Article says

Which implies that they controlled for socioeconomic status. However, the actual paper appears to be behind a paywall. Therefore I don't know what's in it, beyond what this article tells me.

If I can get to something through an internet based connection to a VPN, it is exposed to the internet. It has an added layer of security, yes, but it is still exposed.

What's the point of building automation if you have to be in the building to use it?

"Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" - Article I, Section 8.

That's exactly how the government funding was designed, yes. That's what taxes are.

Because Socialism is as bad as all that. But targeted application of certain social programs is not the same thing as Socialism, but that's what we're being sold as by the right. Universal health care, paid for by an income/wealth based tax on everyone, isn't the same thing as paying everyone the same amount and giving them the same service.

The founding fathers also recognized that we're all in this together, and the only way we'll succeed is to work together. "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Our country was built by individuals banding together to accomplish tasks that no individual can accomplish alone. We encourage both the individual *and* the group. You can see it in the most recent recession. People who had perfectly good homes and perfectly good jobs and ample savings who were not what anyone would consider leveraged beyond their means (which is to say, with a fairly small mortgage payment) were pushed out into the cold when markets tumbled, their jobs vanished and no replacements could be found, and their equity turned negative so they couldn't even sell their house. There are some things that make more sense when we demand them as a collective service. Health care, which was once a very individual thing, is now so complicated and filled with so many new possibilities for advanced treatments that very few individuals can afford anything but the most basic of services.

If a company requires an employee to get a device at their own cost, how long before we see someone sue their company for the cost of contract termination fees when they lose their job before their cellphone contract is up?

That's it! All we have to do is dephlogisticate a large quantity of rocket fuel and we'll reach the aether!

Maybe the OP was using the voice to text input method, which isn't exactly stellar for transcription, either.

The ingredients of the food you ate at home were purchased with your earnings, which was subject to income tax. If the company is giving out a nontrivial amount of free meals then the value of those meals should be added to the "income" field of your W-2 form. Even though they didn't pay you the cash, you did derive benefit from it.

The potential infrastructure available to deployment in the US vs Japan is vastly different. Japan has a population density of 836 people per square mile. That's over 1 person per acre. The US has a population density of 86 per square mile. The difference is a factor of ten. That dramatically reduces the cost per person to deploy, because every mile of fiber can reach many, many more people. In the US, it only becomes cost effective to deliver high speed services in very limited areas. In Japan you can reach a much greater percentage of the population with high speed services.

And did we really actually send them? Wouldn't it be enough to simply *say* we sent them? In fact, it might be even better that way, because then they'd be mucking about with their radar for weeks trying to figure out how to detect something that wasn't even there!

"We reject the view, ... that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."

I reject the view that your works have been published in a medium where copyright is applicable if the medium is specifically designed to have its own safeguards against copying. Such safeguards are their own form of copy prevention and, if used, should be considered a replacement, not augmentation, of the copyright protections afforded by law.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are no studies specifically compare stopping in traffic to lane-splitting, and thus no numbers. (unless you have a reference to some that I'm not aware of) But anecdotally, even the pro-splitting websites I see caution riders to be attentive because drivers aren't expecting you and won't necessarily notice you. As for blame, I don't actually care who causes the accidents, because that isn't relevant, the actual accident rate is what matters. The individual causes are helpful in reducing the incidence of accidents by knowing who to target for education, but ultimately the accident rate is what it is regardless who is at fault. The end result is that the practice has an elevated risk. Of course, knowing of the elevated risk can help riders make intelligent choices about the risk in a given situation and determine what the best and safest course of action is.

In short, I'm not saying "motorcyclists are teh evil when they lane split", I'm saying the practice has certain risk factors that need to be evaluated when deciding whether to lane split.

I actually don't care whether they'll get to their destination faster than me, though that seems to be a commonly held belief among the motorcyclists replying here.