Okay, so you have an accident, who's to blame? The programmer or the driver? Perhaps a hacker steered your car to the right just a little for you to hit a tree, and all the equipment burst into flames, will there be a network trace to recover? So the code review will be one which determines the balance between life and death for the driver for accidental bugs in steering or breaking systems, but are you willing to trust a car company who could possibly get away with murdering you (steer your car into a tree, delete the server side records, on car devices already destroyed)? Creepy thoughts, but an actual possibility. So now we're talking airplane technology, every car will need an indestructible black box recording unit, which can be authenticated without any room for failure.
The point here is if you want a transportation mechanism that's aware of you and itself, get a horse.
Because there's no way a third person can alter the behavior of a horse so as to be dangerous to the rider, right?
Same as with emissions, there is always the opt out of using an older model vehicle not bound by the new restrictions.
I read that in California, though, the standards are still required for cars back to the 80s even and so cars of that vintage are being scrapped. http://autoweek.com/article/ca... When you start getting into cars which are too old, reliability, maintenance, parts availability start to be problems, not to mention overall quality suffers. Nobody wants to drive a 1975 car when emissions equipment was in its infancy.
What about false positives? My car's traction control tries to murder me a couple times each winter. It works great in rain but not snow.
That's why some (at least) European cars have ABS defeat switches, for sand or snow or such. But European manufacturers tend to think (probably wrongly) that the average driver has at least half a brain.
3. Cops will look at the system as part of a routine check and will fine you.
Last week at approximately 11AM, there was a road block on this side road by Georgia State troopers. They were stopping everyone.
When I rolled my window down, I asked what is going on?
They told me that they were checking to see if people were wearing their seat belts and their licenses were not expired. He took my license looked at it and walked around the car. And then handed it back.
Now, electronic safety devices are not given away by manufacturers. That backup camera system and this will cost way more to the consumer than necessary. For an example, compare the OEM GPS systems with what you can buy on your own - this whole integrated in dash stuff making it cost more is bullshit. And having to take it to the dealer ($$$$) to update it?!
And we all know that when the warranty runs out on the electronics (cars are only 1 -3 years) they are going to break. And that means a trip to the dealer ($$$$) to fix a mandatory safety device.
The price of cars is getting ridiculous compared to wages as it is. My wife is shopping for a car and you know what the standard financing is now? 60 months! And some people go out to 72 and even 92months! All to keep the payments affordable. In the meantime, the finance companies are raking it in at the expense of us.
Not have a car? In the USA without having to live in an obscenely expensive part of town?
This country is set up to put us into debt - one way or another. And in the meantime, jobs are going overseas and are not being created fast enough here.
Of course you have to be put into debt. Otherwise, you might just work when you need money, and lie around in the sun and enjoy the money when you have enough, and repeat. You can't run giant business enterprises on that basis. You gotta be on that line 8 hours (or whatever) a day, even if you don't need the money that day. At the time such arrangements were instituted, there was lots of opposition to "wage slavery" as opposed to the older model of just handcrafting as many widgets as you felt like and selling them and managing your own time/income balance. See how that argument worked out. The whole idea of salaries and wages seems to be natural and intuitive and piecework seems unusual and innovative now.
So to make you do that, you need to be put into debt.
And thus, our marriage customs, until recently; no sex unless you get married, young man! and when you get married, you buy a house, and a car, and appliances, and so on and so on, and you are chained to that assembly line paying bills. And that's why premarital sex and birth control and the sexual revolution are subversive and a sin and unAmerican to boot.
The price of cars is getting ridiculous compared to wages as it is. My wife is shopping for a car and you know what the standard financing is now? 60 months! And some people go out to 72 and even 92months! All to keep the payments affordable. In the meantime, the finance companies are raking it in at the expense of us.
I was with you up to this point. There's almost never a good reason to finance a car (plus most exceptions involve having enough money banked that you could buy it outright if necessary), and a decent new car should still run you under 20k. If you can't save up enough for that in a few years, then learn some basic maintenance skills and buy a used one. A lot of cars depreciate several thousand dollars after just a year or two.
