For a quick ad-hoc test, the method he described is rigorous enough. Sure, it's not (by itself) something you could write a paper on, but it's fine unless you're willing to suggest that he deliberately (consciously or not) drove more haphazardly while not stoned. Even then, the results suggest that he was sufficiently capable a driver while stoned to not be obviously dangerous.
If you're doing the speed limit he'll pull you over because that means you MUST have something to hide.
I've had this happen to me. I'd just bought my current car (which back then was pretty fancy for a 19-year-old) and I was sitting on exactly the speed limit. He tailed me for a few hundred meters then pulled me over for a "random breath test".
The question is does it detect active ingredients instead of metabolites? For example cannabis can test positive even several days (or weeks) after consumption.
The question for me is more "does it pave the way for widespread public drug testing without the need for reasonable suspicion". It only makes it worse if it can pop something up saying "bob smoked a joint two weeks ago".
If we go by the official stance, there's nothing wrong with that, since taking drugs is illegal. You should never have illegal drug metabolites in your system. However, the tacit arrangement (in most cases) is "don't make a nuisance of yourself and we won't try to catch you out unless you're dealing". That "don't make a nuisance of yourself" is the root sentiment in virtually all laws, often with a bit of "for your own good" tacked on by busybodies. That's why it's an ethical dilemma - we quietly admit to ourselves that if someone's causing no harm, then it doesn't matter whether they're using drugs or not and it's immoral to prosecute them.
Do you honestly believe that warfare in future will be nations fighting each other? A modern nation is far too delicate, immobile, vulnerable and tied to world commerce to ever commit to a nuclear war. Nations today are like fat kids at an internet cafe, if you will. They're all too content, too soft, and sitting too close to one another, to ever get into fisticuffs.
It's interesting that you bring up 9/11, because that event epitomises the future of war as I see it. Small ideologically driven extremist groups, often well funded by wealthy private entities, striking at the civilian infrastructure of relatively peaceful nations. The book (not movie) 'The Sum of All Fears' describes a frighteningly plausible example of such a scenario.
I wouldn't worry so much about a superpower with nuclear ICBMs - North Korea is about the only country with both the will and the means, and that means is rapidly crumbling. I'd worry about a smartly dressed guy walking into the foyer carrying a nuclear bomb in a briefcase.
Wouldn't you be more sad if the Pentagon couldn't hire good people and your friends and family died because of it?
If I felt my country was actually under threat of military invasion, I'd be the first person to sign up. It's far more likely that my work would be used to invade another country for economic or political reasons.
Killing people in this world, for our defense, is unfortunately necessary.
Killing people who are hiding in a bunker half a world away in a bunker isn't defense.
Yes, yes I do. Likewise, you realise that my sense of humour (like most people here) thrives on double entendre, especially where the second meaning is sexual in nature? As for the Pentagon hiring me, nah. If they actually used something I did to kill someone I'd be pretty sad.:(
Actually the OST just forbids warheads in orbit. This lead to the development of the F.O.B.S. by Russia. The SALT II agreement was then instituted, which among other things forbids "systems for placing into Earth orbit nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, including fractional orbital missiles", but that seems targeted at launch vehicles for warheads, which may not include purely passive kinetic weapons.
Personally, I'm still sniggering at it being called a "penetrator". Compensation much? Especially given that for hardened targets deep underground, kinetic bombardment is probably a more appropriate approach.
The early XKCD was a lot sadder, more whimsical and romantic, and often a little bitter or despairing. I remember thinking when I started my archive binge, "god, I hope this guy finds a girl who he can be happy with". To this day I don't know if that's why the early comics were like that, but he seems happier now, even if the comics don't hold the same poignancy.
So much environmental stuff. Climate change, pollution, rampant deforestation etc... And here we are. Making books of websites.
Here's an interesting question for ya: How long does it take to read the book? And how much energy does your computer take to run for that amount of time? And for that matter, how much carbon is sequestered in the book that would otherwise be released by decomposition or burning? I'd be interested to see whether an oft-read book is a net carbon gain or loss, assuming your alternative is reading the comic on your beefy gaming PC.
So basically 'smurfing', like Warcraft 3 online play had a lot of. Mid-level players would get to the upper reaches and start losing as many games as they won, and instead of manning up and trying to improve they'd make a new account and go stomp the noobs again. Great fun if you're a noob... >.> Except this time there's money riding on it, yay.
Interesting, thanks for your more qualified input. I wouldn't have thought the lower insulation values would have been enough to counter the huge difference in area and the fact that you're sitting directly in front of the vents, but then again, intuition on stuff like that can easily be misleading. Also I guess on a hot day, if you're moving you have a lot of hot air moving against the car, giving you a sort of reverse windchill factor.
Wow. I want one of those. My mum has an implanted lens (not sure what type but I don't think it's variable-focus) and it looks freaking awesome when the light catches it in the right way; it's like the Terminator's eyes except flashing white instead of red.:P Of course, I'll probably wait until my natural short sight can't be corrected by continuous wear contact lenses first, just to give them a chance to iron out the long-term problems with 'em.
