I can live with people buying expensive toys they find thrilling. Why I can't understand is why they are allowed on public roads. If you want to drive at fatal speeds, be a real free market guy and build your own roadway to drive it on.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Why is it the problem that one human is going slower than another? Couldn't the problem be the human that is going faster?
Additionally, it's exceptionally easy to keep up with crowded city traffic on a bike. I would say most days you can easily beat it in fact.
Of course this is true.
However there is significant strain of, "more is better" in much of North America, and it leads people to mistake wants with needs. People have lived perfectly happy lives and raised great kids in far less space than many suburban North Americans believe is a bare minimum. It doesn't mean you have to accept this for yourself, just be aware that when your local politician/developer/journalist starts talking about "needs" they might really be talking about "wants"
Lots of people say....
Just because your poll suggests a preference, does not necessarily mean actions will follow.
Product design and marketing has to focus on likely actions, not verbal intentions.
It's hard to understand because..
a) most people probably have little understanding of military awards outside of hollywood and might be forgiven for thinking they are all given for combat
b) most managers, whether in the military or not, seem woefully clueless about the impact of cumbersome poorly designed systems and the payback on well designed ones (or well designed hacks running on top of the poor system) So that someone even noticed he was more productive, didn't freak out because he did something different, didn't freak out because the different thing involved "programming" *AND* gave him a medal... seems pretty remarkable.
If you don't think the US should sell oil to foreign markets, why do you think Canadians should? Or Saudi Arabia for that matter?
I agree with this 100% but I hope everyone realizes that with no ability to force customers to stick around, there will be a dramatically reduced incentive for carriers to offer subsidies on fancy phones. I think this is fine but I wonder if there will be an uproar when $600 iPhones cost $600 instead of $200 + contract and/or lock.
This is a problem of expectations, not economics.
Nobody needs a new car every 3 years, nobody needs 1/4 acre and nobody needs 4 bedrooms unless you have about 12 children, which no one on LI has.
Adjust your expectations and I suspect you could live well on 65k, even on LI.
Boric acid is to stop the reaction, there is no indication the nuclear reaction is still ongoing. The issue is residual decay heat can be many megawatts and needs to be dissipated. If they can't dissipate it, mother nature will take of that but the results will not be pretty (molten core, possibly breaching reactor vessel, etc etc)
They generally have a backup inertial navigation system to fall back on if GPS is unavailable.
"Some Risk Model components sent information to the Optimizer in decimals while other components reported information in percentages; therefore the Optimizer had to convert the decimal information to percentages in order to effectively consider all the information on an equal footing. Because proper scaling did not occur, the Optimizer did not give the intended weight to common factor risks.""
Link to Original Source
Parking spots in most cities in the world are scarce because they are priced well below what they are worth. By letting demand set the price (i.e. raise it dramatically) you deal with several problems all in one fell swoop:
- parking unavailability
- people polluting the air and causing congestion endlessly circling for a cheap/free spot
- enforcement of time limits currently in place for free spots
- using space age technology to detect free spaces
The tech sounds neat but it's just over-complicating an already over-complicated situation.
Telco's have no interest in selling new hardware except as a means to attract new subscribers. Most smartphones sold in North America are heavily subsidized by the carrier, meaning they *lose* money every time they "sell" a new phone. The only people in North American telcos who will be upset at the loss of the upgrade imperative will be their marketing department - they'll lose their easiest grab on people's attention.
With this logic, you would be against any sort of more efficient process ever developed.