Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | Aloisius's commentslogin

> It also said that SF wanted to introduce a demand based system for parking, which meant it would be a few cents if nobody needed the space and $6 if everyone wanted a space. Of course such a system wasn't realized.

Demand based parking meters exist in SF. They've been tested in various areas since 2011. They also have an app that helps you find parking using the same sensors that adjust the price.

See: http://sfpark.org/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFpark

reply

tehabe 7 days ago | link

Ah, thanks.

reply


This is also not true in the US where USDA requirements for organic livestock include a requirement with free access to the outdoors and space for exercise, a ban on growth hormones and antibiotics (which are the only way to keep animals packed in close together), clean dry bedding, clean drinking water, direct sunlight, shade and much more.

-----

Loughla 22 days ago | link

I replied to another comment asking questions about how Europe interprets their regulations. But, here's the pertinent parts for the US:

The United States has: "Provide access to the outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors" "Support animal health and welfare"

My experience with US organic farming is dairy and chicken. I work with farmers quite a bit through the extension office of my college employer. The organic farmers in my area practice (in my opinion) very loose organic practices.

For example, access to outdoors was available, but in an enclosed area (run for chickens, small pasture for cattle). This, by no means allowed the animals to "exercise their natural behaviors," and yet was within the legal definition of organic, and allowed them to sell their products to grocery stores and markets as 'certified organic'.

-----

JoeAltmaier 22 days ago | link

I don't get it. Do we imagine organic chickens are roaming around town? Have the wide open prairie to explore? Of course its going to be an enclosed area.

-----

Loughla 22 days ago | link

Of course it's going to be an enclosed area. But my point is that it's not what most people think it is. To respond, I just pulled the math on the averages from 'certified organic' farms I've worked with over the years, just to spell it out a little more.

Egg Chickens Per Coop: 2.48 Square feet of space per bird. 45 Hens, 2 roosters, 72 square feet, 10 laying boxes, outside run of 45 square feet fenced on three sides and overhead.

Meat Chickens Per Coop: 1.8 Square feet of space per bird. 55 Hens, 70 square feet, outside run of 30 square feet fenced on three sides and overhead.

Dairy Cattle: Access to .3 acres per head in pen, average of 14 acres/45 cattle per pen/parlor. *Every single notation I've made about the dairy organics I've encountered states: "Many do not leave parlor, reason is apparent- feed in the parlor is easier to access and of a higher quality than forage available."

Now, I'm not sure of the space requirements for a chicken, but I can honestly tell you that 30-45 outdoor square feet is not enough to support that number of birds and to honor the spirit of "providing access to the outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors." It obeys the word - - outdoor access, but definitely not the idea behind it.

Cattle do have space requirements to avoid overcrowding and overgrazing, you can even find that on-line based on your area of the country. Most of my personal experience is with beef cattle, mind you. In my area, you can plan on 4-5 acres of good pasture per 2 adult cattle or 3 juveniles. 1/3 acre, again, honors the word, but not the spirit.

Anyway, we don't need them roaming around, or with the wide open prairies to explore. My point was that the law-abiding definition of organic, and the steps you have to take to get certified organic status aren't really the happy-go-lucky, love every animal, everyone deserves an awesome life kind of regulations most people think they are.

-----


I don't see why it is Google's responsibility to act as a censor. After all if there is truly a right to be forgotten (which is wonderful news to a great number of criminals and future politicians), you should go after the origin of the information, not the index.

-----


Is Verizon actively slowing the connection to Netflix.com itself or is the connection between Verizon and Netflix's provider (Cogent?) simply limited? In other words, are all Cogent customers suffering poor performance with Verizon customers?

Because the former is wrong and demanding more money from a single company hosted on a service provider you have specific peering agreements with is extortion.

The latter however, well, no one said there were unlimited pipes between every transit provider on the planet and if you're someone large like Netflix, sometimes you need to pay for transit on more than one provider to get the performance you need when your own provider can't or won't do so themselves. It has been like that for decades.

-----


Agreed. Frankly, the hands on the crotch moved well past shouldn't-be-tolerated and to should-have-been-prosecuted.

I know it is a hassle dealing with the police and the legal system, but good god until a few of these assholes get publicly shamed and thrown in jail for a while, I'm not sure we're ever going to be rid of them.

-----


The defensive style driving of the Google car won't work in San Francisco where you literally have to break the law in order to turn left (by stopping in the intersection and often finishing the turn on a red).

-----

ScottBurson 73 days ago | link

That's actually legal. Provided you entered the intersection legally, you have the right-of-way over cross traffic (but not over oncoming traffic, obviously) to exit it.

I don't have the California Vehicle Code in front of me, but I'm pretty sure about this because the situation arose during my road test to get my first license (yes, I still remember this, even though it was almost 40 years ago!). I had entered the intersection to turn left, and when the light turned yellow, the tester lady said "clear the intersection" or words to that effect. (I passed.)

Anyway it has to be that way -- you can't have cars stuck in the middle of the intersection while cross traffic tries to go around them!

-----

Aloisius 73 days ago | link

I have actually gotten a ticket for this near Mendocino. From the DMV handbook:

> If you are turning left, make the turn only if you have enough space to complete the turn before creating a hazard for any oncoming vehicle, bicyclist, or pedestrian. Do not enter the intersection if you cannot get completely across before the light turns red. If you block the intersection, you can be cited.

