Cars were new, and were replacing horses which had been used on roads for thousands of years.
They were trying to prevent certain problems that they were worried about at the time, that ended up not being problems. The argument after that was if the problems don't exist because they were not valid concerns, or if it is because of the laws.
50 years ago that was probably less clear than it is now, since there are so many other places in the world that didn't use our system. It is just the normal progression of rules that happens with societal changes like adopting automobiles.
There was a time where my State had a law that required automobile owners to leave the roadway and hide their car when passing a horse carriage coming the other way. Nobody in the State owned a car yet, but somebody had visited in one and it scared some horses and made some people mad. It was such an obscure law it stayed on the books until recently; nobody had ever enforced it, so people forgot about it!
You should try it, because you do a sucky job as an encyclopedia; you're not NPOV.
Try forming a thought, and then forming words that describe your thought. Even if you suck at it, it will have more value than your spammy link, or the spammy links you seem to want to read when you ask other people for links instead of asking that they explain ideas.
If you wanted a link and couldn't google it yourself, what value would I even bring to the conversation by propping you up that hard? It seems more effective to just let you fall by the wayside on your own if you can't even do a web search to answer the parts you have questions about and believe would be answered by reference material.
Looking around the room and counting is not really a good system, in my case I've got at least 50 AVR processors within 10' and I doubt my computer monitor has more than 5 or 6 ARM cores.
And even the AMD motherboards often have media ICs with at least 2, probably 3 processor blocks made by Intel. Their most popular processors are probably ones that don't even have a consumer part number because they put the part number on the implemented application.
So while ARM is presumed way ahead, getting a count on either side would be hard. And clearly CPUs wouldn't be top ten. Even on their own motherboards they're outnumbered.
You might want to get an umbrella, the forecast calls for rain and I'm quite sure you'll drown with your nose held that high.
The thing you didn't comprehend about elitism is that people doing their own thing for their own reasons is actually good. Elitism is where they're keeping others out, not where they simply think it is good if people with low interest levels participate in the activity.
Its good you decided to spend a few seconds of your life to think about elitism for the first time. I commend your efforts, and I really hope you get a bit further into the issues next time.
English is an open language and doesn't even have "correct" spellings, or therefore, incorrect ones.
You purport to be asking a question, ("why?") but you don't actually explain what you're confused about. So there is little chance for anybody to educate you.
You don't seem to understand very much of the conversation. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you're probably one of those Frenchies who don't even have an English name for themselves, and you should probably quit pretending that you're fully fluent.
It isn't a straw man at all, in fact, I'm not even the person who wanted to drag bread (which is unrelated to my comment) into the conversation: that was you.
Are you complaining that your own straw man burnt down without impact, or what?
Trains are cheaper than trucks on super-heavy stuff. Light stuff like bread, where the shipping volume drives the cost instead of the weight, well for that trucks are cheaper.
Talking about "straw men" here is just silly, do you understand what topic is being discussed? Shipping?
Oh, also, your link is biased horseshit, I'd like my 5 minutes reading it back. Handwaving and off-topic math, just a bunch of vapid shit. It doesn't even use actual numbers for road maintenance, and it doesn't do any sort of analysis that compares the costs with or without the shipping. It just does handwavvy shit with numbers, and says "see?" afterwards. It is too weak to bother with detailed analysis of each precise way that it stinks.
But news flash: Rail is subsidized too. And you didn't even attempt to do a comparison. You're wrong just by anybody pointing at you and saying "yer rong" because you didn't even make a completed point that compares the subsidy level.
Like Bill Gates understood decades ago, if you're willing to need them, then yes they will screw you over.
If you were already ready to switch to a different supplier if needed, then you don't need them and you won't get screwed by them unless you're an idiot.
You really need to rewatch the movie. You don't have to take it seriously to get recruited to fly the alien spaceship, you just have to live in a trailer park and get a high score.
Source: In 1985 I had a Last Starfighter lunch box.
The funny thing about how wrong this is is that the older analog TVs implemented more of the NTSC spec and were much less tolerant of bad or off-spec signals than the newer ones. Some TVs older than about 1970 have trouble displaying the output of the older 8 bit consoles, because the consoles don't do all the stuff the standard asks for.