It's all a matter of optimizing your financial decisions. If you want to drive around in a $90k BMW X5 because it makes you feel important, you'll either have to be rich or make sacrifices elsewhere. If you don't want to make sacrifices elsewhere and aren't rich, then I'd highly recommend a few year old used Hundai Elantra, Ford Focus, or Mazda 3. If you want sporty, a super nice used miata can be had for under 10k (one with paint damage and the like can be had for 4k)
General rule of thumb; only go into debt for a purchase which increases in value, not for one that diminishes in value.
That said, if you can buy a car with a 0% loan, and put the money you were going to pay into an investment..... that meets the criteria.
They told me that they were checking to see if people were wearing their seat belts and their licenses were not expired.
Funny...
I remember when they were putting in the mandatory "wear your seatbelt" laws, in order to get them passed in many states, they said specifically that you could NOT get pulled over for not wearing one, that it could not be a primary offense for stopping you.
Now, of course..it is.
And people wonder why I tend to be hesitant to grant the police/govt any new powers over me and new regulations.
I can't hardly think of a law passed that later wasn't expanded or used in creative new ways other than it was intended or sold to the public, in order to get it passed.
I remember when the idea behind installing passive restraint systems in all cars was to take care of people who didn't use seat belts. Then it turned out that if you didn't wear seat belts, the air bags would just kill you anyway.
haha, funny.
The best though is the self-generating reference. Wikipedia article goes up, magazine publishes article using Wikipedia. Said article is used as a citation to satisfy [citation needed].
That's an old trick. The Bush administration leaks "confidential facts" about Iraqi WMD from Chalabi or some such to Judith Miller, it gets front page attention in the New York Times, Cheney goes on TV next week referring to what the New York Times says about the danger of Iraqi WMD.
Wikipedia just follows the arc of all human group endeavors. At first, a brilliant and beautiful concept, shared among a few who see its desirability and the general project plan, so to speak; and are willing to do what they have to to make it happen, and communicate amongst themselves well enough to organize their actions efficiently.
Others are recruited to the project; communication starts to slip; people have to be assigned defined roles, and jobs have to be assigned to specific people or groups; things fall between the cracks, wheels get invented multiple times with varying degrees of circularity, but things still progress.
Now people who just see something happening and want to be where the action is get on board; they don't have any real understanding or vision of the project, nor any real attachment to the goals. Some are useful, some are a net negative. Real progress is confined to small isolated groups who mimic the structure of the originating few; the "skunk works" phenomenon.
And finally, crazy people, criminals, etc. find an opportunity for predators in all those busy people and things begin to rot.
Most everything follows the same arc, from nations to religions to charities to law enforcement to businesses to open source projects.
Wikipedia's problem is the Napoleon problem - there are a bunch of self-important "editors" who want to exercise extreme control over everything so you get a lot of people who would contribute who are just turned off by the political factors involved in editing Wikipedia.
Wikipedia created this problem for itself, and now they are learning that they won't get people involved or to donate when they are treated poorly.
Vandalism, however meticulous, is a minor problem. You, however, point out a larger problem; you can't beat crazy. Crazy will go down fighting to the death over the placement of a comma.
When I proposed to my wife, I hoped she would say yes; so when she didn't, I froze her severed head in liquid nitrogen in the HOPE that in time she would change her mind.
Two major flaws of thinking: one, "believing that, because MUCH is possible, then it follows that EVERYTHING must be possible."
The other; believing that because it's obvious that 99% of something is BS, then it follows that the other 1% must also be BS.
"Rammer" by Larry Niven, 1971: The future is annoyed at the past for leaving them all these corpsicles which expect to be revived and supported, so they give you a few days to express some sign of possibly being useful to society in some way and if not, then...... Most get the...... option.
It is junk science, some creatures can indeed be frozen and revived because of unique properties of their physiology. Humans cannot.
In fact, by decapitating this girl and digging her brain out of her skull, they've guaranteed she is forever dead.
So we're very unlikely to be able thaw her brain and have it work again.
But that's not the only option. Even in a brain frozen and turned into mush there will still be a lot of information preserved, how do you know that preserved information is insufficient to recreate a human consciousness?
Remember we're potentially talking about hundreds of years in the future, it's entirely plausible to assume we're talking a full theory of consciousness with nanites and a brains uploaded into computers. Are you really so certain consciousness couldn't be extracted from those brains?
There's no way to make any sense out of a fully decomposed corpse. There's understood ways to make some sense out of frozen cells.
