Of course. This is a larger problem but the swatter part is unique to this case. Usually the police are shooting people because of mistaken reports of threats not imaginary (*insert laugh or cry*):)
"When police arrived, they shot and killed 28-year-old Andrew Finch after he exited the residence and reached toward his waistband."
It sounds like from the reporting that they were defending themselves. Even if he had a gun, there was no hostages there. This is why I ask why police can shoot at someone first when generally the military have to be fired at first.
Surely the police should try their own citizens with more caution than non citizens (not that this really should matter but no country can justify treating their own citizens worse than non citizens)
2: This seems to be the big problem. The police could have done one of seemingly countless things to avoid this. Asking someone to come outside with a fucking megaphone while you are behind a bullet proof shield seems fairly reasonable with 2 seconds of thought. Why does the military have stricter rules of engagement with non citizens than the police do with citizens?? Its crazy.
3: Punishing someone doesn't stop it happening. Sure he should be punished but the events would still have happened.
They are both responsible for their own parts however there is one large difference: the swatter acted with malice. He intended harm.
The officer was responding as part of his job, how he handled it is a separate part of this fucked up situation.
If you think the officer will go to jail over this you need to look at the seemingly constant stream of stories of police shootings of unarmed people being either not charged or acquitted. I would bet 1000 dollars he wont be convicted of anything. Probably wont even get fired.
Its a good point because its like why TV shows in the past when there were 3 networks had huge ratings but not better objective quality. The whole business model for movies and Netflix could not be more different, so the comparison is hard to make. Even if Bright was the most watched content on Netflix, does that correlate to more subscriber retention? How could you even measure that.
Netflix is probably largely banking on the media coverage of this movie driving more people to join Netflix. Even if the movie is garbage its free advertising by critics (and us;) ). I doubt one movie would make a useful percent of customers stay with the service, good or bad.
Years ago I used to go to the movies with a friend alot, often a couple of times a week for years. We would just turn up and see whatever was playing next. From that experience I can say I became very much jaded about typical movies. After watching so many movies where its almost the same story structure over and over it became hard to really enjoy most movies. You have seen almost the same movie countless times before. Anything that is visually different or told in another style or ANYTHING seemed much better. Since then its made me think this is probably why critics and casual movie viewers don't have similar experiences. If you eat donuts for a living you will critic aspects of a donut that a casual eater would never care about. Its not boring if you haven't seen the same story 100 times before.
America is definitely not a secular state. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
The government cannot prohibit citizens from exercising their religion. The whole separation of church and state is from something Thomas Jefferson wrote but its not in the constitution or bill of rights. It was their first amendment right to exercise their religious beliefs during the inauguration (as it would be anytime).
from memory the plank length is the distance where the energy to measure it would create a black hole so its the limit of measurement. plank time is the length of time traveling at c to travel the plank length, so is also immeasurable.
i would say it has the most extreme physical significance, its only in the theoretical it could be less significant.
Pursuing the desire that many people share to learn and explore and to push the limits of that new knowledge does not require a balance sheet justification.
If you feel the goal of life is to balance the short term budget of america (even though the nasa budget has essentially no impact on this at all) you should probably spend some time thinking about the fact we are all going to die, the earth will die, the universe will die, and when the last human dies, do you think they will wish we could have siphoned off some more money from nasa's budget to pay some some tiny fraction of the 2014 deficit off?
Sure but they weren't making a TV show. They have the telemetry (from what I can tell), its just the video that is so poor. Getting high bandwidth data from below the horizon of a fast moving object is hardly easy.
They will have nice enough videos when they bring the first stage back to land:)
They will shortly, there was a planned launch last month but it has been pushed back for various reasons. http://www.space.com/25822-spa...
The fact they have this thing vertical at well below terminal velocity and apparently not spinning means the rest is just details. Controlling it down from supersonic is the hard part. They have made many successful landings with grasshopper from a vertical, low speed non spinning state.
I guess its just a marketing problem, they need drugs that make the person not move so no one feels bad. And at the end the person looks like they died naturally.