I've been learning all about this while playing with generating NTSC signals from modern 8 bit micros. Newer digital TVs are way less picky than old analog TVs, because the new ones just match the horizontal and vertical sync signals from a software buffer, they can just ignore most of the spec since they are fast and have large enough buffers to hold everything. This is literally all you need on a modern TV. Actually modern TVs are so happy with poor NTSC signals that once my software was writing the signal to the wrong port pin, and part of the image was still showing up on the TV just from the switching pattern in the noise! And I was using the normal recommended filter caps.
Many modern TVs actually don't even know what the different PAL/NTSC screen settings are! They just look at the sync signals and calculate it. You can do that with old analog TVs if you implement the whole standard, but if you only implement parts of it then only certain settings will work well. At a minimum, analog TVs are going to need more compliant vertical blanking at the end of a frame. Newer TVs can ignore all the crap in the standard at the end of the frame, and they'll see the vertical sync without warning.
I've been playing with generating NTSC signals from 8 bit microcontrollers lately, and when you mess up the color burst (you'd have to switch to PAL to spell it colour, sorry) it just degrades to black and white but still works well. There is a big area of failing to B&W in between the cases of messed up colors and total failure.
I've been using linux since the 90s, and I always tell people, don't use linux unless you know what you're doing, or don't know what an OS is.
Please don't use linux. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about it. The simple fact is that if you're not either a computer professional/enthusiast, or a very casual computer user, then you have no reason to use it. It will only be harder to use, and won't run most of your software.
If you're casual enough that you would never try to install software without help, you just want to use some basic office and internet functionality, then great, you can make good use of linux by having somebody set it up for you. As long as you don't want to change anything, it will Just Work for a long long time.
But if you're not an expert, and you want to be able to run random software on your computer, perhaps that you purchased in a box at a store, then please don't bother. Just use a consumer OS. Filling linux forums with your stupid questions is just going to frustrate you because you shouldn't even be asking for help. You don't even have a reason to be using it.
Never use software tools unless you have a use case for them. Read a book or something. Go for a walk.
If you let employees choose their own laptop features within a budget, they'll be a lot happier with the results and they'll complain less about problems. They will also choose features that you have to disable because they violate various company policies.
If you insert a step where somebody reviews their choices you lose a lot of the morale boost from letting them choose, because they didn't get to choose, they only got to ask.
If you have a bunch of java monkeys, just choose for them. If you have skilled professionals with individual skills that you want to retain, then you let them choose and you don't worry about the cost of useless features that you have to disable.
I have a recent thinkpad with the fingerprint scanner (I got it to play with and see if the linux software is any good, not to actually use; answer is no it is super-flaky).
It only scans a single line of pixels at a time. Not only do you have to swipe your finger across it, you have to do so at a precise speed. And the bezel around it isn't large enough to hold a print, so you have differing surface finishes all around that area.
The best place to lift a print would probably be on the bottom surface. It tends to be slightly elevated for airflow, and has lots of areas near the edge that are likely to be grabbed and hold prints.
That may be the most widely used consumer CPU, but it is very very far from being the most widely used microprocessor. When you use the word "microprocessor," you're talking not only about CPUs but also every microcontroller and most ASICs. None of Intel's microprocessors are in the list of most used microprocessors. I doubt they even have an entry in the top 5!
Strange oversight to make while trying be the hardware guy in the conversation...
Truck drivers don't even do security now. And in most states, it would be illegal because they're not licensed.
Also, you can monitor a camera remotely from a service center and call the cops just as easily as you can monitor a camera remotely from the cab of a truck and call the cops.
They wouldn't have to sever diplomatic relations, it is just that the current system is that countries agree not to interfere with embassies on a mutual, largely informal basis. Nobody wants their own embassies searched, so they don't bring in lawyers and try to press what they're allowed to do; because actually they can do most normal law enforcement things, if they're willing to accept the diplomatic consequences.
In short, deference to embassies is not based on law or treaty, even though there are related laws and treaties, but instead that deference is based on prospective diplomacy.