For your assertion to be correct, we have to assume that the damage done to cells during the vitrification process is somehow much worse and irreversible than the wholesale consumption of those cells by microorganisms and/or the complete decomposition of the majority of organic compounds, and that the structural preservation brought about by vitrification is not helpful in any way.
Granted, we don't know future tech. But it seems like a super good guess that one of these things will be true:
1)- Today's cryo patients are forever dead, AND anyone else who dies today and is not preserved is forever dea.
2)- Today's cryo patients could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech, but anyone else could not be.
3)- Anyone, living or dead, could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech.
The case where "Those who decay can be revived, but cryo patients cannot" seems EXTREMELY unlikely- less likely than (2) and (3), both of which are pinned on thin hopes to begin with.
There is also the question as to why future generations will find it desirable to revive those long dead who have neither any resources to finance their existence nor any sort of experience which will prepare them for the world in which they find themselves awake.
Imagine if cryogenics had begun in the past and the awakening process had been perfected now. "I'm able to read and write and in the past I have been able to support myself as a scribe. Hey, is that fellow an escaped slave? Shouldn't his master be notified?"
The difference is, when you've been a faithful Catholic for 20 years, and tithed the whole time and whatever else, they don't take you aside one day and say "Hey, here's the super-duper secret Bible that almost no one gets to look at. You're going to love the chapter where after Jesus' resurrection, grey aliens from Proxima 9 took him on a 2-millienium mission to the stars."
Scientology does just that. If you have no idea, going in, about what thetans are, or where they come from, you don't find out about them until you're so invested in Scientology that it's very difficult to break away from it. "It has to be true, look how much time and money I've invested in it."
And that's another thing.
Let's say, for whatever reason, that I want to study up on Christianity. Well, one option that a lot of churches have are discussion groups/classes on it, especially for people who are converting to that church.
A lot of those classes are pretty cheap, if not outright free, and here's the important bit. You don't actually have to take them. I could, right now, walk into practically any church in the country and join, for free.
In Scientology, if you want to learn more (or are peer-pressured to do so), every class costs money. The higher you go, the pricier the classes. Oh, but you can get around some of the costs by signing a billion-year contract.
Yeah, that's all completely normal and above board.
(picturing Dana Carvey in drag)
"And who told you all this, hmm??? Could it be...... Thetan?"
You're kvetching about giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with, I have yet to see why we should acknowledge it as actually being a religion.
You're preaching to the choir condemning Scientology, I doubt you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you there. I certainly don't. That said, can you at least acknowledge the frightening potential for abuse if we empower some Government bureaucrat to determine what is and is not a legitimate religion? How do you draw the line? There's no objective test. You can't go by age, that shuts out LDS, UUism, Wiccans, and a bunch of others. There's a lot of people that would welcome them being shut out, but I'm sure that's not what you're advocating for.
The only fair way to do it would be to treat all non-profit corporations (which is how all churches are incorporated in the US) the same. Leave religion out of it. If you want to tighten the rules for non-profit corporations you might find more support, there's plenty of abuse there, mostly in the secular world, but it's still a tough needle to thread.
With most religions they are more than willing to give me copies of their holy books some are quite persistent (look at you Mormons) so I don't think they would care about the copyright thing as they just want more people to have their stuff. Scientology on the other hand basically is the BMG CD club of religion.
The Book of Mormon was originally published in 1830, so the text is in the public domain. The current copyright covers things like the page layout, chapter headings, footnotes, and the study guides. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints protects its copyright holdings religiously. The Church wants to "flood the earth" with copies of the Book of Mormon, but wants to make sure that any Book of Mormon in circulation is accurate. We give a copy of the Book of Mormon to anyone who accepts a visit from our missionaries and promises to read from it. Missionaries assume most people they come in contact with are already Christian so don't give out copies of the Bible (in fact, missionaries need to obtain special permission to teach non-Christians).
I've been in a couple of hotel rooms where the Book of Mormon shared a drawer with the Bible.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so you have an accident, who's to blame? The programmer or the driver? Perhaps a hacker steered your car to the right just a little for you to hit a tree, and all the equipment burst into flames, will there be a network trace to recover? So the code review will be one which determines the balance between life and death for the driver for accidental bugs in steering or breaking systems, but are you willing to trust a car company who could possibly get away with murdering you (steer your car into a tree, delete the server side records, on car devices already destroyed)? Creepy thoughts, but an actual possibility. So now we're talking airplane technology, every car will need an indestructible black box recording unit, which can be authenticated without any room for failure. The point here is if you want a transportation mechanism that's aware of you and itself, get a horse.
