The insurance premium on that building must have been astronomical until it was fixed!
Then Jonathan Grey (jsg@) and Reyk Flöter (reyk@) come next, followed by a group of late starters. Also, an honorable mention for Christian Weisgerber (naddy@), who has been fixing issues in ports related to this work.
All combined, there've been over 250 commits cleaning up OpenSSL. In one week. Some of these are simple or small changes, while other commits carry more weight. Of course, occasionally mistakes get made but these are also quickly fixed again, but the general direction is clear: move the tree forward towards a better, more readable, less buggy crypto library.
Check them out at http://anoncvs.estpak.ee/cgi-b..."
Link to Original Source
But some of the advances that may be closest to becoming reality are the ones survey respondents were most worried about (PDF). Nearly two out of three Americans think it would make things worse if U.S. airspace is opened up to personal drones. A similar number dislike the idea of robots being used to care for the sick and elderly, and of parents being able to alter the DNA of their unborn children. Only 37% of respondents think it will be good if wearable devices or implants allow us to be digitally connected all the time. People were split almost evenly (48%-50%) on whether they would ride in a driverless car. But only 26% said they'd get a brain implant to improve their memory or intelligence, and a mere 20% said they'd try eating meat made in a lab. Some 9% said they'd like to be able to time travel. A similar number said they'd like something that would keep them healthy or extend their lives, 6% said they wanted a flying car (or bike), 3% said they'd take a teleportation device and a mere 1% said they want their own jetpack.
Asked to describe in their own words the futuristic inventions they themselves would like to own, the public offered three common themes: 1) travel improvements like flying cars and bikes, or even personal space crafts; 2) time travel; and 3) health improvements that extend human longevity or cure major diseases. "In the long run, Americans are optimistic about the impact that scientific developments will have on their lives and the lives of their children — but they definitely expect to encounter some bumps along the way," says Aaron Smith, a senior researcher at Pew and the author of the report. "They are especially concerned about developments that have the potential to upend long-standing social norms around things like personal privacy, surveillance, and the nature of social relationships.""
Parking meters still impose a cost on the preexisting residents...
Not all pre-existing residents. Just those who choose to use a taxpayer-owned resource to store their personal belongings. As a taxpayer, parking meters make perfect sense to me because they give me a return on my investment.
Even better would be to not waste so much land on streets wide enough for street parking where it isn't needed. There's no reason why the street couldn't be narrowed and the excess land sold to the adjacent property owners. This would also neatly solve the problem of business customers parking in residential neighborhoods without the need for parking meters or enforcement.
Investing in a good S&P500 index fund which will return about 10%. In 18 years, you will be a millionaire.
It's closer to 7%, so you'll be a millionaire in 22 years. You can bring this down to 19 years by contributing the maximum into your 401(k) ($17,500/year), your IRA ($5,500/year), and an HSA ($3,300/year for individuals).
Why can't the neighborhood set up parking meters or parking permits?
Because the property tax for current owners doesn't keep pace with inflation, California had to create and increase other taxes (for example, the Mello-Roos property tax) to make up the difference.
Any good entrepreneur sees this kind of problem as an opportunity. In Indianapolis on race day, the residents near the track capitalize on the problem by renting out their lawns for parking. They turn the externalized cost into a benefit.
All property owners pay based on their date of purchase, which is entirely fair.
I pay five times what my neighbor pays in property tax for the same model simply because my neighbor bought in 1977 and I bought in 2010. Prop 13 is good for older people who have been here a while but not so good for people trying to buy their first home.
I can understand the desire to prevent the government from raising property taxes too quickly, but there's really no good reason to set the annual assessment increase limit below the normal rate of inflation.
What would a truly level playing field for transportation look like to you? Would developers be forced, as they usually are today, to build more than the fiscally optimal amount of parking? ("Fiscally optimal" meaning the amount where the marginal cost of building another parking space (MC) equals the marginal revenue from building it (MR).)
Increasing the building height limit without improving the roads would be a gigantic mess.
Tall buildings don't cause congestion, parking garages do. Solution: allow developers to build as little parking as they feel the market desires.
The only way to fix the Bay Area housing crisis is to build more fucking housing.
This map (which shows the allowed building heights in San Francisco, where yellow is 4 stories. And Mountain View has forbidden Google from building more housing.
So as you can see, developers won't build more housing because they aren't being allowed to.