So you're against any real world implementation of red light cameras.
Running a light that is obviously red is very dangerous, so it is rarely done on purpose. When someone does it, they are usually in a big hurry and are very careful to make sure they aren't going to die. Having a camera there won't change the situation, it will just issue a fine. Running the beginning of a red light is actually not that dangerous and sometimes safer than stopping if the yellow is short or if you misestimated your ability to stop
This is supported by a large amount of data that show that accident rates either stayed flat or increased in almost every case. Here's the real question - why do people continue to push red light cameras for safety when there is real data that shows that red light cameras have no net positive effect on safety? This isn't a guess or common sense, it's data collected from real installations - installations that were supposedly put at the intersections that needed them the most. If they had the slightest bit of efficacy, they should have shown striking results at these cherry picked locations.
There is another possibility... The red light camera company installs cameras where they see the best money-making opportunity. If a single light in an area has a slightly lower than reasonable yellow light time already set, it will quickly stand out as a good candidate. So, cameras end up at short-timed intersections without anyone actually doing anything nefarious.
JavaScript has lots of good features. But, it also has automatic semicolon insertion, strange type coercion, eval, and no block scope variables. All of these features entice those who don't know any better to write really bad code. It's like pointers in C - not an inherently bad thing, but out of place in business code where reliability is more important than speed. Because of JavaScript's position as "the default language of the web", these features would be incredibly difficult to fix without losing that status.
It pains me to say this, but Javascript is not that bad... I used to really hate it; but over the last year I've done a lot of node.js development. And if done right, it can be really nice.
That roughly translates to...
"I used to think that JavaScript had a rough learning curve, with all the pitfalls that lure novices in, but now that I know the language it doesn't seem all that hard to pick up."
JavaScript isn't bad because you can't do something right, it's bad because it's so easy to do something wrong. Being successful using it only shows that you have developed the habits and tools to navigate it's minefields, not that it doesn't have tons of minefields. JavaScript is one of those languages that you can pick up in an hour, but still be clueless about how it works a year later.
HP Blades put a 2U server in 1.6U or a 1U server in 0.8U. The only downside is that there is very little room for local storage. If you are virtualizing, SAN storage is inevitable anyways. The power backplane is just a hunk of copper, and all the intelligent stuff is duplicated, so there isn't really a single point of failure - but I wouldn't go blades unless I was at the scale of needing at least three blade chassis so it would be possible to shut one down and not interrupt production. The most legitimate complaint about blades is that they're too dense. A rack that consumes 56 kilowatts is a challenge to cool.
I've found that two fiber modules - at $6K each - are cheaper than two fiber cards in each of 16 individual servers. Don't buy the embedded switches, use the ones that act as a rear mounted ethernet port, along with your switches of choice. If you do want switching on the chassis, get the ones with 10G uplinks so you can drastically reduce the amount of wiring you need.
As for configuration complexity - don't use blades if you are a shop where every server is different. Their ideal use case is one where you need 100 or more of the same configuration - like a VM farm.
What special treatment? When the Chinese hack American servers, we don't ask if they had a Chinese warrant to do it. Why would anyone expect any other country to care if the US did or did not have a warrant. This isn't a license to hack international servers with impunity, it's a license to attack international servers with being punished by the US government. That's a pretty weak license.
So, what this boils down to is: If China hacks our servers and they didn't do the right Chinese paperwork, then they're in trouble with the Chinese government. If they did do the right paperwork, then they're not. But, the US will be pissed either way.
What court would grant a warrant for an action outside that court's jurisdiction? They don't need a warrant because there is no "do something in Iceland" warrant that can be obtained from a US court, at least not one that the local authorities would recognize.
If you take it to court, the judge (or jury depending on what court) is going to listen to the employer's explanation of why the person was fired. If it makes sense, the employer wins. If it doesn't make sense, then it's assumed that the employer is covering up for one of the illegal reasons. They will also look for consistency. If the person was fired for being rude and the employer has a history of not firing people who are rude, then there is an alternate explanation.
This is why people are always so careful to document firings of people who belong to a protected class. If you don't have your ducks in a row, the courts will just ignore your story and believe whatever the former employee says.
