proctor passed me in frustration on my fourth try by falsifying some of the numbers.
What we call "advanced driving programs" here--those $350 weekend deals where you ride around a skid pad and learn to deal with slick conditions, sudden hazards, and keeping the vehicle under control while loading the suspension hard--are just part of normal driving requirements in Europe. You don't learn to keep your ass straight when there's weather, you don't get licensed. You have to be able to drive safely and competently in traffic under a wide span of conditions or else you can't get licensed.
EU statistics for 2014 show that heavy trucks were responsible for 15% of deaths caused by road collisions. In the U.S, of 6 million crashes each year, 0.5 million (8.3%) involve trucks, and are responsible for 9% of deaths caused by road collisions. Unfortunately, nobody's doing the statistics of collisions per VMT, and what you really want to know is fatal and non-fatal collisions per vehicle miles traveled. For this particular problem, we want to know the statistics for highway collisions per highway miles traveled.
The U.S. doesn't allow trucks to ride the left lane in most locales. They ride in the center lane at speed, away from the busy right-lane contention points---you know, the string of constant intersections. Apparently most crashes occur there. Because of the high speed of travel in the left lane, trucks would either need a lot of stopping distance (which nobody is giving them) or a lower speed (causing dangerous lane changes around them, creating additional contention points and more collisions), so banning them from the left lane is sensible.
Okay so 200 years ago, people used to drink strychnine "for health benefits". I offer to you that strychnine is actually toxic and detrimental to your health in any quantity that has any effect whatsoever, and you should stop drinking it.
You might have noticed my criticism was that we're proving to the Iranian people that they should definitely support their government in destroying the amoral United States which has wrongly attacked them and caused suffering and death to innocent women and children. We're giving their government the moral support of their people to rally war against us. We're giving them the weapons they need to fight us more-effectively.
Administrative incompetence is said to be the deciding factor in America's loss of the Korean war. A lack of moral support among the American people is said to be the deciding factor in America's loss of the Vietnam war. By imposing these sanctions, we're working to ensure Iran's fight against America won't be Iran's Vietnam.
Level 3 charger at 600VDC can get 400kWh per hour, this is probably going to be a 600kWh battery pack.
Actually, running 50mph in the right lane for long haul would cause a lot of contention points, with drivers going around the slow trucks and drivers entering and leaving the highway. It's likely we'd see a hell of a lot more collisions than with the truck going 90mph in the left lane for 50 miles at a time.
Actually, you can recharge a Tesla 85kW in an hour on an 80kW charger; ChargePoint's current offerings go as high as 150kW, and can likely charge the battery pack necessary for this truck in short order.
Economic sanctions against a less-developed nation with economic problems means poverty, slower development, and a clear path of blame for the suffering and death of civilians including children.
We rolled tanks straight into Baghdad. Don't tell me we're not geared up to kick Iran's ass. Bush dropped sacks of food before starting the war to make sure the Iranian people had a chance of eating while we disrupted their economy with tanks; economic sanctions are the exact opposite. Why threaten an inconvenience to the rich and a total destruction of life and livelihood to the poor when we can just huff and puff and kick their ass in?
The same thing happened to Cuba. Half a century of sanctions and they got hospitals for the rich and for tourists, and ... festering shitholes that will probably kill you with sepsis for the poor. Cuba was a country of few elite and many destitute. Castro didn't care; he blamed us (convenient) and lived a life of luxury into old age.
There was this guy who pulled up a 20-year-old bug in Bugzilla that works because lists are processed by iterating as an expression (e.g. if you do $x = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), you get $x=1; $=x2; $x=3... and end up with $x=5). As a result, if you put the same entry in a hash twice, you get the second one--and, along with a flaw in DBI, he managed to get admin access to Mozilla's bugzilla.
So everyone whined a lot, and said he's just dumb, and he came back a year later and (at 21:45) shot a remote code execution at something he found in perl's CGI docs by using a special case of file handle interpretation.
So there are a number of things going on here. For one, perl does some really strange things, and so stuff needs extreme defensive programming because the very language is trying to fuck it all up for you. On top of that, libraries on the back-end--like DBI and the CGI library--don't handle shit very well, at all, and so it becomes possible to pass a parameter as a list and end up overwriting the next parameter to a subroutine call, which lets you do such fun things as disable input validation in DBI; or, even better, actually use perl right, except that the CGI module had a check to see if a variable is a file, but if you gave it a list containing any file it would return true even though many things in the list aren't files. This was all exacerbated by some core perl modules handling user input by turning it into lists, which means end-user input caused polymorphic code.
So imagine what it's like to be a programmer. Can you tell me every function call you make is only doing exactly what you expect? Of course not; there's too much code back there for you to review. You can verify that it also does what you expect--but not that it does nothing and also what you expect. You've got limited time to invest in gaining the certainty of what any particular library or function does in total, so there will only be a subset of such things to which you can attest.
Interestingly, Reveal Mobile has this in their documentation:
"While traditional lat/long audiences require the app to be open and running, detecting or 'bumping' beacons can occur when apps are not in use," the company writes. "This allows Reveal Mobile to build larger, and more accurate, location-based audiences."
And they issued this statement:
We don't attempt to reverse engineer a device's location if someone opts out of location services, regardless of the data signal it comes from. In looking at our current SDK's behavior, we see how that can be misconstrued. In response to that, we're releasing a new version of our SDK today which will no longer send any data points which could be used to infer location when someone opts out of location sharing.
"It sends things, but we don't use those things for that purpose. I know, it looks weird, but trust us."
Could be worse. The Republican Party forked a few times, merged, and now we have super-right teaparty people who actually throw tantrums in congress running as Republican. The DSA has talked about just running as Democrats, which is terrifying for the same reasons.
Never underestimate the damage caused by party politics--whether that's American political caucuses or open-source RMS-TM conflicts.
Bah, I was trying to reply to this post.
Having seen the quality of programming most people put out, the "wtf this library does that?!" line sounds like exactly what happened.
You should see how much asinine shit I go back and un-create when I realize Docker or Ansible or some other such system has capabilities that I'd achieved with poorly-implemented, clunky scripts and clever playbook design. Programmers have it worse: they've got enormous, complex libraries, and they're universally bad at their jobs to the point that the Perl official documentation contained a Hello, World program in 5 lines that was remotely-exploitable--an obvious flaw if you know some obscure facts about how Perl works that even Larry Wall apparently forgot about. (programming r hard)
A lot of people think about programming like "I want to tell the computer to draw a house." No, you want to tell the computer to take a series of sensitive, highly-specific steps resulting in a figure shaped like a house on your screen. When you juggle user input, you have to figure out how that input can affect those steps, and ensure that the broad possibilities all fall into well-defined categories of outcomes, or else you have security vulnerabilities. When you use a third-party library, you're blindly using a pile of code that appears to do the right thing where you're looking, but who knows what it's doing in places you're not looking?
Rather than specifically-engineering each step along the way, programmers generally find a tool that does the job and verify that it produces the right result. That's reasonable enough, and this is what happens.
$1 per taxpayer in one year.
In 8 years, 12.5 cents per taxpayer.
Seems everyone keeps making Ubuntu/Android/Revolution Remix/ChromiumOS/FirefoxOS phones these days, and we've seen a dozen independent GNU/FLOSS/TOOTHPASTE phones in the past 3 or 4 years. Folks will fall for it again I guess?
Worse: He's a KDE user.
I NEVER said only those that join the military serve the nation.. NEVER ONCE.. but again , you took it and ran with it
That's the implicit narrative. It's what people hear when people constantly say "join the military, serve your country" and never calls anything else "service".
I take it you're British, so maybe there's a cultural issue here. In the U.S., many just call the Military or the Police "the Service", and will outright say that people who didn't join the military "never served". We have a direct dialogue that you're not worthy and haven't served your country if you aren't military.
This generates all kinds of artifacts. For a while, there was an organization here calling around and getting pledges from executives that their companies would practice discriminatory hiring practices by only hiring unemployed military Veterans when a candidate pool included one who was adequately qualified--not the best candidate, but "can do the job and is an unemployed military man". The suggestion was that if you're not military, you don't deserve a job, and they'll throw you the scraps from the table after taking care of our servicemen.
