..., even worse if they are well marked and do cause people to slow down - a rapid slowdown is often the cause of accidents (as we see with red light cameras) and even if there is not an accident it can create a huge wave of disruption for traffic behind due to a wave effect...
I would disagree with this point. I would ask, why would you be speeding in the first place? I could understand that there are certain road that all the sudden drops speed limit (i.e. from 50 to 35 but many people still drive above 50), and those who are out of town wouldn't know. However, driving faster than speed limit in the first place is not an excuse to invalidate the speed limit drop. Also, the huge wave of disruption is another thing. I understand that people would try to keep up with the car in front. So why would the first car in the traffic drive so fast then? Or if you are following someone, you could easily reduce the speed to speed limit anyway. You will get to the destination and will not need to worry about breaking the law. If one argues that the one is in hurry, then blame oneself of not timing one's schedule right. There is no excuse of being caught red handed and as a result causes a disruption/accident from speeding.
Well, that's Google's mistake obviously. They shouldn't patent the driverless car and everything associated with it, they should copyright it, then it would be theirs forever.
Copyright has limited protection compared to patent. If you are going on a new invention, patent is the way to go; especially the implementation of the invention (copyright does not cover the implementation).
Content quoted from http://copyright.gov/help/faq/...
What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."
Anyway, it is better for Google to make it first, so that it will become prior art sooner. At some point when all technologies are ready, it wouldn't be many stupid patent troll out there for legal battles...
Actually, regardless what wrong doing of airlines, it still does NOT give you the right to screw others who are involved in the flight, period. You may think that the airlines deserved what they do, but how about those who are in the flight? Do they deserve what you do to them? That's why it is selfish, and you should also apologize to other passengers. You should not justify your own behavior by thinking that A is bad and B happens to be tied to the situation, so screw both A and B. In the end, you are the only one who gets the benefit.
He's being released into a sanctuary in Brazil. I'm sure he will manage his day-to-day travails there.
That actually raises another question from me. Will he be able to survive in the wild? If he has been fed the whole 20 years, would he still be able to adapt to the wilderness? Which way would be more humane -- keep him in captivity or release him to the wilderness?
WTF is "in-situ"? Is that even in english because that is the first time in my life that I see that.
Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... Please read that...
So you switched from nationalisation of certain industries to taxpayer-funded cronyism? Thats a huge step backwards in the eyes of every libertarian, ancap, capitalist, anarchist everywhere, ever
That's an assumption. There could be multiple reasons behind this and you and I do not live through the changes (or in the country). I wouldn't assume that is cronyism because that is a huge jump. Anyway, the GP hits the nail in the head.
I laughed when the interviewer asked what happens if someone tries to steal a robot. The guy answering started off by saying it would be really hard as they weigh 92 pounds. Oh that's sooooo heavy.
Completely agree. Also, this is an "honest" system which may work only in developed countries. This type of technology would never be used in any third world countries because both merchendises and robots would be stolen in a heart beat.
But my first impression was that the robots were too short for the sales experience. The customers in the store would have had to stoop or bend over to be "face to face" with the telepresence operators. I'm guessing that the height was a compromise between a robot "sitting at a desk" and "walking around".
That may be the case. However, I don't see that it is a problem. Also, they could easily improve it and make the screen tilt up and down. By pushing from the bottom part of the screen to tilt upward, they could face a tall person, and leave it the way it is to face a shorter person.
Because they are seeing their traditional business model die and are trying to get in on the "future". Can you imagine if you don't need things shipped anymore, rather you just print it out? The entire shipping industry would collapse.
There are still many things (i.e. legal documents, art object, etc.) that will never be digitalized. These things need to be physically delivered. The delivery industrial may be shrunk, but it will never go away or collapse.
Guns == GOOD == Able to defend myself from assholes like you
Drugs == INDIFFERENT == My fucking body, I do with it as I please. If my actions ON drugs interfere with other people, THEN by all means, lock me up.
Hmm... You seem to be very simple minded when you look at any situation from only one side. Guns are tools and are good if and only if use to defend yourself. They are BAD when you misuse them (and that's what happened in the news), simple.
Speaking of drugs, I could careless and agree with you if you are nobody to me. However, if my children, parents, or siblings are addicted to drugs, that is DIFFERENT! You are looking at it as if you are the ONLY PERSON in the society. You DO NOT care for those who are around you even your own family. If you want to go down, please do NOT take others with you. If you do go down and someone who is close to you feel bad, then you are RESPONSIBLE.
Stop misinterpret libertarian and lump its meaning up with selfishness!
The author of TFA is exaggerating and assuming that the clause in the agreement is purposely for those who are replaced by H1B people. Either he or his friends/family members were affected by this. To me, the clause to not disclose any information about being let go is very common. If you are being "fired," there are many reasons. Also, the company will NEVER want you to say anything regardless how you are being replaced. These people will find something to blame on others regardless (and in this case is the H1B people who replaced them). I am not saying that all are legitimated laid off/fired, but I doubt that the "signing" the document is REALLY for the case only.
Then the author pulls in politic which, of couse, a more effective on those who do not like H1B already. TFA has some of the fact and reasons, but over all TFA contains bias against H1B people by using the word "being fired or replaced" to make TFA more dramatic.
You have forgotten that the principle under your theory is looking after all the kids in the school..
Principle is right. I'm not sure if I'm being whooshed or if you actually had a bad teacher.
Let me see... http://blog.oxforddictionaries...
Principle is a noun. Its main meaning is ‘a fundamental idea or general rule that is used as a basis for a particular theory or system of belief’.
A principle is also ‘a rule or belief about what is right and wrong that governs the way in which someone behaves’.
Principle can also be used as an uncountable noun to mean ‘morally correct behaviour’:
Principal is most commonly found as an adjective meaning ‘main or most important’.
Principal is also noun, and its various noun meanings are linked to the adjectival sense (i.e. ‘most important’). A principal may be the head of a school, college, or other educational institution, the leading performer in a concert, ballet, opera, or play, or the most important person in an organization or group:
From the GP sentense, I would expect that he is talking about the head of school?
Yes they are. You can (as an individual in the UK) offset most business expenses against tax. It's a tax on net income, not gross.
And that is still based on "income" not "profit" as the GP said, isn't it? Unlike a company/corporation, for an individual (not a business person), you can't bring all personal expenses to deduct your gross income. How many (percentages of) "business" individual people compared to those who are simple employees???
It is only summary of grouping together, not a detail...
Product & Engineering $ 19,813,181
Grantmaking & Programs $ 8,929,652
Community Advocacy & Communications $ 1,554,174
Management & Governance* $ 1,175,917
General & Administration** $ 10,410,400
Fundraising $ 4,017,421
* Management & Governance includes the Office of the Executive Director and the
volunteer Board of Trustees.
** General & Administration includes Human Resources, Finance, Office IT Support, Legal and Office Administration.
Are you suggesting that there's a difference between "have to be" and "really need to be"?
Slightly different -- http://www.learnersdictionary....