Don't know much about Scots history or legal system, do you?
Well it's a good question. How can they possibly account for this and get meaningful figures? What if the google car just happens to be driving behind a particularly smoky truck on an otherwise pristine clear-aired road ? How will they know to adjust their figures accordingly?
It such an obvious flaw in the plan that you'd think they'd mention how they'll handle it.
Lol, this is a snafu, isn't it? We do have nimbies like yourself to put a stop to this kind of thing, but perhaps a quango should be set up to enforce it? People who insist in turning acronyms into words should be tasered and their zip code published online, so we can be sure they're on everyone's radar.
I shall get a faq written up on this dangerous problem.
The difference is that the BBC, as a publicly funded enterprise, should uphold the highest of values and everyone has some kind of say in how it is run.
You can be a total dick on Amazon Prime if you like. People who don't like you simply will not pay for you and won't watch you. There will be very little outcry and no-one will be demanding your job, your boss' job, and the downfall of your company.
Bottom line; people care about the BBC (for better or worse), no one cares about Amazon Prime.
Entirely different situation. The question posed is more like "I'm a NASA engineer and I think we should be building a rocket to Venus, not Space Shuttles. So I'm just going to do that instead."
So the developers think they know better than the management what the company should be doing? OK. Four points.
1/ Welcome to the working life. Whatever the industry, the staff always think they know better than the clueless bosses.
2/ If the developers really know better than the management, then the company is doomed whatever they do.
3/ If the developers are wrong, then ignoring management and doing their own thing is a sure way to either get fired, or sink the company in a pit of missed deadlines, squandered budgets and undeliverable product no-one wants.
4/ Who do you suppose might have the greater amount of experience in the company's market?
When you're a kid/teen you don't know what may be an embarrassing photo or video. That's what being a kid/teen is about. The video you put online, discussing international politics with your impeccable 12 year-old wisdom, may have been the proudest day of your life.
You get older, you learn something of life, you realise that aged 12 you knew nothing, and you'd rather no-one was watching that video. It does not represent who you are now. What's wrong with wanting it gone?
Absolutely. Nothing better than sightseeing through a swarm of drones, relaxing in the peaceful atmosphere of buzzing electric motors, marvelling in the sight of your fellow tourists getting smashed in the head.
That's just what people go to NZ for, isn't it? It would be terrible if selfish dickheads were prevented from ruining it for everyone else.
Pre-production versions of anything are notoriously clunky because they often still have test/debug code. You can't gauge their speed as an indication of anything.
I think you have a very naive idea about the finances of a 76 year old. The money doesn't need to have been 'spare'. That woman could have just lost every penny she has, and has no prospect of earning any more. How is she to support herself for the rest of her life? That could easily be another 20+ years.
Why then do we have to have laws to protect against speculation by idiots?
Same reason we have laws for all kinds of fraud. Being an idiot is not illegal. Being an idiot does not mean it is open season on you by criminals, and the law doesn't care.
They're just ALIENS portrayed by humans, scripted by humans and watched by humans. But ZERO in common with humans. Yup. And the fact they resemble lazy, clichéd stereotypes used by Hollywood for decades is pure co-incidence.
You clearly have no idea what sci-fi is, particularly space opera, which is what Star Wars is essentially.
First, because there is nothing to physically prevent pedestrians from crossing the road at any time, even when it is inadvisable to do so or when signs even directly instruct the pedestrians not to cross.
Well you could say the same for the cars, but most heed the lights for their own good.
The difference is that a green light to the pedestrian should be a sign to them that it is safe to cross. Instead it appears to be a sign to say; it's safe to cross, except if a driver hasn't seen you. Will they yield, will they not? Feeling lucky?. That's not really a definition of "safe" I'd be happy with and I'd treat that green light as worthless. For all the additional assistance and assurance it offers, I may as well cross the road at any point and time, under my own reconnaissance.
The placebo effect is merely a name for something we don't understand.
No. No it isn't. If this is the starting point for your argument then you are already wrong before you say another word.
Could someone explain for the non-Americans why it is possible to have cars turning left at a green light, at the same time as pedestrians crossing the road have a green light? What was the thinking behind this? And why is the solution not just to stop this happening?