From the article: "Importantly, Kitaev also outlined how such a particle could be harnessed as a qubit, the basis of a quantum computer, which added significant impetus to the search."
I went to a Monday night Buffalo Bills game with the company's tickets a few years ago. They were decent seats on the goal line, with a bar that was private to the two thousand fans in the section. The tickets cost $275 each..... for a Bills game.
You have admitted to a copyright violation that, according to the precedent set in Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum, carries a penalty of $21,774 per song shared. Please stand against the wall over there along with 50% of the population of the planet that has violated IP enough IP laws to generate more money in fines than they will ever make in their lifetime.
Even if a major repair is covered by warranty that doesn't mean you won't be without a car for the time required to fix it, or at least a significant fraction of that time.
Not being able to tolerate being without a car is reason to buy decent insurance. Most "without a car time" is caused by collisions, not defects. Very few mechanical car problems cause you to be without a car, almost all collisions cause you to be without a car. Also, two cheap cars is a far better way to guarantee transportation than one high-quality car, yet almost no one considers that as an option.
I buy new cars every four or five years. However, I'm honest enough with myself to know that I do it because I simply want to drive a different car. Most people who buy new cars seem to honestly believe the stories they tell themselves - "I need a reliable car" is the most common. As you said, a five or ten year old car is reliable enough that a new car isn't really a measurable step up. "I don't want any unexpected expenses" is another. The unexpected expenses of an out-of-warranty car aren't enough to justify the expected expense a new cars adds over a used car - a comparable used car is literally hundreds of dollars per month cheaper than a new car. If a used car blew an engine every year, it would still probably be cheaper than a new car.
For me, the advantage of a new car is the lack of unexpected expenses. I added 4 years to the manufacturer's warranty for $750 (rolled into the $40K), so for 7 years, I have bumper-to-bumper coverage.
That's the most common reason people give for buying a new car. However, that "lack of unexpected expenses" is an expensive feature. The profit in auto warranties is typically around 50%, so a cheaper warranty just signifies that the likelihood of an expense is very low. The most expensive things that can go wrong with a car are usually around $4K, and if anything worse happens to a paid-off car, you always have the option of selling the broken car and at least getting enough for your next down payment out of it. So, your expense ceiling isn't really all that high. This isn't your health or your home.
Strangely, I often see people looking to reduce expense both shopping for a reliable car and buying extended warranties. Once you have a warranty, reliability is someone else's problem. Even stranger, they often choose the car brand first (for reliability) and don't even shop for the warranty. So, the thing that actually affects their pocketbook (the warranty) is purchased at retail and the thing that no longer matters to them (whether the car breaks) is a primary factor in making the purchase. There is not much rational thinking in car dealerships, on either side of the sales desk.
..... and always pay cash. You wind up paying less over the long run, the salesman suddenly wants to kiss your ass, and you get a better deal overall.
I agree that you should drive a car for as long as you can, but cash up front isn't usually a great idea. You can get a car financed for a rate lower than inflation if you shop around, so it's technically cheaper to finance. You also can get the car you want (or need) right away without going through cycles of driving bad cars while saving. Also, with today's trend of newer cars getting better fuel economy, trading in more often might actually pay back.
As for the salesman kissing your ass for paying cash - it doesn't make any difference to him if you write him a check or if you run down to the Credit Union, pick up a check, and hand it to him.
Rich people spend less of their money and save more of it than poor people, simply because there's more left over after paying for the necessities. A flat sales tax only plan would significantly raise tax rates for the poor (who currently pay no income tax). So, it would be even more regressive than the current system.
And of course the excesses of the church pale into insignificance compared with the horrors of Stalin and Mao - which is not to argue we Christians haven't committed some appalling crimes, but that all need to be given the right to condemn some of those flying the same flag.
OK, so ambition is the #1 evil in the world and religious zealotry #2. That does not diminish the horror of killing someone who believes in a different invisible man. Stalin and Mao didn't kill to advance the cause of Atheism.
Unemployment benefits are paid from a pool that is funded by employers.
Getting a few thousand people off Medicaid is going to save them money, but a billion dollars is a huge amount of money. Show me some math that shows they will even come close to that.
To make their billion dollars back in sales tax, they would have to generate an additional 20 billion dollars in local sales. That's $20K for each of the 100,000 workers, which is six months of the Nevada average gross wage. If the payoff is longer than ten years, then it would be a poorer investment than doing almost anything else with that money. To put it in perspective, Nevada collected less than $20 billion in total taxes in 2012. This one business would have to grow the economy of the entire state by 5% to hope to break even.
One thing they do have on their side is that most of the batteries manufactured at the plant will be sold outside Nevada, so it will surely pump money into the economy. But, I doubt it will pump enough money in to make up for the billion dollar tax break.
On a side note, Nevada has neither personal income tax nor corporate tax, so it's puzzling what the billion dollars in taxes would have been that they are exempted from.
The Federal government already has a model to fight this. They just raise federal taxes and send piles of money back to individual states as long as those states fall in line. Once federal taxes are raised and a portion on the state's budget is covered, the only choices are to lower state taxes or lose people. They already did it for highway and education funding. Of course, this has done more harm than good, so it's probably better to just leave states to make their own decisions as the Constitution says they should.
Technically, elections are supposed to be how to make people accountable. However, elections seem to be about gay marriage and religion nowadays.
How could it possibly be worth a billion dollars to Nevada? It won't bring very many new people into the state because Nevada already has a higher unemployment rate than surrounding states. It won't generate direct tax revenue due to exemptions. Their only hope is that it creates a geographic area where an industry collects, like SIlicon Valley or the Research Triangle. But, that is just an arms race against other states, so it just wastes money from a macro perspective.
Also in VB, although they have recently changed it to &.
Recently, as in 1995 (it was introduced in VB4)? Having a distinct string concatenation operator has been a strength if VB for a very long time, however it does the same type coercion that JavaScript does. But, at least you don't look at it and assume it's doing addition.
You can't make UX the documentation because it doesn't cover all of the use cases. UX is great for answering the question "What does this button do?". You need independent documentation to answer questions like "How do I mail-merge?". This goes double for processes where the industry standard term is trademarked, so you can't actually use it in your product.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're against any real world implementation of red light cameras.
Running a light that is obviously red is very dangerous, so it is rarely done on purpose. When someone does it, they are usually in a big hurry and are very careful to make sure they aren't going to die. Having a camera there won't change the situation, it will just issue a fine. Running the beginning of a red light is actually not that dangerous and sometimes safer than stopping if the yellow is short or if you misestimated your ability to stop
This is supported by a large amount of data that show that accident rates either stayed flat or increased in almost every case. Here's the real question - why do people continue to push red light cameras for safety when there is real data that shows that red light cameras have no net positive effect on safety? This isn't a guess or common sense, it's data collected from real installations - installations that were supposedly put at the intersections that needed them the most. If they had the slightest bit of efficacy, they should have shown striking results at these cherry picked locations.
There is another possibility... The red light camera company installs cameras where they see the best money-making opportunity. If a single light in an area has a slightly lower than reasonable yellow light time already set, it will quickly stand out as a good candidate. So, cameras end up at short-timed intersections without anyone actually doing anything nefarious.
JavaScript has lots of good features. But, it also has automatic semicolon insertion, strange type coercion, eval, and no block scope variables. All of these features entice those who don't know any better to write really bad code. It's like pointers in C - not an inherently bad thing, but out of place in business code where reliability is more important than speed. Because of JavaScript's position as "the default language of the web", these features would be incredibly difficult to fix without losing that status.
It pains me to say this, but Javascript is not that bad... I used to really hate it; but over the last year I've done a lot of node.js development. And if done right, it can be really nice.
That roughly translates to ...
"I used to think that JavaScript had a rough learning curve, with all the pitfalls that lure novices in, but now that I know the language it doesn't seem all that hard to pick up."
JavaScript isn't bad because you can't do something right, it's bad because it's so easy to do something wrong. Being successful using it only shows that you have developed the habits and tools to navigate it's minefields, not that it doesn't have tons of minefields. JavaScript is one of those languages that you can pick up in an hour, but still be clueless about how it works a year later.
HP Blades put a 2U server in 1.6U or a 1U server in 0.8U. The only downside is that there is very little room for local storage. If you are virtualizing, SAN storage is inevitable anyways. The power backplane is just a hunk of copper, and all the intelligent stuff is duplicated, so there isn't really a single point of failure - but I wouldn't go blades unless I was at the scale of needing at least three blade chassis so it would be possible to shut one down and not interrupt production. The most legitimate complaint about blades is that they're too dense. A rack that consumes 56 kilowatts is a challenge to cool.
I've found that two fiber modules - at $6K each - are cheaper than two fiber cards in each of 16 individual servers. Don't buy the embedded switches, use the ones that act as a rear mounted ethernet port, along with your switches of choice. If you do want switching on the chassis, get the ones with 10G uplinks so you can drastically reduce the amount of wiring you need.
As for configuration complexity - don't use blades if you are a shop where every server is different. Their ideal use case is one where you need 100 or more of the same configuration - like a VM farm.
What special treatment? When the Chinese hack American servers, we don't ask if they had a Chinese warrant to do it. Why would anyone expect any other country to care if the US did or did not have a warrant. This isn't a license to hack international servers with impunity, it's a license to attack international servers with being punished by the US government. That's a pretty weak license.
So, what this boils down to is: If China hacks our servers and they didn't do the right Chinese paperwork, then they're in trouble with the Chinese government. If they did do the right paperwork, then they're not. But, the US will be pissed either way.
What court would grant a warrant for an action outside that court's jurisdiction? They don't need a warrant because there is no "do something in Iceland" warrant that can be obtained from a US court, at least not one that the local authorities would recognize.
If you take it to court, the judge (or jury depending on what court) is going to listen to the employer's explanation of why the person was fired. If it makes sense, the employer wins. If it doesn't make sense, then it's assumed that the employer is covering up for one of the illegal reasons. They will also look for consistency. If the person was fired for being rude and the employer has a history of not firing people who are rude, then there is an alternate explanation.
This is why people are always so careful to document firings of people who belong to a protected class. If you don't have your ducks in a row, the courts will just ignore your story and believe whatever the former employee says.
From the article: "Importantly, Kitaev also outlined how such a particle could be harnessed as a qubit, the basis of a quantum computer, which added significant impetus to the search."
I went to a Monday night Buffalo Bills game with the company's tickets a few years ago. They were decent seats on the goal line, with a bar that was private to the two thousand fans in the section. The tickets cost $275 each..... for a Bills game.
You have admitted to a copyright violation that, according to the precedent set in Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum, carries a penalty of $21,774 per song shared. Please stand against the wall over there along with 50% of the population of the planet that has violated IP enough IP laws to generate more money in fines than they will ever make in their lifetime.
Even if a major repair is covered by warranty that doesn't mean you won't be without a car for the time required to fix it, or at least a significant fraction of that time.
Not being able to tolerate being without a car is reason to buy decent insurance. Most "without a car time" is caused by collisions, not defects. Very few mechanical car problems cause you to be without a car, almost all collisions cause you to be without a car. Also, two cheap cars is a far better way to guarantee transportation than one high-quality car, yet almost no one considers that as an option.
I buy new cars every four or five years. However, I'm honest enough with myself to know that I do it because I simply want to drive a different car. Most people who buy new cars seem to honestly believe the stories they tell themselves - "I need a reliable car" is the most common. As you said, a five or ten year old car is reliable enough that a new car isn't really a measurable step up. "I don't want any unexpected expenses" is another. The unexpected expenses of an out-of-warranty car aren't enough to justify the expected expense a new cars adds over a used car - a comparable used car is literally hundreds of dollars per month cheaper than a new car. If a used car blew an engine every year, it would still probably be cheaper than a new car.
For me, the advantage of a new car is the lack of unexpected expenses. I added 4 years to the manufacturer's warranty for $750 (rolled into the $40K), so for 7 years, I have bumper-to-bumper coverage.
That's the most common reason people give for buying a new car. However, that "lack of unexpected expenses" is an expensive feature. The profit in auto warranties is typically around 50%, so a cheaper warranty just signifies that the likelihood of an expense is very low. The most expensive things that can go wrong with a car are usually around $4K, and if anything worse happens to a paid-off car, you always have the option of selling the broken car and at least getting enough for your next down payment out of it. So, your expense ceiling isn't really all that high. This isn't your health or your home.
