I agree. There are good reasons to want to live on a street that doesn't have a lot of traffic. (That doesn't equate to a cul-de-sac, although they trivially fit the pattern because there is only one end.) One of the problems with the street layouts described here is that pedestrians have to follow the same winding routes that the cars do. Another is that the larger, heavier-traffic roads aren't nice to walk along, even if they have sidewalks.
"A Vindication of the Rights of Women" by Mary Wollstonecraft is already listed under "modern philosophy", as is "The Subjection of Women" by Mill, and Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" is under "bioethics".
I would think that such works as "A Cyborg Manifesto" by Donna Haraway, "Anarchism" by Emma Goldman, or "Gyn/Ecology" by Mary Daly are at least as worthy of being listed here as "The Book of Five Rings" or Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy".
4) Every nation has some defined set of borders. (The Yemen-Saudi Arabia border was only recently agreed, and was previously left deliberately ambiguous.)
5) Countries do not overlap. (Counterexample: France and Spain agree they both own Pheasant Island in the Pyrenees. The administration cycles every six months.)
6) Borders are at fixed coordinates. (Except for some borders defined by a river, which change when the river shifts its course. Some subnational borders are certainly like this.)
7) A nation's borders can be drawn with a single stroke of the pen. (Counterexample: South Africa takes two, one for the outside and one for its enclave Lesotho.)
There's a big difference, of course, which is that Canada already has a monarchy (of a very limited kind) on top of a democratic system, with stable institutions, a high level of general prosperity, and the rule of law. Being in favour of retaining a working system isn't reactionary.
> some sort of jelly fish monster, a lighthouse, Tom Baker
This must be Horror of Fang Rock, from 1977, written by Terrance Dicks under Robert Holmes as script editor. In 1974, when they held the opposite jobs, Dicks asked Holmes to give The Time Warrior a mediaeval setting, which he resented: so in good-natured revenge, for this script Holmes told Dicks he could write whatever he wanted, as long as it took place in a Victorian lighthouse. Since The Time Warrior has a Sontaran, Dicks decided his script had to have a creature who would be the opposite of a Sontaran, hence the jellyfish monster.
Most people think stderr (so as not to muck up pipelines when you get the invocation syntax wrong). But then there is also the cleverer option of using stdout if and only if the help is explicitly requested, which seems to be justifiable, popular in the survey, but (I think) not much implemented.
Perhaps we agree more than you expected. I certainly agree that it is too simplistic to say that poor people are suffering because rich people have the money (and that therefore, if we take from the rich and give to the poor, the problem is solved). But that's a pretty 101 sort of critique anyway. Economic and cultural hegemony have been part of the left-wing conversation for a while now, and my main original point was that the concerns of the unemployed and underemployed have tended to be politically ignorable (due to lack of numbers, cultural shaming, the perception that unemployment is always temporary, etc.).
And I agree that being poor in a contemporary rich country isn't as miserable as other ways of being poor. I see you were quite careful to pin your example to "a minimum wage salary", which is a level of income and security that many people don't have. Since I think we probably both care a lot about equality of opportunity, we should agree that being billed preposterous sums for healthcare is still not a brilliant situation, just like not being able to afford to go to college, lacking access to banking services, and so on. I'm not saying we need to buy everyone an Xbox One because that's the new baseline, but I hope that liberals and conservatives can agree that there are powerful mechanisms that entrench people in poverty, to the general detriment of society.
I don't care about inequality (of outcome). I care about suffering.
Automation may increase inequality between those who are able to take advantage of it, and those who aren't - but it is better to say that increased automation exposes an existing problem. Namely, it so happened that many people were recently able to make a reasonably comfortable living in less-skilled work. There was always a population who couldn't manage that, but now it is a larger group. So the idea that people below a certain productivity threshold don't "matter" isn't tenable any more. But that was never a morally acceptable idea, just a politically pragmatic one.
Reducing inequality shouldn't be a first-order goal. Of course we should make sure that everybody has a decent chance to make the best use of their abilities and resources. But we also need to structure our society to reduce suffering and improve the general quality of life, including for the economically unproductive.