500g of c4 on someone's head would do the job and be completely painless, and cost almost nothing.
I'm guessing that its hard to get drugs that don't cause convulsions or toxic side effects Or at least they only are made by companies who dont want to be known for killing people. Because getting drugs to kill someone doesn't seem so hard.
But I don't understand why its so hard to kill someone. Making someone unconscious for major surgery seems to be a solved problem. Once someone is unconscious, and paralysed, how hard is it to kill them?
If you are unconscious, no oxygen will kill you in a few minutes without pain. Even if you are concious, from what I understand its CO2 in the lungs that causes pain.. just filling a room with helium should probably kill you without you feeling much pain in a few minutes.
Why these injections are taking 20+ minutes to kill people who are in pain, I don't understand.
I doubt it. While there is many things we will learn the basic reaction of gravity ~ heat + hydrogen to helium is well understood by quantum mechanics. We have billions of examples of stars to cross check this. Comparing mentality of stars against their evolution.
On the bright side, even if we only have 1 million years left, if we haven't left earth by then its only because we have already killed ourselves.
I think the point they were making was not to stop doing science, or publishing. Instead its the problem with the reporting of science. Everything has to have drama and conflict.
The news makes it seem like every new paper is a paradigm changing event. Where as from the point of view of people who are doing this work its another piece of information to help improve our understanding.
The biggest problems is when popular news makes people think science is just stories, it seems to change every other week from one extreme to the other, so with overwhelming scientific facts like evolution and climate change people think its just some "theory" that is just as likely to be proven wrong tomorrow.
Its a difficult balance to find the best match between the public's hunger for science news and the sensational nature of reporting.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. This is a larger problem but the swatter part is unique to this case. :)
Usually the police are shooting people because of mistaken reports of threats not imaginary (*insert laugh or cry*)
Its not the aiming of the officer that I think is subpar :)
Who were they protecting?
"When police arrived, they shot and killed 28-year-old Andrew Finch after he exited the residence and reached toward his waistband."
It sounds like from the reporting that they were defending themselves. Even if he had a gun, there was no hostages there.
This is why I ask why police can shoot at someone first when generally the military have to be fired at first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Surely the police should try their own citizens with more caution than non citizens (not that this really should matter but no country can justify treating their own citizens worse than non citizens)
Imagine what the Republicans would do if Muller was investigating president Obama under the same circumstances?
2: This seems to be the big problem. The police could have done one of seemingly countless things to avoid this. Asking someone to come outside with a fucking megaphone while you are behind a bullet proof shield seems fairly reasonable with 2 seconds of thought. Why does the military have stricter rules of engagement with non citizens than the police do with citizens?? Its crazy.
3: Punishing someone doesn't stop it happening. Sure he should be punished but the events would still have happened.
They are both responsible for their own parts however there is one large difference: the swatter acted with malice. He intended harm.
The officer was responding as part of his job, how he handled it is a separate part of this fucked up situation.
If you think the officer will go to jail over this you need to look at the seemingly constant stream of stories of police shootings of unarmed people being either not charged or acquitted.
I would bet 1000 dollars he wont be convicted of anything. Probably wont even get fired.
Its a good point because its like why TV shows in the past when there were 3 networks had huge ratings but not better objective quality.
The whole business model for movies and Netflix could not be more different, so the comparison is hard to make.
Even if Bright was the most watched content on Netflix, does that correlate to more subscriber retention? How could you even measure that.
Netflix is probably largely banking on the media coverage of this movie driving more people to join Netflix. Even if the movie is garbage its free advertising by critics (and us ;) ). I doubt one movie would make a useful percent of customers stay with the service, good or bad.
Years ago I used to go to the movies with a friend alot, often a couple of times a week for years. We would just turn up and see whatever was playing next.
From that experience I can say I became very much jaded about typical movies.
After watching so many movies where its almost the same story structure over and over it became hard to really enjoy most movies. You have seen almost the same movie countless times before. Anything that is visually different or told in another style or ANYTHING seemed much better.
Since then its made me think this is probably why critics and casual movie viewers don't have similar experiences.