So from my perspective... yes you did. Maybe I'm reading wrong due to a giant body of seawater between our two nations.
interesting as providing power generation for the whole US isn't at all what I said
My argument was that a military can't operate without a strong economy behind it; yours was that the army has some engineers. I don't think those engineers can possibly keep an orphaned military running all on their own: their supply chain would collapse.
The military supply chain isn't just the military; it's the entire production chain which supplies the military. That production chain also needs supplies. The military's job is basically to be a door guard in front of the supply chain, mainly so that the supply chain can sustain itself.
Perhaps, again, the context didn't come across the first time.
As for your welfare bill..LOL.. that's some seriously weak sauce and I mean SERIOUSLY bud
It was an absurd argument to reflect yours. I said that without the people maintaining our country's infrastructure, the military's supply chain would collapse, as it gets fed by the productive infrastructure of our entire nation; you said the military has engineers that can fix roads. Well, okay, then let's see the military keep the whole god damned country running, since that's exactly what needs to happen if the supplies are going to keep flowing to the military.
I didn't get the part about trying to be a part of a group; when they got to the part about information, that made sense. I often hover around people when they have information, and then lose interest when I can't learn anything more by hanging near them.
Group cohesion has never really driven me. An intense distrust in my own understanding of things has. It's not a good way to make friends--I'm often dismissive of peoples's limited understanding (especially on things like economics) because I recognize a past version of myself that believed the same things and was wrong, and people kind of want you to agree with them and stop thinking.
One day, someone is going to go Preston Brooks on me for asking a question nobody wanted asked.
Oh there are some fantastic engineers in the military; there just aren't enough of them to run the whole damned thing. They're reliant on being able to source parts, which come from a company which sources materials. Those are all predicated on having a population that can actually eat and live.
It's been said that, at current technology, a nation's military can be as much as 10% of its population before the nation can't keep up and collapses under the strain. That number may be higher with constantly-advancing technology, but it's not very high.
As for the next disaster, I wonder how many military could volunteer to help if they're all busy doing all the farming, road repair, oil refining, communications infrastructure, and power generation for the entire United States. Currently we expend several times as many American workers on keeping all of that running as we have in the military in total; if we ceased that, then the military might have to somehow make inroads to the entire continent to provide aid--how, I have no idea, because there wouldn't exactly be an abundance of material aid to provide, seeing as how our production and distribution networks for things like food would collapse promptly.
I live in a country where we look down on the hard-working men and women who keep everything running. Construction workers who must be too stupid to think for themselves, only able to walk back and forth carrying bricks and bolts. Burger flippers who can't get a real job. Retail cashiers who must have failed middle-school, or else they'd be scientists or astronauts. People who work hard, think on their feet, and have to interact with customers. People who we interact with every day. People we rely on for survival. One day without these people and there will be riots; one week and there won't be a country left, only blood, starvation, and tribal groups of confused and terrified men and women who don't understand why their shower stopped working.
I am tired of hearing that the only people who serve our nation are those who join the military machine. I am tired of the great body of hard-working, dedicated Americans being looked down upon because they chose to serve on the front-lines of our nation's greatest needs, to provide the very life-blood that keeps us going. I am tired of being told that there are so very few men of notable worth, that they are unimportant because they did not simply chose a particular job to get started out of high school.
It goes and it goes, all the way down to the poor who struggle to survive, but whom we attack continuously for their failure. We threaten to take away their very means to live for not being as glorious as the rest of us. They are too dirty and poor for our concern. I am tired of the downwards social comparison and I have no particular care to tolerate it.
Good luck getting a handful of men to run an entire continent. Perhaps while you are at it you can pass a new welfare bill by which we tax only the military servicemen, and they surely can provide for all of our needs so the rest of us need do nothing.
He suggested physical infiltration of the ship and attaching a GPS spoofer right near the receiver, such that the square of a few meters away is a much-stronger-signal than the square of a few hundred meters away.
From where I stand, McDonalds register operators and WalMart shelf stockers perform some of the most important service for our country. Without the people driving the trucks and maintaining the roads and power service, the military would collapse in a week--right behind the collapse of America as a whole.