Not to mention the chain placement, which is probably +/- 0.5yds itself.
If it's not sentient, and I *own it*, then it should be completely servile, not something that balances its own wants, or those of some third party, against mine. That said, Cortana is a service, and while MS is generally happy to screw its customers, it clearly doesn't want to be in the business of providing sexual services, so I file this under "who cares."
Right. Her points may be true, but it's like complaining that the fashion industry doesn't cater to men. It never will, and it's not sexist, it's just that men don't want 30,000 varieties of shirts and shoes --at least not enough for it to be economically viable.
I will start respecting third wave feminism when it starts advocating for women to register for the draft, for more women in male-dominated blue collar industries, and when women start marrying men who earn less than them. For bonus points, eschew and rebuke female privileges and exceptions, like the "right" to slap a man, serve lighter sentences for the same offenses, automatically being granted child custody, etc. True equal treatment means taking the bad along with the good.
It's not just stopping distance. Energy = mass * velocity squared, so getting hit at 35MPH is twice as energetic as getting hit at 25MPH.
Personally, I don't understand why anyone would speed on a residential street unless they haven't thought about it at all. Car doors can open at any time, people can be backing out of their driveway, and of course, kids and pets can run out into the street at any time. I just sort of assume it's going to happen and give every blind spot a wide berth and/or slow down a bit more than 25MPH.
I am the second fastest vehicle you will see on the highway (because the other guy can have that prize in the form of a ticket) but there are just too many potential hazards on a residential street. Even if you, dear reader, believe that a kid deserves to get hit, by you, for running into the street in front of his house just as much as if he ran into a freeway, an accident still takes up hours of time to resolve, and potentially years in jail for killing a pedestrian, if that happens, and you happened to have been speeding. At best, you're spending lots of money for a good lawyer, and many days at criminal trial, not to mention the wrongful death civil trial that's sure to follow. It's just a shitty risk/reward ratio, in purely selfish terms. Make up that time on the freeway, or by making sure you're not staring at your phone the next time the light turns green, or by learning to merge properly so as not to cause traffic jams.
God, I can't wait for autonomous vehicles to be mandated.
He said he would get them to do it. Carrot vs. stick. There is more nuance involved.
Do you honestly believe that Donald Trump, the man with his name plastered across everything he owns, does anything with nuance? Sorry, but unless he spells it out, you can be sure he's letting people hear whatever they want to hear, everyone believing they can read between the lines. Your interpretation is probably the best articulated, most intelligent, and compelling version of a defense for Trump's platform, but unless he spells it out with his own words, it's still speculation and probably wishful thinking.
Politicians are not saviors -- they don't have our interests at heart any more than we have theirs -- and Trump in particular has a track record of poor strategy and implementation, even when he has total control. You don't need to be good at any particular business to make a lot of money in business; you just have to know when to bail. Just ask Carly.
Or Bill Gates.
Nobody who works for the government considers it to be a unified entity, therefore the OPM gets the blame for the OPM hacks, and other agencies go on thinking their shit don't stink.
Then you just undercut your own argument, since more money was spent at the height of the Apollo program. But whatever, nobody every admits being wrong on the internet. I get it.
NASA is actually quite popular.
Stop peddling your fictitious forces! We're not buying it!
It's reasonable to suppose that fear of getting caught is a deterrent against many acts. You know that whole "if you could be invisible.." thought that people explore? Nobody ever answers "put in unpaid overtime without the boss yelling at me," or "watch rabbits up close without scaring them away."
Drones (yes, that's the word people have collectively decided to use -- no quotes required) provide a delivery platform with large or total deniability, and that changes peoples' (largely unformalized) risk assessments. It would be foolish to believe that nobody would capitalize on that. No, there haven't been any attacks yet, but once the dam breaks, expect to see more and more of it.
France must take the initiative and force device manufacturers to take into consideration the imperative of access for law enforcement officers, under the control of a judge and only in the case of an investigation, to those devices.
The only problem is that there is no such thing. Asking for government-only access to decryption is like asking for government-only access to perpetual motion, you know, in case we run out of power from other sources.
Well, the other aspect is that "self-brewers" don't suffer from the same intoxicating effects of alcohol. In fact, they often perform normally at levels exceeding those that would cause other people to become comatose, sometimes exceeding 0.04. So, if you didn't drink, and you're not intoxicated, and your BAC is internally generated... should you get a DUI? How would you even be aware of your BAC? Common sense says such a person should not receive a DUI, and fortunately for her, the judge agreed.
No, movie tickets are not a similar analogy. With many IAPs, you purchase credits, and those credits are redeemed for a random reward which may or may not be the item you need to progress in-game. When you buy a movie ticket, it's the same movie, no matter how many tickets you buy, whether or not you like it. One is clearly random reward, and the other is not.
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. -- Ambrose Bierce