With regard to the Second Amendment, it is undeniable that some of the material facts of "weapons in America" and "how society works" have changed since 1791. The text is also poorly written. What we ought to do is to decide what the Constitution should say about guns, and then amend it accordingly. Instead, we've tried to amend it by stealth, because we don't have the maturity as a society to be confident in the amending process.
In my view, the US Constitution has been too successful. If it were more definitively broken, it could be repaired more easily. But there is no political will right now to make any amendments at all, outside of noodling on the Internet and in wonkish circles. As it is, the longevity of the Constitution has led to its being imbued with an almost mystical character, where it's viewed as the most important force preventing anarchy and/or tyranny, and as something incredibly fragile.
The author suggests that we need "future doctors who are less Spock and more Kirk". I ask: "What about Bones?" In addition to actually being a doctor, McCoy has conscience, dedication, loyalty to his patients, and technical skill.
So after a few subjective years, you will be overtaken by newer and faster ships, and when you arrive, there will be a flourishing civilization already there to greet you.
Versioning. The 4 says it is "version 4" in the RFC 4122 taxonomy, and the fact that the first two bits of y are "10" is meant to indicate that this is a UUID following that standard. Certain Microsoft GUIDs start with "110" in that field, and apparently there's another legacy format (Network Computing System) characterized by the first bit of y being "0". Therefore, an RFC 4122 compliant UUID will not overlap with either of these namespaces.
My understanding was that there were legal and technical barriers to prioritizing payments. I wouldn't count on this happening, if it requires new law to be passed or ancient computer systems to be overhauled within the next week or so.
It would be handy for me if the little stub had some more information: when the plane is scheduled to land. When I have connecting flights there's usually a point when I'm in the air thinking about whether I have time to do such-and-such before I have to board the next flight, and I can never remember when the arrival time is meant to be. It would be nice not to have to look this up on my phone or in my own notes.
In the same way, there could even be information like "You have 48 minutes before your next flight (BA55)" or "You need to change to Terminal C for your connection".
The prison gang system is also supported by (some of) the warders, because it makes their job easier. Not just because some of them may receive bribes, but also because they come to rely on gang authority to keep any kind of order.
One of the Peelian principles for the police force is: "The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it." Incentives matter, and in the same way we shouldn't establish incentives for treating prisoners as resources to be exploited for profit.
With receipts under $50k they could do a 990N, which is pretty much "what is your name?" and job done. (Their 2012 status report said they were spending $20-30k per year from a roughly $200k pot, with little attempt at raising more money for the time being.)
Where I live (Philadelphia) I see a lot of advertisements for hospitals, and for treatments for serious conditions like cancer. Not so much "we'll do it for $whatever", but certainly language like "we are the best hospital in the region for (issue)".
No, the author's argument is that this kind of negotiation is what ought to happen all the time; his example of brokenness is that insurance rules distort the marketplace and drive up prices. Far from objecting to haggling, he thinks it should happen more often. This is a fairly typical free-market argument. The parent post by munificent advances the counter-argument that patients are not always in a position to haggle over prices.
Two months later, this test seems enormously more difficult than the flights without the sideways maneuver. And it's not even a year since it left the ground for the first time.
I suppose that's true, though I don't know if that's a real difference compared to building other very long things that are the same all the way along, like roads and railways and the Great Wall of China.
It's just fascinating to me that the most expensive thing (in aggregate) is also the "dumbest" part.
It's interesting that the biggest line item in the costing is not the tube, nor the capsules, nor the vacuum pumps, nor the solar panels, nor the land, but the concrete pylons that support the tube - about two-fifths of the total. The pylons are planned to be 30m apart, making for about 25000 of them.
It depends what the joke is. The joke about the DB9 and the Veyron is that they are ridiculously cool. The joke about Teslas is that the battery runs out.
Basic income makes it easier to work, because one no longer has to choose between working and receiving benefits. There's currently a huge divide between working zero hours for unemployment benefit, and having to work many hours to get the equivalent in wages. With basic income there's no bureaucratic friction with signing on and off, or having to justify your need for support. Any extra hours worked give you extra money, and they'll be hours "on the books" - no need to hide the fact that you're working - which is a win all round.
There's another side to that, which is that overfunding of the police is coupled to underfunding of other institutions; too many social issues are framed as law-enforcement problems, and tackled with a militarized version of the law enforcement mindset.