The point is that those other people are buying less servers than all the people moving to the cloud were buying. If that isn't the case then its a broken business model.
So what is the cost/student ratio at his school for the super rich? How is that going to be applied to a class with 30 kids in it where at least some of them don't want to be in school and won't be told to behave because otherwise Mommy or Daddies boss will find out and fire them. Why not just skip this partial utopia and jump right to the Star Trek universe of no money, no janitors, and everyone working a their perfect fulfilling job. I think this is a great deal, just completely unworkable in a realistic population.
Cities were better when they were smaller. The internet was better when the entire world wasn't on facebook and twitter. Slashdot was certainly better when they didnt care so much about traffic. Science was more accurate when it was a much smaller. Human nature is to spoil things when you get too many people involved. And it's not a linear. That said, the real question is whether more good science is being done even as the ratio goes down.
As opposed to currently where your name, address, and age go onto the police blotter in the local newspaper?
Their names show up in the police blotter anyway. You are not anonymous until proven guilty.
Then just like you would do if you wanted to take your mileage for work travel off your taxes you provide a log book showing so. Why do we insist on not taking the simplest approach and making the 1% of people it doesn't apply to do a little extra work?
Somebody doesn't understand what it means to be in a support role.
Schools with administrators smart enough to ban smart phones tend to be in better school districts.
It's really that simple. Interacting with real people takes effort. People just don't want to do it anymore. For boys more effort is required finding a relationship with a girl. Many are just too lazy to go through it now.
That the vast majority of human drivers around them were able to avoid accidents despite the presence of dangerous automated cars.
Add the time it takes to get to and from the station, checkin, etc and you are adding probably 2 hours. Either way it's close enough to a days travel. Who really cares about saving 2-3 hours on a trip that most people do every once in a blue moon.
The problem isn't the 99.99%, but the
.01% where the right thing has to be done quickly. Take for example the small tunnel near me. It's a 4 lane, 2 in each direction. While being repaired it's down to a two lane, with cones all over telling you to move into the other direction lane to proceed. Cops all over directing traffic, really it's a pretty chaotic situation with no defined way to navigate it other than taking in what is going on and doing the right thing. No two cops direct traffic the same way, no two construction zones are set up the same way. Each one is a learn as you go, something humans excel at even if it's a 16 year old kid who just got their license. This is the Achilles heel of automated driving and we're quite a number of years away from sorting it all out.
Are they writing down and hand delivering the packets?
Close as in a clock is right two times a day. I applaud the attempts, it makes great video. But am not convinced this is the right course of action.
He's getting a paid 2 weeks. How is that being a jerk if you don't treat him like one.