Proving your age has nothing to do with people getting drivers licenses. You don't need a driver's license to prove your age. My kid has had a state issued identification card since he was 4. They look exactly like a driver's license except that they say they are for identification instead of being a license.
They must not have been to London either. I spent a week their a couple of years ago, and the public transportation sucked. I can't claim to have traveled extensively in Europe, but what limited exposure I have had, I came away with the distinct impression that Europeans hare just used to it. Like the people in the US who live in trailer parks, they soon start to see the run down crappy conditions as 'normal' and 'good'.
That is a total myth. Actuaries don't run the numbers to find the premiums. I used to write software for an insurance rating company. Our software rated hundreds of different programs covering virtually every insurer in the state that was not a direct to consumer insurer. (e.g. AAA, State Farm)
We had direct lines to decision makers at nearly all of these companies. The policies were once calculated off of statistics several decades ago. Since then, the companies just clone other companies policies, and then tweak them with gut instinct. AKA they guess. I can't count the number of times that I talked to the companies and they didn't know simple things like the order of precedence on their calculations. Since we were the biggest rating company in the state, the answer was frequently, "How are you rating the policies? OK, we will start doing it that way."
And, to lend credence to the "they intentionally price policies too high to purchase", I have personally seen motorcycle policies where the company prevented anyone from buying the comp/coll policies by pricing the semi-annual premiums at slightly higher than the retail value of the vehicle new.
You've never ordered Himalayan salt bricks form Amazon then. Tried twice. Somehow they thought that a couple of little half air filled thin plastic bags would protect bricks in transit.
The returns were very easy, but I would rather not have to deal with that in the first place. I would order a lot of things from Amazon, but I do think about the likelihood of damage before placing the order.
The F in F keys stands for function. They were supposed to be user programmable keys/application specific keys for doing common tasks. The problem is that a few of them gained "standard" functionality and people started getting upset if an application used them differently than what they perceived as the "Standard". Now we have keyboards with F keys AND Fn keys. Both stand for Function keys.
Two things need to be done to fix the Function key problem.
1) OSes need to make it easy for users to bind tasks to those keys without needing to know how to code.
2) Keyboard manufacturers need to take a queue from old keyboards like the one from the DEC Rainbow 100 and put a spot above the Fkeys for labels so that users know what they are for.
Reeves was an ex-cop. Thus he had a reasonable expectation that he would not face the full force of law that your average citizen would. He would also know the very best actions to take to help him avoid the negative consequences of his action.
His behavior does not in any way indicate whether he was a nut job or not.
That is not a bad idea. Sometimes the solution is to find a way that everyone can have what they want. I would go one step further, and in newly constructed theaters, I would do what many large churches do. Put a baby room in the back. Don't call it that of course, but many churches will have seats in a room in the back with glass to insulate the sound. It is there so that people with babies who will cry don't have to miss out on the show. Do this in theaters. Put in a wall with glass in the back of the theater, and have people who want a less quite experience sit in a spot where they can text or talk about (or to) the movie without disturbing others. Everyone gets what they want.
I quit going to theaters because they were already pushing the price/value tipping point, but after paying for a movie and having to deal with really loud people and laser pointers, it just wasn't worth it anymore.
I'm not going to argue that this is the right or wrong approach, as I have not thought it out enough to decide if I think the pros or cons out weigh each other.
That being said, we already have a problem with our schools becoming state run orphanages. Most of these kids, at least here in California already get fed lunch by the schools, and a huge number of schools are starting to feed a significant number of these kids breakfast. Adding dinner wouldn't be a huge leap from where we are. I think that standardizing on children being put into orphanages by default has some pretty serious negative ramifications. The question is do the drawbacks of having an orphanage nation outweigh the benefits of helping the less fortunate children, or do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Either way, I believe that you are correct that it would cut back on parents that use their kids as a way to take money from the system for themselves.
I would go with one of the birth control implants (they are both trivially reversible, and you only have to remember to take it once ever few years).
You have to be careful with the "it's for the children" argument. If you let people use children as human shields, they will. While it sounds humane in the short run, it isn't in the long run. I know that there are a lot of people who don't believe that parents would willfully abuse their children, but it most certainly happens regularly.