Because there's no way a third person can alter the behavior of a horse so as to be dangerous to the rider, right?
Same as with emissions, there is always the opt out of using an older model vehicle not bound by the new restrictions.
I read that in California, though, the standards are still required for cars back to the 80s even and so cars of that vintage are being scrapped. http://autoweek.com/article/ca... When you start getting into cars which are too old, reliability, maintenance, parts availability start to be problems, not to mention overall quality suffers. Nobody wants to drive a 1975 car when emissions equipment was in its infancy.
What about false positives? My car's traction control tries to murder me a couple times each winter. It works great in rain but not snow.
That's why some (at least) European cars have ABS defeat switches, for sand or snow or such. But European manufacturers tend to think (probably wrongly) that the average driver has at least half a brain.
3. Cops will look at the system as part of a routine check and will fine you.
Last week at approximately 11AM, there was a road block on this side road by Georgia State troopers. They were stopping everyone.
When I rolled my window down, I asked what is going on?
They told me that they were checking to see if people were wearing their seat belts and their licenses were not expired. He took my license looked at it and walked around the car. And then handed it back.
Now, electronic safety devices are not given away by manufacturers. That backup camera system and this will cost way more to the consumer than necessary. For an example, compare the OEM GPS systems with what you can buy on your own - this whole integrated in dash stuff making it cost more is bullshit. And having to take it to the dealer ($$$$) to update it?!
And we all know that when the warranty runs out on the electronics (cars are only 1 -3 years) they are going to break. And that means a trip to the dealer ($$$$) to fix a mandatory safety device.
The price of cars is getting ridiculous compared to wages as it is. My wife is shopping for a car and you know what the standard financing is now? 60 months! And some people go out to 72 and even 92months! All to keep the payments affordable. In the meantime, the finance companies are raking it in at the expense of us.
Not have a car? In the USA without having to live in an obscenely expensive part of town?
This country is set up to put us into debt - one way or another. And in the meantime, jobs are going overseas and are not being created fast enough here.
Of course you have to be put into debt. Otherwise, you might just work when you need money, and lie around in the sun and enjoy the money when you have enough, and repeat. You can't run giant business enterprises on that basis. You gotta be on that line 8 hours (or whatever) a day, even if you don't need the money that day.
At the time such arrangements were instituted, there was lots of opposition to "wage slavery" as opposed to the older model of just handcrafting as many widgets as you felt like and selling them and managing your own time/income balance. See how that argument worked out. The whole idea of salaries and wages seems to be natural and intuitive and piecework seems unusual and innovative now.
So to make you do that, you need to be put into debt.
And thus, our marriage customs, until recently; no sex unless you get married, young man! and when you get married, you buy a house, and a car, and appliances, and so on and so on, and you are chained to that assembly line paying bills.
And that's why premarital sex and birth control and the sexual revolution are subversive and a sin and unAmerican to boot.
The price of cars is getting ridiculous compared to wages as it is. My wife is shopping for a car and you know what the standard financing is now? 60 months! And some people go out to 72 and even 92months! All to keep the payments affordable. In the meantime, the finance companies are raking it in at the expense of us.
I was with you up to this point. There's almost never a good reason to finance a car (plus most exceptions involve having enough money banked that you could buy it outright if necessary), and a decent new car should still run you under 20k. If you can't save up enough for that in a few years, then learn some basic maintenance skills and buy a used one. A lot of cars depreciate several thousand dollars after just a year or two.
It's all a matter of optimizing your financial decisions. If you want to drive around in a $90k BMW X5 because it makes you feel important, you'll either have to be rich or make sacrifices elsewhere. If you don't want to make sacrifices elsewhere and aren't rich, then I'd highly recommend a few year old used Hundai Elantra, Ford Focus, or Mazda 3. If you want sporty, a super nice used miata can be had for under 10k (one with paint damage and the like can be had for 4k)
General rule of thumb; only go into debt for a purchase which increases in value, not for one that diminishes in value. That said, if you can buy a car with a 0% loan, and put the money you were going to pay into an investment..... that meets the criteria.
Funny...