Strangely, I often see people looking to reduce expense both shopping for a reliable car and buying extended warranties. Once you have a warranty, reliability is someone else's problem. Even stranger, they often choose the car brand first (for reliability) and don't even shop for the warranty. So, the thing that actually affects their pocketbook (the warranty) is purchased at retail and the thing that no longer matters to them (whether the car breaks) is a primary factor in making the purchase. There is not much rational thinking in car dealerships, on either side of the sales desk.
..... and always pay cash. You wind up paying less over the long run, the salesman suddenly wants to kiss your ass, and you get a better deal overall.
I agree that you should drive a car for as long as you can, but cash up front isn't usually a great idea. You can get a car financed for a rate lower than inflation if you shop around, so it's technically cheaper to finance. You also can get the car you want (or need) right away without going through cycles of driving bad cars while saving. Also, with today's trend of newer cars getting better fuel economy, trading in more often might actually pay back.
As for the salesman kissing your ass for paying cash - it doesn't make any difference to him if you write him a check or if you run down to the Credit Union, pick up a check, and hand it to him.
Rich people spend less of their money and save more of it than poor people, simply because there's more left over after paying for the necessities. A flat sales tax only plan would significantly raise tax rates for the poor (who currently pay no income tax). So, it would be even more regressive than the current system.
And of course the excesses of the church pale into insignificance compared with the horrors of Stalin and Mao - which is not to argue we Christians haven't committed some appalling crimes, but that all need to be given the right to condemn some of those flying the same flag.
OK, so ambition is the #1 evil in the world and religious zealotry #2. That does not diminish the horror of killing someone who believes in a different invisible man. Stalin and Mao didn't kill to advance the cause of Atheism.
I don't believe in god because I see no evidence.
If you need evidence, then it isn't belief, it's research. Most people that believe in god don't claim to have any evidence, just faith.
Unemployment benefits are paid from a pool that is funded by employers.
Getting a few thousand people off Medicaid is going to save them money, but a billion dollars is a huge amount of money. Show me some math that shows they will even come close to that.
To make their billion dollars back in sales tax, they would have to generate an additional 20 billion dollars in local sales. That's $20K for each of the 100,000 workers, which is six months of the Nevada average gross wage. If the payoff is longer than ten years, then it would be a poorer investment than doing almost anything else with that money. To put it in perspective, Nevada collected less than $20 billion in total taxes in 2012. This one business would have to grow the economy of the entire state by 5% to hope to break even.
One thing they do have on their side is that most of the batteries manufactured at the plant will be sold outside Nevada, so it will surely pump money into the economy. But, I doubt it will pump enough money in to make up for the billion dollar tax break.
On a side note, Nevada has neither personal income tax nor corporate tax, so it's puzzling what the billion dollars in taxes would have been that they are exempted from.
The Federal government already has a model to fight this. They just raise federal taxes and send piles of money back to individual states as long as those states fall in line. Once federal taxes are raised and a portion on the state's budget is covered, the only choices are to lower state taxes or lose people. They already did it for highway and education funding. Of course, this has done more harm than good, so it's probably better to just leave states to make their own decisions as the Constitution says they should.
Technically, elections are supposed to be how to make people accountable. However, elections seem to be about gay marriage and religion nowadays.
How could it possibly be worth a billion dollars to Nevada? It won't bring very many new people into the state because Nevada already has a higher unemployment rate than surrounding states. It won't generate direct tax revenue due to exemptions. Their only hope is that it creates a geographic area where an industry collects, like SIlicon Valley or the Research Triangle. But, that is just an arms race against other states, so it just wastes money from a macro perspective.
Apparently, that StackOverflow page is the source for the article. Even many of the comments that are in the article come from that page.
Also in VB, although they have recently changed it to &.
Recently, as in 1995 (it was introduced in VB4)? Having a distinct string concatenation operator has been a strength if VB for a very long time, however it does the same type coercion that JavaScript does. But, at least you don't look at it and assume it's doing addition.
At least they followed it. The trend today seems to be to break convention to stand out.
You can't make UX the documentation because it doesn't cover all of the use cases. UX is great for answering the question "What does this button do?". You need independent documentation to answer questions like "How do I mail-merge?". This goes double for processes where the industry standard term is trademarked, so you can't actually use it in your product.