That being said, I keep moving closer and closer to being a proponent of a minimum income for everyone. I believe that we are rapidly approaching (or may have already past) the point that there simply isn't enough real work for everyone to have a job. Sure their are plenty of ditches that could be dug with a spoon, but that isn't really productive.
So, your are saying that environmentalists would rather people take a shuttle for a few miles than just walk to work? I guess that is the problem with environmentalists. They don't care about the environment.
So, we are clearly in disagreement. You believe that a doctor is doing nothing wrong if they tell people about their patient's medical conditions if it is a "patient he's trying to treat". I think that it is wrong for doctors to tell people about their patient's medical conditions without their consent. Yes. Both of our positions say a lot about us.
One of us may be right and the other wrong, but the point of HIPAA is specifically to prevent doctors from telling people about their patients medical conditions.
"Gentrification" is an attempt to make racist racism sound nice when they complain about "those kinds of people" moving into their neighborhood. It is only a "problem" if you are a racist.
Was it really interfering with regular buses? I highly doubt that. It is also not a reasonable objection. "Arrange all the infrastructure needed themselves" is a "if you want to make an apple pie, first you have to create a universe" type argument.
As for paying to use the stops. A) Did they? No one has indicated what arrangements Google made with the city. B) It would be highly irresponsible for the city of San Francisco to charge for the use of these stops. They are on the street where cars drive. The infrastructure consists of a sign saying "No Parking except buses". The buses Google is operating are being used for the very purpose that those sign were installed for. To reduce traffic congestion.
Google is doing the city and it's residents a favor by operating the buses. The problem is that some people don't want "Those kind of people" moving into their neighborhoods, and there are competing businesses that can use their prejudice to harm their competitors.
Yes. They want Google to cease to exist. This is clearly an attempt at a smear campaign. Google having enough employees living close enough together and working close enough together that they can all take a loaded buss to and from work is an environmentalists wet dream. The only thing that would make environmentalists happier is if Google rented out all of the housing next to the employees homes so that the Google employees could just walk to work.
The problem I see here is that people want exactly one answer for traffic problems. When lanes are closed, the reduction in road capacity, and proper care in driving will cause heavy traffic to back up. Likewise, people slowing down to see what the accident looks like will also slow traffic. Put them together and the traffic slow down even more.
Auto drive cars will solve the rubbernecking problem directly. It won't solve the reduced road capacity problem. A related place that it will help is with on ramps. The 'it's the driver's fault' group will have their problem solved and thus will no longer be able to blame low road capacity on drivers. This should lead to better road construction.
I don't think that auto driving cars will ever have that good of safety. I would liken it more to... like a tree falling over and landing on your house. It will still happen. We will all probably know someone who has been involved in an accident, but it will be rare enough that the cost of insuring against it will just get rolled into your homeowners insurance.
My guess is that it would end up low enough that it would just get rolled into your homeowners/renters insurance. The only reason that it is separate now is that the auto part of your insurance is vastly more expensive than all of the things in your homeowners insurance added together.
Car 'Insurance' is two different things. There is Liability, and then there is the Comprehensive/Collision. Liability covers the other guy that you damage. Comp/Coll covers your car. No states require this and all lenders do. Lenders don't care if you are sued into oblivion because you killed someone else. They only care that they get the money back that they lent you on your car. The state does not try to protect your finances by making sure your accident doesn't leave you with nothing. They try to protect your victims by making sure that you can pay for the damages you might cause to them.
I don't know New Hampshire's laws regarding Liability insurance, and I know that there are some 'no-fault' states that say they will not place fault for an accident, and everyone must take care of their own stuff. For most states though, Liability is required and Comp/Coll is not.
Don't forget that on ramps will also cause these traffic waves. Another benefit of automated cars is that road congestion caused by not having enough road to supply the number of cars traveling could no longer be blamed on 'bad driving'.
Slashdot Mirror
Proving your age has nothing to do with people getting drivers licenses. You don't need a driver's license to prove your age. My kid has had a state issued identification card since he was 4. They look exactly like a driver's license except that they say they are for identification instead of being a license.