The worm- about 1.5m long- apparently jumps out of the sand and kills people by spitting concentrated acid or shooting lightning from its rectum over long distances.
To get chicks. Chicks dig horses. Also because unlike a motorbike or a combine harvester, a horse can barge someone out of the way *without* hurting them particularly, and horses are good at not stepping on drunk people who fall down. That, and that horses are big and strong and that triggers peoples' "lets not f**k with this guy" instincts much better than a can of pepper spray.
I have one, but it's very small.:P Alternately, it's conceivable that not too far in the future, one may be able to lease an AA battery to get one home if one runs out of charge...
Oh, and for what it's worth, the early lithium cars such as the Lithium T-Zero and the Tesla had battery packs wired together from the dinky little 3.6v cells used in laptop batteries.:) But doing it with alkaline would be a pain - remember your Jet Hopper when you were a kid? Remember trying to get mum and dad to shell out for 8 new batteries? (or waiting 32 hours for your 4-slot charger to slow charge your rechargables, no 2-hour fast charge back then). Imagine if you had to find 24000 of them! O.o
I think I see where the two views conflict. Some (like us) are quite happy to get there with our hair messed up from having the windows down, and wearing a somewhat sweaty t-shirt. Others of us have to arrive at their business meeting or whatever in a crisp suit, looking impeccable, in order to present the right image to close the deal. For the first set, aircon is a luxury at best and a waste of energy at worst. For the second set, aircon really is a necessity.
OK, I think I get you now. I had interpreted TFA as meaning that the entire satellite including the 'tube' was a half pound. If it's just a half-pound payload inside a much bulkier cannister, then I can see why you're saying it won't work.
Most cars have an AC system as large or larger than the one in your home. A car is pretty much a greenhouse on wheels.
The second part there doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Most cars have massive AC systems because you leave them in the sun all day and then want crispy cold air 10 seconds after you turn them on, when the interior of your car is probably 50+ degrees Celsius. Sure, a car is less well insulated than a house but it's only 3-4 cubic meters of air to cool.
Slashdot Mirror
For a quick ad-hoc test, the method he described is rigorous enough. Sure, it's not (by itself) something you could write a paper on, but it's fine unless you're willing to suggest that he deliberately (consciously or not) drove more haphazardly while not stoned. Even then, the results suggest that he was sufficiently capable a driver while stoned to not be obviously dangerous.
If you're doing the speed limit he'll pull you over because that means you MUST have something to hide.
I've had this happen to me. I'd just bought my current car (which back then was pretty fancy for a 19-year-old) and I was sitting on exactly the speed limit. He tailed me for a few hundred meters then pulled me over for a "random breath test".
The question is does it detect active ingredients instead of metabolites? For example cannabis can test positive even several days (or weeks) after consumption.
The question for me is more "does it pave the way for widespread public drug testing without the need for reasonable suspicion". It only makes it worse if it can pop something up saying "bob smoked a joint two weeks ago".
If we go by the official stance, there's nothing wrong with that, since taking drugs is illegal. You should never have illegal drug metabolites in your system. However, the tacit arrangement (in most cases) is "don't make a nuisance of yourself and we won't try to catch you out unless you're dealing". That "don't make a nuisance of yourself" is the root sentiment in virtually all laws, often with a bit of "for your own good" tacked on by busybodies. That's why it's an ethical dilemma - we quietly admit to ourselves that if someone's causing no harm, then it doesn't matter whether they're using drugs or not and it's immoral to prosecute them.
Do you honestly believe that warfare in future will be nations fighting each other? A modern nation is far too delicate, immobile, vulnerable and tied to world commerce to ever commit to a nuclear war. Nations today are like fat kids at an internet cafe, if you will. They're all too content, too soft, and sitting too close to one another, to ever get into fisticuffs.
It's interesting that you bring up 9/11, because that event epitomises the future of war as I see it. Small ideologically driven extremist groups, often well funded by wealthy private entities, striking at the civilian infrastructure of relatively peaceful nations. The book (not movie) 'The Sum of All Fears' describes a frighteningly plausible example of such a scenario.
I wouldn't worry so much about a superpower with nuclear ICBMs - North Korea is about the only country with both the will and the means, and that means is rapidly crumbling. I'd worry about a smartly dressed guy walking into the foyer carrying a nuclear bomb in a briefcase.
Wouldn't you be more sad if the Pentagon couldn't hire good people and your friends and family died because of it?
If I felt my country was actually under threat of military invasion, I'd be the first person to sign up. It's far more likely that my work would be used to invade another country for economic or political reasons.
Killing people in this world, for our defense, is unfortunately necessary.
Killing people who are hiding in a bunker half a world away in a bunker isn't defense.
P.S. Penetrate. Like with a penis. Heh. Hehehehehh.
...heh.
