I miss the good old days.
I miss the good old days.
Intentionally blocking the way is obstructing traffic. Going slowly on a local road in the rightmost lane is not.
If you have the ability to stop any place and get out of the way, as cyclists do, then yes, yes it is. It absolutely is obstructing the natural flow of traffic needlessly.
Farming equipment is allowed on any such road and that stuff usually travels at roughly similar speeds as bicycles.
Farming equipment is not allowed to disrupt the normal flow of traffic either. And they design the roads accordingly. They put massive shoulders on roads with any significant traffic which must also carry farm traffic, to enable it to get out of the way. Roads with less traffic simply get dashed lines (assuming they're not one-lane roads, like the one I live on) so that you can pass tractors, so that they don't disrupt traffic flow either.
This really is not complicated. We have laws against disrupting the flow of traffic because disrupting the flow of traffic causes every kind of problem. It reduces throughput while increasing the risk of collision. And that's why cyclists who can't find the side of the road do. They want to cry about debris at the roadside, but guess what? I don't get to drive into someone else's lane to dodge debris in my lane. Buy appropriate tires and tubes, and run slime, like an adult.
There are not so many roads with actual minimum speed limit posted and only highways specifically restrict bicycles and farming equipment from them.
A posted minimum speed limit is not necessary to disrupt the normal flow of traffic, and be cited on that basis, so that's irrelevant, like most of your reasoning. And it doesn't matter where you are, you're not allowed to hold up traffic. And there are numerous places where you can ride a bicycle on a highway, it's freeways you're not allowed to ride on.
You are literally wrong about everything you said in your comment.
Well, we can fly expensive pieces of sensitive equipment to Mars and deposit them in an orbit (usually) on the surface (sometimes) in working order.
I knew you were a moron when I saw you talking about flying to Mars. Flying is done in an atmosphere.
Yet we can's stick a probe into something that's just a few thousand kilometers away.
Fuck, you don't even have the level of education you can get from watching Futurama , do you?
Help your neighbors all you want. Who's stopping you?
Fuck you too, leftard.
We can fly to Mars, but we can't install planet-sized plumbing?
You're trolling, right? Nobody is even proposing to fly to Mars any time soon. You aim yourself at mars and you coast for a long-ass time. Maybe by the time we have the tech to accelerate at 1G halfway to Mars and decelerate at 1G the other half the way to Mars, we'll have the tech to run a fiberoptic link through the mantle. But... probably not.
Scan through a big folder of 20MP+ photos, what happens to your application cache? Quite possibly evicted.
Intel is probably smart enough to use a hybrid MFU technique rather than MRU. They might set aside a portion or percentage for MRU to speed up ongoing operations, but I don't think they're dumb enough to run the whole cache on that basis.
It's a dumb product because who has a HDD in their Kaby Lake system?
The easiest way to see price discrimination is to go to the rich side of town and go to the grocery store. Observe the price of milk, hamburger, cheese and gasoline. Now to to the poor side of town, repeat.
OK, I'll bite. The poor side of town has a Grocery Outlet and a local market called a Bruno's. The expensive side of town (such as it is) has a Safeway. Guess what? The prices are better on the cheap side of town. What were you trying to prove again? (Also, our Safeway is fucking disgusting. About half the time you walk in there, you can smell the fish counter... ACROSS THE STORE. And sometimes it's gackworthy. I wouldn't even go in there if my landlord's bank weren't in there.)
What I do notice is that gasoline is often cheaper in more affluent neighborhoods. But that's because those people are willing to drive to somewhere else to fuel up. It's not magic.
Slashdot is making progress. I'm glad to see a discussion on electric cars on this forum where no-one is whining "electric cars will never work, you can't go more than 200 miles without needing to refuel... customers don't want electric..." etc,etc,et.
Yes, it is truly sad how many Slashdotters are so vastly behind the times. They should really fuck off back to CNET where they apparently came from
The US should do similar to put an end to all of these competing charging formats and vertical markets. It's not like Tesla will lose out because they stand to profit regardless of which vehicle is charging at their stations.
You are Just Plain Wrong. The Supercharger network is a competitive advantage. Since no one else offers that, and no one else can charge at those points, as long as Tesla has it and nobody else does, it is a significant inducement to buy Tesla instead of something else. Thus, this is the time for Tesla to lobby against such a move. When other makers have similar networks, then Tesla will want to lobby for charge connector standardization, because that will force them to let Tesla customers use any charger. Once it's no longer a competitive advantage, then it becomes a drawback. Right up until then, it's a massive benefit and they would have to be total idiots unqualified to operate any business to change that part of their game plan.
Society wants wealth redistribution
Speak for yourself. Some of us want to keep what we earn, not steal from our neighbors.
It's more of a flying motorcycle, except without any of the advantages of a motorcycle. Presumably the advantages of being able to fly outweigh them, but if you're only allowed to operate over water, you'd probably be better served by a boat. It's a toy. The only time it seems like it would have any actual utility is if you live in some place where you're not allowed to move quickly on the water, but they'd still allow you to operate one of these. Which I suppose could exist... somewhere?
Nobody was forcing them to be parents. They were prepared to be parents and take the financial and emotional responsibility... that was the whole point of the procedure.
Yes, for a child born of their own genes. There are numerous disadvantages to raising a child who is not of your own genes. Such offspring is much less likely to be successful in every way due to a number of factors. Your offspring literally inherits traits you gained during your lifetime. This is important for creating rapport between parent and offspring. Keep in mind that it's a typical instinct for an ape to kill all the offspring of other males when he takes over a female.
Any given program will expand to fill available memory.