They must not have been to London either. I spent a week their a couple of years ago, and the public transportation sucked. I can't claim to have traveled extensively in Europe, but what limited exposure I have had, I came away with the distinct impression that Europeans hare just used to it. Like the people in the US who live in trailer parks, they soon start to see the run down crappy conditions as 'normal' and 'good'.
That is a total myth. Actuaries don't run the numbers to find the premiums. I used to write software for an insurance rating company. Our software rated hundreds of different programs covering virtually every insurer in the state that was not a direct to consumer insurer. (e.g. AAA, State Farm)
We had direct lines to decision makers at nearly all of these companies. The policies were once calculated off of statistics several decades ago. Since then, the companies just clone other companies policies, and then tweak them with gut instinct. AKA they guess. I can't count the number of times that I talked to the companies and they didn't know simple things like the order of precedence on their calculations. Since we were the biggest rating company in the state, the answer was frequently, "How are you rating the policies? OK, we will start doing it that way."
And, to lend credence to the "they intentionally price policies too high to purchase", I have personally seen motorcycle policies where the company prevented anyone from buying the comp/coll policies by pricing the semi-annual premiums at slightly higher than the retail value of the vehicle new.
You've never ordered Himalayan salt bricks form Amazon then. Tried twice. Somehow they thought that a couple of little half air filled thin plastic bags would protect bricks in transit.
The returns were very easy, but I would rather not have to deal with that in the first place. I would order a lot of things from Amazon, but I do think about the likelihood of damage before placing the order.
The F in F keys stands for function. They were supposed to be user programmable keys/application specific keys for doing common tasks. The problem is that a few of them gained "standard" functionality and people started getting upset if an application used them differently than what they perceived as the "Standard". Now we have keyboards with F keys AND Fn keys. Both stand for Function keys.
Two things need to be done to fix the Function key problem.
1) OSes need to make it easy for users to bind tasks to those keys without needing to know how to code.
2) Keyboard manufacturers need to take a queue from old keyboards like the one from the DEC Rainbow 100 and put a spot above the Fkeys for labels so that users know what they are for.
Shooting the guy over thrown popcorn doesn't warrant deadly force, but the popcorn throwing most certainly was assault.
Reeves was an ex-cop. Thus he had a reasonable expectation that he would not face the full force of law that your average citizen would. He would also know the very best actions to take to help him avoid the negative consequences of his action.
His behavior does not in any way indicate whether he was a nut job or not.
That is not a bad idea. Sometimes the solution is to find a way that everyone can have what they want. I would go one step further, and in newly constructed theaters, I would do what many large churches do. Put a baby room in the back. Don't call it that of course, but many churches will have seats in a room in the back with glass to insulate the sound. It is there so that people with babies who will cry don't have to miss out on the show. Do this in theaters. Put in a wall with glass in the back of the theater, and have people who want a less quite experience sit in a spot where they can text or talk about (or to) the movie without disturbing others. Everyone gets what they want.
I quit going to theaters because they were already pushing the price/value tipping point, but after paying for a movie and having to deal with really loud people and laser pointers, it just wasn't worth it anymore.
Same with the 5th.
I'm not going to argue that this is the right or wrong approach, as I have not thought it out enough to decide if I think the pros or cons out weigh each other.
That being said, we already have a problem with our schools becoming state run orphanages. Most of these kids, at least here in California already get fed lunch by the schools, and a huge number of schools are starting to feed a significant number of these kids breakfast. Adding dinner wouldn't be a huge leap from where we are. I think that standardizing on children being put into orphanages by default has some pretty serious negative ramifications. The question is do the drawbacks of having an orphanage nation outweigh the benefits of helping the less fortunate children, or do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Either way, I believe that you are correct that it would cut back on parents that use their kids as a way to take money from the system for themselves.
It says it in the summary. Your ignorance on how search engines work does not make me stupid.
I would go with one of the birth control implants (they are both trivially reversible, and you only have to remember to take it once ever few years).
You have to be careful with the "it's for the children" argument. If you let people use children as human shields, they will. While it sounds humane in the short run, it isn't in the long run. I know that there are a lot of people who don't believe that parents would willfully abuse their children, but it most certainly happens regularly.
