A point I forgot: what about deaths on airliners which are not due to crashes? I'm aware that, for instance, some people walk around during turbulence, hit their heads, and die, while the plane itself is easily within its limits. I wonder if rear-facing seats would save anyone from non-crash deaths.
Also, we're not even talking about your average plane-crash. We're talking about the kind which people survive. In a lot of plane crashes, there are zero survivors.
I doubt backward-facing seats would save anyone from a catastrophic crash, but it might increase the number of survivors in the less catastrophic crashes from which some number of people already survive.
You're right though, of course, that putting yourself through even the slightest discomfort to improve your safety in a commercial airliner makes no rational economic sense whatsoever. Go buy another fire-alarm, or take the bus rather than the taxi; statistically, I'm sure either would do your safety much more benefit than rear-facing airliner seats.
The fake Libertarians in the Republican party may have other ideas, I wouldn't know.
Sure you do. You've heard of the Iraq War, right? The principle of minimal government ceases to apply when it's a cause you happen to like, such as pre-emptive war or corporate subsidies.
Indeed, they're certainly taking the any differing view is heresy line rather than the let's develop our ideas to fit the facts line.
They've clearly decided their position 'ahead of time' rather than establishing a position after learning the facts, but we shouldn't commit the fallacy fallacy by dismissing all their actual arguments without hearing them out (despite that I'd bet money that their arguments are all utter nonsense).
Ok, I think I get you - you're assuming there'd have to be a second scan after security for it to be worth anything.
I don't share that assumption. You'll get essentially identical info from just looking at the scan-rate of the existing scanner, no?
Depends if you want to measure the number of people left in the queue, the number of people who have passed security, or the rate of progression through the queue.
Nope. He might be very strongly against the UK being part of the EU, but I don't know that he's dumb enough to suggest that literally everything they do it bad.
Xbox gamers who would like to die a really horrible death trapped in a metal box.
As I understand it, very few have died inside a tank in recent history.
As far as I can see on my quick Googling, the British Army has never lost a Challenger 2 tank, despite being battered in various warzones. Some US Abrams tanks have been lost in Iraq, however. (According to this page at least.)
Well of course applets are awful. Pretend they don't exist; that's best for everyone. (With browsers following a trend of making it quite hard to get applets to run at all, even with Java installed, applets essentially don't exist these days anyway.)
Swing/JavaFX aren't that bad. Google's GWT is pretty good. The real use of Java is web-servers and, as ranton states, enterprise business applications.
will never penetrate business applications to any significant degree
I suspect neither of us knows what you're talking about.
Now, currently with our manned space program, I think launching this woman into space through a privately build program would at least be justified for this disservice we did to her in the 1960s.
The (generally quiet) conservative in me thinks this is a dangerous precedent for how to spend NASA's already limited budget.
Agreed. It's a very long way from being clear-cut.
There's a sliding-scale from being harsh about the person's conduct/video-games/whatever, up to clearly abusive go kill yourself, and threatening I will rape and kill you.
If direct assault with intent to cause distress was as simple as threatening violence, there'd be no need for this 'third path'.
A sincerely disappointed review might, in some sense, be intended to cause distress.
All of these cases are nuanced and require careful balance
It doesn't seem that nuanced. It seems to me the question is whether you're in trouble for expressing an unpopular idea (genuine infringement of freedom of expression), or for encouraging violence/panic. The epilepsy example is a deliberate act to cause harm which happens to take the form of a digital submission, but it's not really 'expression'.
I'm sure there are some interesting edge-cases, but this distinction seems important.
Having misread the title this seemed relevant, but it may still be of tangential interest: Relish.net are offering 4G as a replacement for ADSL, in London.
Might make sense if you're ok with the data caps, which aren't that bad.
Slashdot Mirror
A point I forgot: what about deaths on airliners which are not due to crashes? I'm aware that, for instance, some people walk around during turbulence, hit their heads, and die, while the plane itself is easily within its limits. I wonder if rear-facing seats would save anyone from non-crash deaths.
Also, we're not even talking about your average plane-crash. We're talking about the kind which people survive. In a lot of plane crashes, there are zero survivors.
I doubt backward-facing seats would save anyone from a catastrophic crash, but it might increase the number of survivors in the less catastrophic crashes from which some number of people already survive.
You're right though, of course, that putting yourself through even the slightest discomfort to improve your safety in a commercial airliner makes no rational economic sense whatsoever. Go buy another fire-alarm, or take the bus rather than the taxi; statistically, I'm sure either would do your safety much more benefit than rear-facing airliner seats.