If you eat donuts for a living you will critic aspects of a donut that a casual eater would never care about. Its not boring if you haven't seen the same story 100 times before.
Has its own soundtrack:
I go to your land down under
Where wind blows and then chunders
Grid fins were designed by the Russians for missiles
Here is a photo of the grid fins on the MOAB: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
America is definitely not a secular state.
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
The government cannot prohibit citizens from exercising their religion. The whole separation of church and state is from something Thomas Jefferson wrote but its not in the constitution or bill of rights. It was their first amendment right to exercise their religious beliefs during the inauguration (as it would be anytime).
I would feel very safe in betting my house on many millions of people being very interested.
from memory the plank length is the distance where the energy to measure it would create a black hole so its the limit of measurement.
plank time is the length of time traveling at c to travel the plank length, so is also immeasurable.
i would say it has the most extreme physical significance, its only in the theoretical it could be less significant.
Sure, just like america is.
Pursuing the desire that many people share to learn and explore and to push the limits of that new knowledge does not require a balance sheet justification.
If you feel the goal of life is to balance the short term budget of america (even though the nasa budget has essentially no impact on this at all) you should probably spend some time thinking about the fact we are all going to die, the earth will die, the universe will die, and when the last human dies, do you think they will wish we could have siphoned off some more money from nasa's budget to pay some some tiny fraction of the 2014 deficit off?
Load balanced or mirrored systems. You can upgrade part of it any time, validate it, then swap it over to the live system when you are happy.
Having someone with little or no sleep doing critical updates is not really the best strategy.
*Whoosh* - The sound of a metaphor going over your head.
Because no member of the EU can punish someone by death.
http://europa.eu/legislation_s...
Sure but they weren't making a TV show. They have the telemetry (from what I can tell), its just the video that is so poor. Getting high bandwidth data from below the horizon of a fast moving object is hardly easy.
They will have nice enough videos when they bring the first stage back to land :)
They will shortly, there was a planned launch last month but it has been pushed back for various reasons. http://www.space.com/25822-spa...
The fact they have this thing vertical at well below terminal velocity and apparently not spinning means the rest is just details. Controlling it down from supersonic is the hard part. They have made many successful landings with grasshopper from a vertical, low speed non spinning state.
I guess its just a marketing problem, they need drugs that make the person not move so no one feels bad. And at the end the person looks like they died naturally.
500g of c4 on someone's head would do the job and be completely painless, and cost almost nothing.
I'm guessing that its hard to get drugs that don't cause convulsions or toxic side effects Or at least they only are made by companies who dont want to be known for killing people. Because getting drugs to kill someone doesn't seem so hard.
Disclaimer: Im against the death penalty.
But I don't understand why its so hard to kill someone. Making someone unconscious for major surgery seems to be a solved problem. Once someone is unconscious, and paralysed, how hard is it to kill them?
If you are unconscious, no oxygen will kill you in a few minutes without pain. Even if you are concious, from what I understand its CO2 in the lungs that causes pain.. just filling a room with helium should probably kill you without you feeling much pain in a few minutes.
Why these injections are taking 20+ minutes to kill people who are in pain, I don't understand.
I doubt it. While there is many things we will learn the basic reaction of gravity ~ heat + hydrogen to helium is well understood by quantum mechanics. We have billions of examples of stars to cross check this. Comparing mentality of stars against their evolution.
On the bright side, even if we only have 1 million years left, if we haven't left earth by then its only because we have already killed ourselves.
I think the point they were making was not to stop doing science, or publishing. Instead its the problem with the reporting of science. Everything has to have drama and conflict.
The news makes it seem like every new paper is a paradigm changing event. Where as from the point of view of people who are doing this work its another piece of information to help improve our understanding.
The biggest problems is when popular news makes people think science is just stories, it seems to change every other week from one extreme to the other, so with overwhelming scientific facts like evolution and climate change people think its just some "theory" that is just as likely to be proven wrong tomorrow.
Its a difficult balance to find the best match between the public's hunger for science news and the sensational nature of reporting.