No, you made absolutists statements like "clearly indicated" when no such thing was clearly indicated. "0.29 to 1.1" is not > 1.0 for any kind of reasonable to assume distribution.
Link you provided did not contain proof AND was shown to be internally inconsistent. Their own unsubstantiated data didn't show what they were claiming it was showing.
You are asserting something that you want to be true without providing any facts to back it up. I don't have to accept this without proof, and I don't have to do research to prove anything to contrary.
We can agree that original claim is BS, or you can provide some evidence that could survive even superficial critical reading.
You omitted it was stated a range, as in "traffic increases 0.29 to 1.1 percent in the long term". Without attribution to other causes, you know, like population growth over long term period.
It does no such thing. It indicates that even biased sources could provide data that shows that highway capacity increases exceed traffic growth. Meaning the whole premise that "build more roads results in more traffic" (and never mind causation fallacy) is not true even when taken at face value using data provided to justify it.
So building more roads solves traffic issues. Reducing lanes increases traffic. Who knew, right?
I traveled internationally and seen various degrees of success with motorized scooters driving on segregated lanes/roads. Biking is too slow and too physically intense for it to be an effective solution for anyone but young, healthy and very fit people, a minority of population.
They found that for every 1 percent increase in highway capacity, traffic increases 0.29 to 1.1 percent in the long term (about five years out), and up to 0.68 percent in the short term (one or two years).
The reported data clearly indicates that building more highway capacity is both short and long term effective solution to traffic.
You failed to account for "engagement algorithm" (aka radicalization engine) that Facebook uses to drive up revenue. In your examples Pacific Bell didn't call you and suggested how to build a bob, US Postal Service didn't offer you tips on how to maximize spread of noxious substances when mailed envelope is opened, and Highway 101 didn't direct you to drive toward accident that closed multiple lanes.
I think they should add waterways and canals next to all roads, because I prefer to commute via gondolas to work.
My problem is that I view bike commuting as impractical and unsafe in good weather, and outright idiotic in the winter. I don't have a death wish and don't appreciate you trying to dictate how I should live, you righteous SJW dipshit.
No, city planners have just realized what you have failed to realize: we can't solve traffic unless we get rid of the cars.
Citation?
Planners have realized that we need to go back to building cities for people, not for cars. Bike lanes are just one part of that. Slowing down traffic is another.
While all of these planning moves are clearly anti-car, it doesn't lead to "building cities for people". It just leads to more misery, short and long term. The least affected population by this is childless single hipsters working in tech, who can afford in both circumstances and income to live in a tiny condos downtown.
This is much more complex problem. Poverty and crime are linked. While it is taboo to directly discuss this and you have to coax it in terms of broken windows or stop and frisk, this doesn't change the fact that one very effective and inexpensive (tax-wise) solution to crime is to just drive out the poor.
Where I live, city planners seem to be certifiably crazy. It is harsh winter 5 out of 12 month here, yet they keep eliminating lanes by adding bike lanes. This results in more traffic congestion and road sections that are unused for significant part of the year.
I could only assume you are not serious when conflating research into discovering vulnerabilities and existence of vulnerabilities. Wait, are you serious?
I miss the "old" uncensored YouTube - but it ain't worth the life of a single kid, or adult for that matter.
It absolutely worth it. We can't protect everyone from everything, and if we try we will end up in either surveillance dystopia or tyranny or both. It is tragic, but some people will die no matter what you do.
You are choosing to be willfully ignorant that children today are exposed to orders of magnitude more cruelty, meanness, and unnecessary suffering in social settings than we had to face.
This is hysterical overreaction and symptomatic helicopter parenting response. Crime is down, every school is on anti-bullying initiative, every teacher and parent is hypervigilant about all kinds of nonsense issues (i.e. stranger danger).
Children today are insulated to the point that basic coping skills fail to develop due to atrophy. Hence we have trigger warnings and victimhood culture. Just add the numbers, helicopter parenting hysteria started sometime during 80s. Now look at what is going on in Universities and places where most workers are young (startups and tech).
You identified problem that kids are unable to cope with adversity and your proposed solution is to further insulate them? How is that going to result in them growing up to become well-adjusted adults capable of coping with life? Kids eventually grow up and have to face adult life that is at best indifferent to your problems, and at worst cruel, mean, and full of unnecessary suffering.
Treat your TV as a display and connect it to another device that you control and can secure. I have old desktop with a wireless keyboard and my TV is connected via HDMI cable to that.
Or they could just wait few months for a metasploit module to come out targeting carrier-locked Android phones that are at least a decade behind on patching.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't put words in your post when you stated:
So turns out it isn't at all clear that "demand can more than use up the extra capacity".
If it doesn't have a DB-25 parallel port, I am not touching it.
Get off my lawn.
That list of 29 names contains 100% rich sucker content and such data would be priceless on the dark web.
No, you made absolutists statements like "clearly indicated" when no such thing was clearly indicated. "0.29 to 1.1" is not > 1.0 for any kind of reasonable to assume distribution.