It is an example of the Silver Rule in practice: Do not do unto others the things you don't want them to do back to you!
The reality is that if countries have to fight over the pedantic details of when they can and can't search an embassy, everybody would stop using embassies. We'd still have overseas government offices, but they wouldn't have important employees in them, and they wouldn't have a strong diplomatic role or serve as a legit point of communication for the local government.
Nobody cares about severing ties with Ecuador. They're about as important as any one city in India or Germany. Severing ties would be about as harmful as a nasty email from the Mayor of Foreign Podunkville. This is about countries like the UK, USA, Russia, China, etc wanting to protect their embassies from each other. Ecuador isn't even important to the conversation.
You might want to look up what the fees are to have a rail car brought to your spur and dropped off for you to load, and what it costs to pick it up later. And what the availability is; can you have it dropped off and picked up whenever you want, or is there a giant window you have to be ready in?
If you didn't look up any numbers, it isn't "simple economics," but rather, economics beyond the scope of your analysis.
Also, is there a difference in cost:volume and cost:weight, or is that the same between trucks and trains? If I have a container full of stereos or smart phones, is that going to be the same sort of cost ratio between truck and rail as if I have a container of wheat?
I'll give you two obvious facts for your "simple" economics: It is a lot cheaper to ship a container of wheat by rail than by truck. Another fun fact: it is a lot cheaper to ship baked bread by truck than by rail. This is true even when you have a bakery next to a spur line, and a grocery next to a spur line.
Even the logistics centers in my town that have rail spurs don't use them unless they're transporting commodities, which here means grain. A grain silo uses their spur line, but the shipping company across the street? No way, the fees to have a rail car brought out and parked on your spur are higher than the cost of filling a truck container and driving it to the railyard!
Rail can never be more than a tiny fractional bit cheaper than road, because nobody can build new rail lines(*) so there isn't competition between lines for the same car. And there is a longterm established profit motive and system. Whereas shipping on roads is highly competitive, and if costs dropped so would price.
(* Existing rail networks in the US were caused to be built largely by giving free land to the railroads. These days all the land is spoken for.)
Horseshit, people say they should "help themselves" because they're already whining about their taxes and they don't want society to spread out the cost of training. "Help themselves" is just saying they should "get no help" and then blaming them for your position.
People who support education also say that people should help themselves, they just don't insist that they also reject any help. Humans are a social species, the idea that somebody should be expected to do everything themselves is idiotic and none of the people saying it actually did so themselves.
People like you stand on the shoulders of giants while insisting you built the whole world. Load of shit, that.
That reminds of something that happened when I was younger.
In the 90s I worked at a plywood mill, and after it shut down everybody got free job training. One guy, in his early 60s, was studying to be a Computer Applications Specialist (aka office assistant or help desk). He had been a forklift driver at that mill for over 30 years! One day at the Community College, during lunch, he told me, "I did that job for over 30 years because I thought I wasn't smart enough to do anything else. Now I'm a college student, and I realize I can do anything! I'm not even stupid. I just didn't have any other experience." [memory lookup error, dialog reconstructed from parity]
It was too late for him to actually get the training for a better paying job, but he was still able to transition to the modern economy, and do a job he thought was beyond his capabilities.
The two societal problems that we continue to face that make this issue difficult are: Access to higher education, and a lack of a system to spread out reduced work hours between a growing number of workers. The workers can do whatever work you train them for, but only if they can receive the training, and the available work is divided up between the workers.
Assuming it has wireless networking of some sort, it can just turn on the hazard lights and sit there until a remote operator can look at the instruments and cameras and dispatch a tow truck or technician as needed.
What is the actual use case for this supposed "person riding in the truck?" That person can be a few hundred miles away in a regional office, and once a year drive out to a site to sign paperwork for a tow company because a drunk driver hit their truck in an area with no trucks from their normal contracted service provider.
Slashdot Mirror
Cars were new, and were replacing horses which had been used on roads for thousands of years.
They were trying to prevent certain problems that they were worried about at the time, that ended up not being problems. The argument after that was if the problems don't exist because they were not valid concerns, or if it is because of the laws.