Yes, yes I do. Likewise, you realise that my sense of humour (like most people here) thrives on double entendre, especially where the second meaning is sexual in nature? As for the Pentagon hiring me, nah. If they actually used something I did to kill someone I'd be pretty sad. :(
Actually the OST just forbids warheads in orbit. This lead to the development of the F.O.B.S. by Russia. The SALT II agreement was then instituted, which among other things forbids "systems for placing into Earth orbit nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, including fractional orbital missiles", but that seems targeted at launch vehicles for warheads, which may not include purely passive kinetic weapons.
Personally, I'm still sniggering at it being called a "penetrator". Compensation much? Especially given that for hardened targets deep underground, kinetic bombardment is probably a more appropriate approach.
I knew if I stared at the above post, this text from TFA would pop up.
The early XKCD was a lot sadder, more whimsical and romantic, and often a little bitter or despairing. I remember thinking when I started my archive binge, "god, I hope this guy finds a girl who he can be happy with". To this day I don't know if that's why the early comics were like that, but he seems happier now, even if the comics don't hold the same poignancy.
So much environmental stuff. Climate change, pollution, rampant deforestation etc... And here we are. Making books of websites.
Here's an interesting question for ya: How long does it take to read the book? And how much energy does your computer take to run for that amount of time? And for that matter, how much carbon is sequestered in the book that would otherwise be released by decomposition or burning? I'd be interested to see whether an oft-read book is a net carbon gain or loss, assuming your alternative is reading the comic on your beefy gaming PC.
So basically 'smurfing', like Warcraft 3 online play had a lot of. Mid-level players would get to the upper reaches and start losing as many games as they won, and instead of manning up and trying to improve they'd make a new account and go stomp the noobs again. Great fun if you're a noob... >.> Except this time there's money riding on it, yay.
Interesting, thanks for your more qualified input. I wouldn't have thought the lower insulation values would have been enough to counter the huge difference in area and the fact that you're sitting directly in front of the vents, but then again, intuition on stuff like that can easily be misleading. Also I guess on a hot day, if you're moving you have a lot of hot air moving against the car, giving you a sort of reverse windchill factor.
Wow. I want one of those. My mum has an implanted lens (not sure what type but I don't think it's variable-focus) and it looks freaking awesome when the light catches it in the right way; it's like the Terminator's eyes except flashing white instead of red. :P Of course, I'll probably wait until my natural short sight can't be corrected by continuous wear contact lenses first, just to give them a chance to iron out the long-term problems with 'em.
So what happens if it takes liking to the feces still in your colon?
Form an army of mutant Mongolian death-worms and take over the world?
The worm- about 1.5m long- apparently jumps out of the sand and kills people by spitting concentrated acid or shooting lightning from its rectum over long distances.
Not unlike a certain self-balancing two wheeled scooter, hm?
To get chicks. Chicks dig horses. Also because unlike a motorbike or a combine harvester, a horse can barge someone out of the way *without* hurting them particularly, and horses are good at not stepping on drunk people who fall down. That, and that horses are big and strong and that triggers peoples' "lets not f**k with this guy" instincts much better than a can of pepper spray.
I have one, but it's very small. :P Alternately, it's conceivable that not too far in the future, one may be able to lease an AA battery to get one home if one runs out of charge...
:) But doing it with alkaline would be a pain - remember your Jet Hopper when you were a kid? Remember trying to get mum and dad to shell out for 8 new batteries? (or waiting 32 hours for your 4-slot charger to slow charge your rechargables, no 2-hour fast charge back then). Imagine if you had to find 24000 of them! O.o
Oh, and for what it's worth, the early lithium cars such as the Lithium T-Zero and the Tesla had battery packs wired together from the dinky little 3.6v cells used in laptop batteries.
I think I see where the two views conflict. Some (like us) are quite happy to get there with our hair messed up from having the windows down, and wearing a somewhat sweaty t-shirt. Others of us have to arrive at their business meeting or whatever in a crisp suit, looking impeccable, in order to present the right image to close the deal. For the first set, aircon is a luxury at best and a waste of energy at worst. For the second set, aircon really is a necessity.
OK, I think I get you now. I had interpreted TFA as meaning that the entire satellite including the 'tube' was a half pound. If it's just a half-pound payload inside a much bulkier cannister, then I can see why you're saying it won't work.
+1, Backs Up Assertions With Maths.
Surely you mean AAA? Or alternately the RAC, CAA, DAA, whatever your local Automobile Association is called? ;)
Most cars have an AC system as large or larger than the one in your home. A car is pretty much a greenhouse on wheels.
The second part there doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Most cars have massive AC systems because you leave them in the sun all day and then want crispy cold air 10 seconds after you turn them on, when the interior of your car is probably 50+ degrees Celsius. Sure, a car is less well insulated than a house but it's only 3-4 cubic meters of air to cool.
This analysis has been done over and over again ... using A/C is more efficient at highway speeds, opening the windows is better in traffic.
I was all set to argue with you but it turns out that actually you're right. Ahem.