Link you provided did not contain proof AND was shown to be internally inconsistent. Their own unsubstantiated data didn't show what they were claiming it was showing.
You are asserting something that you want to be true without providing any facts to back it up. I don't have to accept this without proof, and I don't have to do research to prove anything to contrary.
We can agree that original claim is BS, or you can provide some evidence that could survive even superficial critical reading.
You omitted it was stated a range, as in "traffic increases 0.29 to 1.1 percent in the long term". Without attribution to other causes, you know, like population growth over long term period.
It does no such thing. It indicates that even biased sources could provide data that shows that highway capacity increases exceed traffic growth. Meaning the whole premise that "build more roads results in more traffic" (and never mind causation fallacy) is not true even when taken at face value using data provided to justify it.
So building more roads solves traffic issues. Reducing lanes increases traffic. Who knew, right?
I traveled internationally and seen various degrees of success with motorized scooters driving on segregated lanes/roads. Biking is too slow and too physically intense for it to be an effective solution for anyone but young, healthy and very fit people, a minority of population.
The reported data clearly indicates that building more highway capacity is both short and long term effective solution to traffic.
You failed to account for "engagement algorithm" (aka radicalization engine) that Facebook uses to drive up revenue. In your examples Pacific Bell didn't call you and suggested how to build a bob, US Postal Service didn't offer you tips on how to maximize spread of noxious substances when mailed envelope is opened, and Highway 101 didn't direct you to drive toward accident that closed multiple lanes.
I think they should add waterways and canals next to all roads, because I prefer to commute via gondolas to work.
My problem is that I view bike commuting as impractical and unsafe in good weather, and outright idiotic in the winter. I don't have a death wish and don't appreciate you trying to dictate how I should live, you righteous SJW dipshit.
No, city planners have just realized what you have failed to realize: we can't solve traffic unless we get rid of the cars.
Citation?
Planners have realized that we need to go back to building cities for people, not for cars. Bike lanes are just one part of that. Slowing down traffic is another.
While all of these planning moves are clearly anti-car, it doesn't lead to "building cities for people". It just leads to more misery, short and long term. The least affected population by this is childless single hipsters working in tech, who can afford in both circumstances and income to live in a tiny condos downtown.
This is much more complex problem. Poverty and crime are linked. While it is taboo to directly discuss this and you have to coax it in terms of broken windows or stop and frisk, this doesn't change the fact that one very effective and inexpensive (tax-wise) solution to crime is to just drive out the poor.
Where I live, city planners seem to be certifiably crazy. It is harsh winter 5 out of 12 month here, yet they keep eliminating lanes by adding bike lanes. This results in more traffic congestion and road sections that are unused for significant part of the year.
You asked for citations, here are some from CBC (Canadian equivalent to NPR or BBC):
Photo radar under review in Alberta due to widespread misuse
Municipalities go after engineer for speaking up about unsafe amber lights used to maximize red light camera revenue
Senior successfully challenges red light camera ticket after demonstrating it doesn't meet ITE guidelines
I could only assume you are not serious when conflating research into discovering vulnerabilities and existence of vulnerabilities. Wait, are you serious?
I miss the "old" uncensored YouTube - but it ain't worth the life of a single kid, or adult for that matter.
It absolutely worth it. We can't protect everyone from everything, and if we try we will end up in either surveillance dystopia or tyranny or both. It is tragic, but some people will die no matter what you do.
You are choosing to be willfully ignorant that children today are exposed to orders of magnitude more cruelty, meanness, and unnecessary suffering in social settings than we had to face.
This is hysterical overreaction and symptomatic helicopter parenting response. Crime is down, every school is on anti-bullying initiative, every teacher and parent is hypervigilant about all kinds of nonsense issues (i.e. stranger danger).
Children today are insulated to the point that basic coping skills fail to develop due to atrophy. Hence we have trigger warnings and victimhood culture. Just add the numbers, helicopter parenting hysteria started sometime during 80s. Now look at what is going on in Universities and places where most workers are young (startups and tech).
You identified problem that kids are unable to cope with adversity and your proposed solution is to further insulate them? How is that going to result in them growing up to become well-adjusted adults capable of coping with life? Kids eventually grow up and have to face adult life that is at best indifferent to your problems, and at worst cruel, mean, and full of unnecessary suffering.
Thankfully, my TV doesn't do this and defaults to last input that was used. HDMI in my case.
Treat your TV as a display and connect it to another device that you control and can secure. I have old desktop with a wireless keyboard and my TV is connected via HDMI cable to that.
Error. Post aborted. Failed to confirm user identity. Please firmly re-insert authentication device into your sphincter and try posting again.
... all they have to do is to crack android.
Or they could just wait few months for a metasploit module to come out targeting carrier-locked Android phones that are at least a decade behind on patching.
Why would you not choose a new method if it is more secure...
What is being traded in exchange for additional security? It isn't nothing, so don't try that line.