50 years ago that was probably less clear than it is now, since there are so many other places in the world that didn't use our system. It is just the normal progression of rules that happens with societal changes like adopting automobiles.
There was a time where my State had a law that required automobile owners to leave the roadway and hide their car when passing a horse carriage coming the other way. Nobody in the State owned a car yet, but somebody had visited in one and it scared some horses and made some people mad. It was such an obscure law it stayed on the books until recently; nobody had ever enforced it, so people forgot about it!
Because I'm a human being, not a wikipedia entry.
You should try it, because you do a sucky job as an encyclopedia; you're not NPOV.
Try forming a thought, and then forming words that describe your thought. Even if you suck at it, it will have more value than your spammy link, or the spammy links you seem to want to read when you ask other people for links instead of asking that they explain ideas.
If you wanted a link and couldn't google it yourself, what value would I even bring to the conversation by propping you up that hard? It seems more effective to just let you fall by the wayside on your own if you can't even do a web search to answer the parts you have questions about and believe would be answered by reference material.
Looking around the room and counting is not really a good system, in my case I've got at least 50 AVR processors within 10' and I doubt my computer monitor has more than 5 or 6 ARM cores.
And even the AMD motherboards often have media ICs with at least 2, probably 3 processor blocks made by Intel. Their most popular processors are probably ones that don't even have a consumer part number because they put the part number on the implemented application.
So while ARM is presumed way ahead, getting a count on either side would be hard. And clearly CPUs wouldn't be top ten. Even on their own motherboards they're outnumbered.
You might want to get an umbrella, the forecast calls for rain and I'm quite sure you'll drown with your nose held that high.
The thing you didn't comprehend about elitism is that people doing their own thing for their own reasons is actually good. Elitism is where they're keeping others out, not where they simply think it is good if people with low interest levels participate in the activity.
Its good you decided to spend a few seconds of your life to think about elitism for the first time. I commend your efforts, and I really hope you get a bit further into the issues next time.
English is an open language and doesn't even have "correct" spellings, or therefore, incorrect ones.
You purport to be asking a question, ("why?") but you don't actually explain what you're confused about. So there is little chance for anybody to educate you.
You don't seem to understand very much of the conversation. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you're probably one of those Frenchies who don't even have an English name for themselves, and you should probably quit pretending that you're fully fluent.
It isn't a straw man at all, in fact, I'm not even the person who wanted to drag bread (which is unrelated to my comment) into the conversation: that was you.
Are you complaining that your own straw man burnt down without impact, or what?
Trains are cheaper than trucks on super-heavy stuff. Light stuff like bread, where the shipping volume drives the cost instead of the weight, well for that trucks are cheaper.
Talking about "straw men" here is just silly, do you understand what topic is being discussed? Shipping?
Oh, also, your link is biased horseshit, I'd like my 5 minutes reading it back. Handwaving and off-topic math, just a bunch of vapid shit. It doesn't even use actual numbers for road maintenance, and it doesn't do any sort of analysis that compares the costs with or without the shipping. It just does handwavvy shit with numbers, and says "see?" afterwards. It is too weak to bother with detailed analysis of each precise way that it stinks.
But news flash: Rail is subsidized too. And you didn't even attempt to do a comparison. You're wrong just by anybody pointing at you and saying "yer rong" because you didn't even make a completed point that compares the subsidy level.
Canadians choosing British spellings is just silly masochism.
Like Bill Gates understood decades ago, if you're willing to need them, then yes they will screw you over.
If you were already ready to switch to a different supplier if needed, then you don't need them and you won't get screwed by them unless you're an idiot.
You really need to rewatch the movie. You don't have to take it seriously to get recruited to fly the alien spaceship, you just have to live in a trailer park and get a high score.
Source: In 1985 I had a Last Starfighter lunch box.
The funny thing about how wrong this is is that the older analog TVs implemented more of the NTSC spec and were much less tolerant of bad or off-spec signals than the newer ones. Some TVs older than about 1970 have trouble displaying the output of the older 8 bit consoles, because the consoles don't do all the stuff the standard asks for.
I've been learning all about this while playing with generating NTSC signals from modern 8 bit micros. Newer digital TVs are way less picky than old analog TVs, because the new ones just match the horizontal and vertical sync signals from a software buffer, they can just ignore most of the spec since they are fast and have large enough buffers to hold everything. This is literally all you need on a modern TV. Actually modern TVs are so happy with poor NTSC signals that once my software was writing the signal to the wrong port pin, and part of the image was still showing up on the TV just from the switching pattern in the noise! And I was using the normal recommended filter caps.
Many modern TVs actually don't even know what the different PAL/NTSC screen settings are! They just look at the sync signals and calculate it. You can do that with old analog TVs if you implement the whole standard, but if you only implement parts of it then only certain settings will work well. At a minimum, analog TVs are going to need more compliant vertical blanking at the end of a frame. Newer TVs can ignore all the crap in the standard at the end of the frame, and they'll see the vertical sync without warning.
I've been playing with generating NTSC signals from 8 bit microcontrollers lately, and when you mess up the color burst (you'd have to switch to PAL to spell it colour, sorry) it just degrades to black and white but still works well. There is a big area of failing to B&W in between the cases of messed up colors and total failure.
I've been using linux since the 90s, and I always tell people, don't use linux unless you know what you're doing, or don't know what an OS is.
Please don't use linux. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about it. The simple fact is that if you're not either a computer professional/enthusiast, or a very casual computer user, then you have no reason to use it. It will only be harder to use, and won't run most of your software.
If you're casual enough that you would never try to install software without help, you just want to use some basic office and internet functionality, then great, you can make good use of linux by having somebody set it up for you. As long as you don't want to change anything, it will Just Work for a long long time.
But if you're not an expert, and you want to be able to run random software on your computer, perhaps that you purchased in a box at a store, then please don't bother. Just use a consumer OS. Filling linux forums with your stupid questions is just going to frustrate you because you shouldn't even be asking for help. You don't even have a reason to be using it.
Never use software tools unless you have a use case for them. Read a book or something. Go for a walk.
And it's password is the same I have on my luggage!
The master key is the same as your luggage, too.
If you let employees choose their own laptop features within a budget, they'll be a lot happier with the results and they'll complain less about problems. They will also choose features that you have to disable because they violate various company policies.
If you insert a step where somebody reviews their choices you lose a lot of the morale boost from letting them choose, because they didn't get to choose, they only got to ask.
If you have a bunch of java monkeys, just choose for them. If you have skilled professionals with individual skills that you want to retain, then you let them choose and you don't worry about the cost of useless features that you have to disable.
I have a recent thinkpad with the fingerprint scanner (I got it to play with and see if the linux software is any good, not to actually use; answer is no it is super-flaky).
It only scans a single line of pixels at a time. Not only do you have to swipe your finger across it, you have to do so at a precise speed. And the bezel around it isn't large enough to hold a print, so you have differing surface finishes all around that area.
The best place to lift a print would probably be on the bottom surface. It tends to be slightly elevated for airflow, and has lots of areas near the edge that are likely to be grabbed and hold prints.
That may be the most widely used consumer CPU, but it is very very far from being the most widely used microprocessor. When you use the word "microprocessor," you're talking not only about CPUs but also every microcontroller and most ASICs. None of Intel's microprocessors are in the list of most used microprocessors. I doubt they even have an entry in the top 5!
Strange oversight to make while trying be the hardware guy in the conversation...
They're not.
And no, shipping is not a major contributor to the price of locally produced bread. Wow. That's some exceptionally daft analysis.
Liking local bakeries is great, but it doesn't automatically mean that they're being held down by The Man.
Truck drivers don't even do security now. And in most states, it would be illegal because they're not licensed.
Also, you can monitor a camera remotely from a service center and call the cops just as easily as you can monitor a camera remotely from the cab of a truck and call the cops.
They wouldn't have to sever diplomatic relations, it is just that the current system is that countries agree not to interfere with embassies on a mutual, largely informal basis. Nobody wants their own embassies searched, so they don't bring in lawyers and try to press what they're allowed to do; because actually they can do most normal law enforcement things, if they're willing to accept the diplomatic consequences.