That being said, I keep moving closer and closer to being a proponent of a minimum income for everyone. I believe that we are rapidly approaching (or may have already past) the point that there simply isn't enough real work for everyone to have a job. Sure their are plenty of ditches that could be dug with a spoon, but that isn't really productive.
Buses are just not that dense. It is obviously not about bus space. It is about not wanting "those kinds of people" living in the neighborhood.
Of course they could. They aren't doing it, but it certainly is something they could accomplish. You know that.
So, your are saying that environmentalists would rather people take a shuttle for a few miles than just walk to work? I guess that is the problem with environmentalists. They don't care about the environment.
So, we are clearly in disagreement. You believe that a doctor is doing nothing wrong if they tell people about their patient's medical conditions if it is a "patient he's trying to treat". I think that it is wrong for doctors to tell people about their patient's medical conditions without their consent. Yes. Both of our positions say a lot about us.
One of us may be right and the other wrong, but the point of HIPAA is specifically to prevent doctors from telling people about their patients medical conditions.
"Gentrification" is an attempt to make racist racism sound nice when they complain about "those kinds of people" moving into their neighborhood. It is only a "problem" if you are a racist.
Anti-Gentrification? You mean racists.
Was it really interfering with regular buses? I highly doubt that. It is also not a reasonable objection. "Arrange all the infrastructure needed themselves" is a "if you want to make an apple pie, first you have to create a universe" type argument.
As for paying to use the stops. A) Did they? No one has indicated what arrangements Google made with the city. B) It would be highly irresponsible for the city of San Francisco to charge for the use of these stops. They are on the street where cars drive. The infrastructure consists of a sign saying "No Parking except buses". The buses Google is operating are being used for the very purpose that those sign were installed for. To reduce traffic congestion.
Google is doing the city and it's residents a favor by operating the buses. The problem is that some people don't want "Those kind of people" moving into their neighborhoods, and there are competing businesses that can use their prejudice to harm their competitors.
Yes. They want Google to cease to exist. This is clearly an attempt at a smear campaign. Google having enough employees living close enough together and working close enough together that they can all take a loaded buss to and from work is an environmentalists wet dream. The only thing that would make environmentalists happier is if Google rented out all of the housing next to the employees homes so that the Google employees could just walk to work.
The problem I see here is that people want exactly one answer for traffic problems. When lanes are closed, the reduction in road capacity, and proper care in driving will cause heavy traffic to back up. Likewise, people slowing down to see what the accident looks like will also slow traffic. Put them together and the traffic slow down even more.
Auto drive cars will solve the rubbernecking problem directly. It won't solve the reduced road capacity problem. A related place that it will help is with on ramps. The 'it's the driver's fault' group will have their problem solved and thus will no longer be able to blame low road capacity on drivers. This should lead to better road construction.
I don't think that auto driving cars will ever have that good of safety. I would liken it more to... like a tree falling over and landing on your house. It will still happen. We will all probably know someone who has been involved in an accident, but it will be rare enough that the cost of insuring against it will just get rolled into your homeowners insurance.
My guess is that it would end up low enough that it would just get rolled into your homeowners/renters insurance. The only reason that it is separate now is that the auto part of your insurance is vastly more expensive than all of the things in your homeowners insurance added together.
Car 'Insurance' is two different things. There is Liability, and then there is the Comprehensive/Collision. Liability covers the other guy that you damage. Comp/Coll covers your car. No states require this and all lenders do. Lenders don't care if you are sued into oblivion because you killed someone else. They only care that they get the money back that they lent you on your car. The state does not try to protect your finances by making sure your accident doesn't leave you with nothing. They try to protect your victims by making sure that you can pay for the damages you might cause to them.
I don't know New Hampshire's laws regarding Liability insurance, and I know that there are some 'no-fault' states that say they will not place fault for an accident, and everyone must take care of their own stuff. For most states though, Liability is required and Comp/Coll is not.
Don't forget that on ramps will also cause these traffic waves. Another benefit of automated cars is that road congestion caused by not having enough road to supply the number of cars traveling could no longer be blamed on 'bad driving'.