The fake Libertarians in the Republican party may have other ideas, I wouldn't know.
Sure you do. You've heard of the Iraq War, right? The principle of minimal government ceases to apply when it's a cause you happen to like, such as pre-emptive war or corporate subsidies.
No-one is being obtuse. You really did suggest that a libertarian government would ban such devices.
A libertarian state would never permit, much less mandate, such a thing.
Remember?
You'd probably just feel ill. Comfort is the reason they have forward-facing seats in the first place.
Indeed. Fair counterpoint.
Indeed, they're certainly taking the any differing view is heresy line rather than the let's develop our ideas to fit the facts line.
They've clearly decided their position 'ahead of time' rather than establishing a position after learning the facts, but we shouldn't commit the fallacy fallacy by dismissing all their actual arguments without hearing them out (despite that I'd bet money that their arguments are all utter nonsense).
Why the apology to non-idiot atheists?
challenge evolution and all such theories predicated on chance.
Do they have even the slightest understanding of the theory of evolution? At all?
discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler's worldview
Ah, Godwin.
why "the Big Bang is fake,"
And, I'm sure, also why the 6-days explanation is therefore true...
and why "natural selection is NOT evolution.
I wonder exactly how far their concession here goes.
These guys are really making a laughing stock of Christianity.
There is. It's called a Church.
/snark
(Sorry, non-idiot Christians.)
Ok, I think I get you - you're assuming there'd have to be a second scan after security for it to be worth anything.
I don't share that assumption. You'll get essentially identical info from just looking at the scan-rate of the existing scanner, no?
Depends if you want to measure the number of people left in the queue, the number of people who have passed security, or the rate of progression through the queue.
Nope. He might be very strongly against the UK being part of the EU, but I don't know that he's dumb enough to suggest that literally everything they do it bad.
If anyone was claiming that everything the EU does is wrong, then you'd have a point.
Xbox gamers who would like to die a really horrible death trapped in a metal box.
As I understand it, very few have died inside a tank in recent history.
As far as I can see on my quick Googling, the British Army has never lost a Challenger 2 tank, despite being battered in various warzones. Some US Abrams tanks have been lost in Iraq, however. (According to this page at least.)
I'll ask again:
What 'extra step'? Just have the scanner hook-up to the system.
I was quite clear: there's no obvious need to scan twice.
What 'extra step'? Just have the scanner hook-up to the system.
It would only measure throughput though, not queue-length, so there is a difference.
How is this any different than them using your check ins with your boarding pass?
Good question. This whole thing seems over-engineered.
But being web-only is a huge handicap right now.
Got any figures to back that up?
Until very recently there was no official app for reddit.
Well of course applets are awful. Pretend they don't exist; that's best for everyone. (With browsers following a trend of making it quite hard to get applets to run at all, even with Java installed, applets essentially don't exist these days anyway.)
Swing/JavaFX aren't that bad. Google's GWT is pretty good. The real use of Java is web-servers and, as ranton states, enterprise business applications.
will never penetrate business applications to any significant degree
I suspect neither of us knows what you're talking about.
Yeah... uses any means required to get ahead is generally not something to be proud of. (And no, it being legal doesn't make it ethical or admirable.)
Now, currently with our manned space program, I think launching this woman into space through a privately build program would at least be justified for this disservice we did to her in the 1960s.
The (generally quiet) conservative in me thinks this is a dangerous precedent for how to spend NASA's already limited budget.
Agreed. It's a very long way from being clear-cut.
There's a sliding-scale from being harsh about the person's conduct/video-games/whatever, up to clearly abusive go kill yourself, and threatening I will rape and kill you.
If direct assault with intent to cause distress was as simple as threatening violence, there'd be no need for this 'third path'.
A sincerely disappointed review might, in some sense, be intended to cause distress.
All of these cases are nuanced and require careful balance
It doesn't seem that nuanced. It seems to me the question is whether you're in trouble for expressing an unpopular idea (genuine infringement of freedom of expression), or for encouraging violence/panic. The epilepsy example is a deliberate act to cause harm which happens to take the form of a digital submission, but it's not really 'expression'.
I'm sure there are some interesting edge-cases, but this distinction seems important.
If we don't try to learn from it, it won't ever get better.
Right, hence:
pin a ribbon on her chest, say a formal apology
Having misread the title this seemed relevant, but it may still be of tangential interest: Relish.net are offering 4G as a replacement for ADSL, in London.
Might make sense if you're ok with the data caps, which aren't that bad.