In short, deference to embassies is not based on law or treaty, even though there are related laws and treaties, but instead that deference is based on prospective diplomacy.
It is an example of the Silver Rule in practice: Do not do unto others the things you don't want them to do back to you!
The reality is that if countries have to fight over the pedantic details of when they can and can't search an embassy, everybody would stop using embassies. We'd still have overseas government offices, but they wouldn't have important employees in them, and they wouldn't have a strong diplomatic role or serve as a legit point of communication for the local government.
Nobody cares about severing ties with Ecuador. They're about as important as any one city in India or Germany. Severing ties would be about as harmful as a nasty email from the Mayor of Foreign Podunkville. This is about countries like the UK, USA, Russia, China, etc wanting to protect their embassies from each other. Ecuador isn't even important to the conversation.
You might want to look up what the fees are to have a rail car brought to your spur and dropped off for you to load, and what it costs to pick it up later. And what the availability is; can you have it dropped off and picked up whenever you want, or is there a giant window you have to be ready in?
If you didn't look up any numbers, it isn't "simple economics," but rather, economics beyond the scope of your analysis.
Also, is there a difference in cost:volume and cost:weight, or is that the same between trucks and trains? If I have a container full of stereos or smart phones, is that going to be the same sort of cost ratio between truck and rail as if I have a container of wheat?
I'll give you two obvious facts for your "simple" economics: It is a lot cheaper to ship a container of wheat by rail than by truck. Another fun fact: it is a lot cheaper to ship baked bread by truck than by rail. This is true even when you have a bakery next to a spur line, and a grocery next to a spur line.
Even the logistics centers in my town that have rail spurs don't use them unless they're transporting commodities, which here means grain. A grain silo uses their spur line, but the shipping company across the street? No way, the fees to have a rail car brought out and parked on your spur are higher than the cost of filling a truck container and driving it to the railyard!
Rail can never be more than a tiny fractional bit cheaper than road, because nobody can build new rail lines(*) so there isn't competition between lines for the same car. And there is a longterm established profit motive and system. Whereas shipping on roads is highly competitive, and if costs dropped so would price.
(* Existing rail networks in the US were caused to be built largely by giving free land to the railroads. These days all the land is spoken for.)
Nice story bro, but turn off the AM radio, it is poisoning your mind.
Those are weakly remembered bits of hyperbole that you recall, it isn't history.
Horseshit, people say they should "help themselves" because they're already whining about their taxes and they don't want society to spread out the cost of training. "Help themselves" is just saying they should "get no help" and then blaming them for your position.
People who support education also say that people should help themselves, they just don't insist that they also reject any help. Humans are a social species, the idea that somebody should be expected to do everything themselves is idiotic and none of the people saying it actually did so themselves.
People like you stand on the shoulders of giants while insisting you built the whole world. Load of shit, that.
That reminds of something that happened when I was younger.
In the 90s I worked at a plywood mill, and after it shut down everybody got free job training. One guy, in his early 60s, was studying to be a Computer Applications Specialist (aka office assistant or help desk). He had been a forklift driver at that mill for over 30 years! One day at the Community College, during lunch, he told me, "I did that job for over 30 years because I thought I wasn't smart enough to do anything else. Now I'm a college student, and I realize I can do anything! I'm not even stupid. I just didn't have any other experience." [memory lookup error, dialog reconstructed from parity]
It was too late for him to actually get the training for a better paying job, but he was still able to transition to the modern economy, and do a job he thought was beyond his capabilities.
The two societal problems that we continue to face that make this issue difficult are: Access to higher education, and a lack of a system to spread out reduced work hours between a growing number of workers. The workers can do whatever work you train them for, but only if they can receive the training, and the available work is divided up between the workers.
Assuming it has wireless networking of some sort, it can just turn on the hazard lights and sit there until a remote operator can look at the instruments and cameras and dispatch a tow truck or technician as needed.
What is the actual use case for this supposed "person riding in the truck?" That person can be a few hundred miles away in a regional office, and once a year drive out to a site to sign paperwork for a tow company because a drunk driver hit their truck in an area with no trucks from their normal contracted service provider.