-----

DatBear 73 days ago | link

I would think this rule (law?) applies more to prevent gridlock... If you don't have enough room to actually be on the other side of the intersection after you've finished the turn, you shouldn't start it.

-----

ScottBurson 73 days ago | link

What happened, exactly? I'm guessing you entered the intersection when the lane you wanted to turn into was backed up, so you would not have been able to clear the intersection even in the absence of oncoming traffic. Is that right?

-----

danielweber 73 days ago | link

I think your reading is correct.

I haven't lived in a lot of states but they've always said "one car can enter the intersection and wait to turn left." Implicit is the assumption that they have some place to be when the opposing traffic clears.

-----

Aloisius 73 days ago | link

Actually it was non-stop oncoming traffic. The last person entered the intersection on a deep yellow. By the time they cleared my car, I was in a red in the middle of the intersection (as were they, but I got the ticket).

-----

ScottBurson 72 days ago | link

Assuming you were the lead car in the left-turn lane, I think the officer erred in citing you. The law can't require you to predict when other people are going to act illegally so you can plan accordingly.

It also doesn't make sense that not even one car per cycle is allowed to turn left across such a traffic flow. You could have sat there for hours following that advice.

-----

blackaspen 73 days ago | link

This has changed somewhat recently.

A few years ago the Colorado (yes, I know, not California, but bear with me) driver's education handbook said that this was legal and advised... Now it too says the opposite. Too many people I guess couldn't handle the left turn on yellow.

-----

thrownaway2424 73 days ago | link

That isn't against the law, that's the DMV-handbook-prescribed way to turn left.

-----

hughes 73 days ago | link

What is the alternative here? Not even enter the intersection until you believe you can complete the turn before the yellow light?

-----

josephschmoe 73 days ago | link

I suspect if there are large numbers of these vehicles, San Francisco (or more likely California) will have to change the rules its lights follow instead of the other way around.

It's hard to argue with a perfectly reasonable, perfectly safe driver.

-----

gre 73 days ago | link

You sound like the kind of person who would watch an entire light sequence and not turn. Ugh.

-----

robotresearcher 73 days ago | link

It already does this just fine.

-----

Aloisius 97 days ago | link | parent | on: Amazon Dash

I imagine every single product you order from AmazonFresh would have one. This would really be for re-orders.

-----

dgarrett 97 days ago | link

He's talking about the sign up code you need to order a free device.

I'd imagine they're sending these out to Amazon Fresh users.

-----


That was decidedly not the case when I first visited Japan in 2001. The jet of water that hit the door to the bathroom was quite wet by the time I figured out how to shut the toilet off.

-----

prawn 97 days ago | link

A bidet in a London hotel around 2003 managed to hit me in the eye. I was a clear metre from the bowl. A mistake you make once and then not again!

-----


The thousands of gay couples who wanted to get married but couldn't because of donations like his? The denial of rights of gay couples who were married before prop 8?

There are actual people who have been denied inheritance, denied the right to visit their partner in the hospital, denied the ability to go their loved one's funeral by their family because of prop 8.

-----

wpietri 97 days ago | link

Whoever's downvoting you should be ashamed. The exact effect of Prop 8 was to strip marriage rights from people. And part of why it worked (until struck down in federal court as the civil rights violation its opponents always knew it to be) is the well-funded campaign in favor of it.

-----


No, it means freedom from state censorship and state punishment (imprisonment for instance). The public can punish you all they want.

-----

cousin_it 98 days ago | link

Well, that's a bug in freedom of speech then. Other freedoms don't work like that. They protect you from all actors, not just the state. For example, your employer can't fire you for being gay. They shouldn't be able to fire you for your political views either.

-----

Aloisius 98 days ago | link

Plenty of other freedoms work exactly like that.

The freedom to assemble doesn't mean that private owners can't keep you from assembling on their property. The freedom of press doesn't mean that the editors can't censor your work. The freedom to bear arms doesn't mean that private businesses can't bar you from the premises.

-----

makomk 98 days ago | link

Which means, in practice, that people can't necessarily use those freedoms. If most or all public spaces are privately-owned how do you exercise your freedom to assemble? Now that most of the communication channels people use are privately owned, how much freedom of speech do we really have?

-----

mindslight 97 days ago | link

Actual freedoms themselves don't work that way, just the codifications of them in the US "Bill of Rights". Given what was discovered about complexity-induced logical contradictions in the 1930's and the subsequent wholesale implementation of such, this should be considered a P0 bug.

-----

jackmaney 98 days ago | link

> For example, your employer can't fire you for being gay.

There are only 21 states in which this is the case.

-----

hackinthebochs 97 days ago | link

I absolutely cringe every time someone pulls out the "freedom from government suppression" card. Its amazing how quick people are to put the principle of freedom of speech into a box when it suits their agenda. Absolutely shameful. Freedom of speech is an idea that permeates the very core of our society. That people now want to constrain it to simply government suppression is a sad commentary of our culture.

Just about every aspect of our lives are ruled by corporations, and definitely every avenue of communication. I absolutely refuse to accept that corporations can control what is acceptable for me to say. This is exactly the road you guys are going down when you make statements like this.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | DMCA | News News | Bugs and Feature Requests | Y Combinator | Apply | Library | Contact

Search: