You just agreed with him.
You just agreed with him.
Any decent GPS system allows you to select "avoid toll roads".
However, I haven't seen any give you the option in real-time. For instance, Google Maps currently will suggest alternate routes as you drive, showing you how much extra time they'll take: "3 minutes slower", etc. However, what it doesn't do, and should, is suggest alternates and show how much more or less it'll cost you. You'd think this would be a pretty obvious feature to offer, given they already have it showing alternate routes.
Yeah, "good" taxi drivers eschew GPS and instead tell you how well they know the local area, and then drive you around in circles so they can get a bigger fare.
Fuck that, I'll take an Uber instead.
It depends. The GPS is only as good as the data it's been given. So I've found that for long trips, it's generally good, but it can make some really bad calls sometimes. For instance, I frequently drive about an hour north from my house to DC. My car's GPS (using HERE maps) gives me a completely sensible route, which I follow. Google Maps, however, wants me to take an early left turn onto some windy little single-lane country road, probably because it might technically be 100 feet shorter in absolute distance that way. But it's a much slower route: I tried it once or twice and got stuck behind very slow drivers. I never went that way again because the slightly longer route is along main roads and doesn't have this problem.
Also, very close to your destination, GPS can make errors. I'm thinking of one restaurant I used to frequent, where Google Maps would tell me to turn before the restaurant and go an extra half-mile in a big circle, all because it didn't think I could take a left turn into the restaurant's parking lot, when in fact there's a turn lane there for that very purpose.
Basically, with GPS, you need to zoom out and look at the route it's chosen for you, and make sure it isn't doing anything really stupid. And if you're not familiar with an area, you need to be extra cautious because it'll happily guide you onto small residential streets or other stupid routes. It also helps to have multiple GPS units running at once. My car's system works pretty well and of course is well-integrated, but it doesn't have traffic updates or show alternate routes in real-time (it's based on stored maps). Google Maps does those things, but more frequently makes poor choices for routes (tiny country roads like I mentioned above). Having two different systems in parallel can help you cross check them against each other. The bottom line: never fully trust a GPS system.
I really should install Waze and try that out to see how it compares to Google Maps.
Cellphones must be a godsend to 911 in this regard. I wonder how many people died over the years because they couldn't tell the ambulance where to come?
So, in a sense, we're working against natural selection now by allowing people this dumb to live when in the recent past they would have died?
Well official Nvidia drivers are available for Linux and are commonly-used, so that's not a strike against Linux.
What *is* a "strike" against Linux is that you can't get official drivers from various small peripherals. Instead, you have to use community-written drivers for things like USB-to-serial converters, rather than having to load a 100MB "driver package" like you do on Windows which is full of drivers, various crapware applications you don't want, spyware, etc.
The GPL has no such demand or requirement, that's a myth.
The GPL requires that you make the source code available to anyone you distribute binaries to. If you're making a Linux distro for use in your government, that means you need to make the source code available to your government, which is you. As long as you don't give it to anyone else, there's no problem. There's no reason a government would hand out copies of a government-use-only OS to anyone outside that government (or they could make a special stripped-down version for them if they wanted). Besides, not everything in a Linux distro is GPL.
AFAIC, the only reason every government isn't using their own internal Linux distro is either corruption or incompetence. Windows is well-known to be loaded with spyware now; you'd have to be a complete loon to think that Windows isn't spying on you, considering it's publicly acknowledged that they do. So why would you run your government systems, with critical or classified information, on such an OS, instead of one which you have full control over? That's aside from the issue of how much money you'd save by not sending it to a foreign country, and instead employing your own people to maintain your governmentOS.
What about the lack of productivity due to Windows? I remember wasting at least a whole day at a job a couple years ago trying to get a large network printer (Ricoh I think) to work with Windows, because of various driver and security problems. The corporate IT department had to come out several times to try to get it working, and finally ended up doing some weird backwards method. In Linux, getting a network printer to work is easy.
It's not like they need to do a lot of work: Linux and its distros already exist, along with open-source versions of most of the software you list there. All a government has to do is adopt it, and maybe do a few customizations.
Then you're either a liar or an idiot, because those are the socialist countries that Bernie admires and wants to emulate.
nothing but Vi (no Vi, not Vim)
Linux has never had vi included in any distro to my knowledge. It's always been vim, and/or some other vi clone like elvis. vi has only ever been included with actual UNIXes like Solaris. The copyright to vi was owned by AT&T so it was illegal to include it with Linux, or even with *BSD. This did change in 2002 according to Wikipedia and some guy resurrected it as "Traditional vi", and added a lot of features to it, but no one actually uses that.
And Rafael Cruz is not the one on the ticket - his son is.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Has Ted ever publicly disavowed his father's theology? If not, then we can safely assumes he agrees with it.
What? That's completely ridiculous. Cruz is a Dominionist; he wants to establish a theocracy of sorts.
Of the current candidates, Bernie's the closest thing to social libertarianism you're going to get.
Indeed, DSG is mainly a VW group thing. However, it is probably more common than actual automatics these days.
Huh? No, it isn't, not by a long shot. On VW-group cars, it certainly is, but not on everyone else's cars. AFAIK, the only non-VW carmaker even using them is Ford, and even there I think it's only their smaller models like the Focus.
According to Wikipedia, only the Ford models Ford Focus, Ford C-Max, Ford S-Max, Ford Galaxy, Ford Mondeo, Ford Fiesta, Ford EcoSport have them, since 2008. The main page for DSG only even talks about VW cars.