Comment Re:I have my own promise (Score 1) 574
Hell, I might even just write in Elizabeth Warren.
Bernie Sanders is just as good, and actually running.
Hell, I might even just write in Elizabeth Warren.
Bernie Sanders is just as good, and actually running.
If I have to be subjected to ads, I want them to be irrelevant. I'd rather be bored than tempted to spend money.
Of course, in reality I just avoid ads altogether (including rejecting services that have them, such as cable TV).
How how about the Fukushima bottled water company products as well?
No, because bottled water is mind-bogglingly wasteful. I avoid drinking it whether it's radioactive or not!
Also, either the produce is safe, or it isn't. If it's safe, it's irrelevant that it came from Fukushima.
Also, a "linux geek" would have already have taken dm-crypt as an alternative, or performed the instructions in some Full Disk Encryption Howto.
Isn't it built into the installer nowadays? I installed Debian recently and it offered to encrypt my system, but maybe it skipped the partition that holds
We know that the developers were pretty sure that the last [real] version [i.e., 7.1a] of TrueCrypt was still secure.
I've had other interviewers ask me really abstract problems, such as how to calculate the number and types of elevators a particular-sized building needed.
The answer to that kind of question is the same kind of concept as the Drake equation: the point is not to give them a number, but to give them a formula for how one might arrive at the number. In your particular example, the answer might be: ([# of floors] * [# people per floor] * [# times each person uses the elevator]) / ([elevator capacity] * [elevator speed]), or something like that (since this is not an actual interview, I didn't bother to account for things like the fact that traveling to higher floors takes longer, etc.).
The interviewer is asking you the question so he can see how you approach the problem, not to see if you know trivia about elevator design. Do you go make a list of everything you think might matter first, or do you dive in and think up new factors on the fly? Did you leave something important out? Are you able to make even slightly reasonable estimates? (For example, "I figure there's about a million floors in a building and 1 person per floor, each of whom is constantly riding the elevator so you need 60,000 elevators per building" is probably not going to impress the interviewer.)
What, they just have the things draped across the beach? I would have thought they'd bury it once it got somewhat close to shore...
So why didn't your uncle simply get his driver's license back when he was 16? They should have solved the problem in the previous generation!
The only way this matters is if the percentage of people sharing your cousin's circumstances is large or increasing, and I see no reason to believe that's the case. It's not as if these requirements are new, after all.
Furthermore, I suspect that in the vast majority of cases where the parent lacks a license, it's because the family lives somewhere like Manhattan where the child doesn't actually need one either.
In other words, this is a non-issue that you only think is important because one of the tiny number of people who are affected by it happens to be somebody close to you.
So should parents be held responsible for driver's education of their children in the same way that they are held responsible for the child getting to school and back? For example, should it be considered neglect on the parent's part to either A. not hold a driver's license or B. not take the child out for practice driving?
No, I'm saying it's not the State's responsibility to let unqualified people have drivers' licenses just because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them, or to subsidize their parents' fuck-up!
And by the way, "resort[ing] to paying $50 per hour for a driving instructor" is a false dichotomy: just because your uncle can't/won't help, doesn't mean that's the only other choice. What about your aunt; can't he drive with her? What about your cousin's uncle (i.e., your dad)? What about over-25 family friends? What about a random neighbor, who is not an "instructor" and therefore probably would charge much less than $50/hour? What about you?
What's with the uncalled-for vitriol? I was just replying to the AC; he was the one who brought up the idea of non-individually-owned autonomous vehicles! All I was doing was pointing out that his assertion (that autonomous vehicles would reduce road use) was wrong.
Individually-owned autonomous vehicles would either fail to change the amount of road use vs. the status quo (in the case where they're parked in the same location as the user all the time), or increase road use (in the case where the vehicle drops off the user and then returns home to park). Reducing road use is no a possibility.
Of course, shared use -- like a bus -- is a different thing entirely, and not one that my previous post or the paragraphs above considered. And autonomous vehicles won't really change a damn thing about buses, since they could already be considered autonomous (from the perspective of the users). In other words, anything that could be done by an autonomous bus could already be done by the driver (and/or dispatcher) now.
Don't get me wrong here... I have no grudge against Iowa. I think it just happens to be like other Midwestern states where except for a couple of major cities, it's primarily farm land and rural areas, where most of the car traffic is on interstates, traveling through the state to a destination elsewhere.
FYI, every state is like that, except maybe for Alaska (because there aren't many roads) and Hawaii (because there aren't any other states to drive to).
Every other state, including Maryland and Virginia (which I use as examples because you mentioned the metro DC area) are primarily farm and rural areas. Sure, the I-95 corridor might be crowded, but you also have to consider the parts of the states east of Chesapeake Bay or west of I-81.
You've mentioned that as if it's a problem in two different stories now, and I don't understand. All that requirement means is that the parent of the new 16-year-old driver certifies that they've let the kid drive around for 50 hours with the parent in the car when he had his learner's permit, which is a low bar to hurdle.
Obviously, that's harder to deal with for an adult trying to get his driver's license, but the easy solution to that is simply to get the damn thing at 16 instead of waiting for no reason!
What's the big deal?
Indeed. But there's one more you missed.
No, I listed scenarios. The thing you think I missed is a reason for the scenario to occur, not a scenario itself.
It won't be until autonomous driving starts to drastically reduce the population that owns cars before you see significant decline in road use.
Autonomous vehicles that aren't owned by individual drivers (or rather, passengers) would increase road use. With the current situation, a driver drives from origin to destination and the car stays at the destination until the driver returns. With automation, the vehicle drives from origin to destination and then continues to the next trip origin. Unless, for every trip from point A to B, there's always somebody already at point B that wants to go to point C (as opposed to somebody at point C that wants to go to point D), the autonomous, no-passengers drive from B to C will be a net increase in road use.
What autonomous driving will really reduce is the need for parking.
The article talks about how "per-capita driving has peaked," but that's not the whole issue. It makes sense to stop building roads when the total amount of driving has peaked. For that to happen, one of several scenarios needs to occur:
The real reason Aaron Schwartz and the Pirate Bay had the book thrown at them is that their "crimes" were political speech and the Powers That Be wanted to make an example of them. The CFAA was merely a convenient tool to enable it.
In contrast, this guy was merely motivated by monetary gain, which the Powers That Be either (a) don't really give a shit about, since his victims were other "little people" or (b) tacitly admire him for, so obviously they're not particularly motivated to punish him.
Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.