I remember when they were putting in the mandatory "wear your seatbelt" laws, in order to get them passed in many states, they said specifically that you could NOT get pulled over for not wearing one, that it could not be a primary offense for stopping you.
Now, of course..it is.
And people wonder why I tend to be hesitant to grant the police/govt any new powers over me and new regulations.
I can't hardly think of a law passed that later wasn't expanded or used in creative new ways other than it was intended or sold to the public, in order to get it passed.
I remember when the idea behind installing passive restraint systems in all cars was to take care of people who didn't use seat belts. Then it turned out that if you didn't wear seat belts, the air bags would just kill you anyway. haha, funny.
I want a car where I can shift gears using an app on my iphone.
The best though is the self-generating reference. Wikipedia article goes up, magazine publishes article using Wikipedia. Said article is used as a citation to satisfy [citation needed].
That's an old trick. The Bush administration leaks "confidential facts" about Iraqi WMD from Chalabi or some such to Judith Miller, it gets front page attention in the New York Times, Cheney goes on TV next week referring to what the New York Times says about the danger of Iraqi WMD.
I guess nothing is reliable then, because we've pretty much had politics wrapped up in everything we've done since we left caves.
And that, sir, is why I continue to live in my cave.
Wikipedia is also a pretty good guide to facts regarding pornographic actresses.
Wikipedia just follows the arc of all human group endeavors. At first, a brilliant and beautiful concept, shared among a few who see its desirability and the general project plan, so to speak; and are willing to do what they have to to make it happen, and communicate amongst themselves well enough to organize their actions efficiently.
Others are recruited to the project; communication starts to slip; people have to be assigned defined roles, and jobs have to be assigned to specific people or groups; things fall between the cracks, wheels get invented multiple times with varying degrees of circularity, but things still progress.
Now people who just see something happening and want to be where the action is get on board; they don't have any real understanding or vision of the project, nor any real attachment to the goals. Some are useful, some are a net negative. Real progress is confined to small isolated groups who mimic the structure of the originating few; the "skunk works" phenomenon.
And finally, crazy people, criminals, etc. find an opportunity for predators in all those busy people and things begin to rot.
Most everything follows the same arc, from nations to religions to charities to law enforcement to businesses to open source projects.
I haven't been able to get hoaxial cable at low prices since Radio Shack closed down.
Wikipedia's problem is the Napoleon problem - there are a bunch of self-important "editors" who want to exercise extreme control over everything so you get a lot of people who would contribute who are just turned off by the political factors involved in editing Wikipedia.
Wikipedia created this problem for itself, and now they are learning that they won't get people involved or to donate when they are treated poorly.
Vandalism, however meticulous, is a minor problem. You, however, point out a larger problem; you can't beat crazy. Crazy will go down fighting to the death over the placement of a comma.
When I proposed to my wife, I hoped she would say yes; so when she didn't, I froze her severed head in liquid nitrogen in the HOPE that in time she would change her mind.
Two major flaws of thinking:
one, "believing that, because MUCH is possible, then it follows that EVERYTHING must be possible."
The other; believing that because it's obvious that 99% of something is BS, then it follows that the other 1% must also be BS.
"Rammer" by Larry Niven, 1971: The future is annoyed at the past for leaving them all these corpsicles which expect to be revived and supported, so they give you a few days to express some sign of possibly being useful to society in some way and if not, then...... Most get the ...... option.
It is junk science, some creatures can indeed be frozen and revived because of unique properties of their physiology. Humans cannot.
In fact, by decapitating this girl and digging her brain out of her skull, they've guaranteed she is forever dead.
So we're very unlikely to be able thaw her brain and have it work again.
But that's not the only option. Even in a brain frozen and turned into mush there will still be a lot of information preserved, how do you know that preserved information is insufficient to recreate a human consciousness?
Remember we're potentially talking about hundreds of years in the future, it's entirely plausible to assume we're talking a full theory of consciousness with nanites and a brains uploaded into computers. Are you really so certain consciousness couldn't be extracted from those brains?
"I don't know how to clone a nose" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
...no?
There's no way to make any sense out of a fully decomposed corpse. There's understood ways to make some sense out of frozen cells.
For your assertion to be correct, we have to assume that the damage done to cells during the vitrification process is somehow much worse and irreversible than the wholesale consumption of those cells by microorganisms and/or the complete decomposition of the majority of organic compounds, and that the structural preservation brought about by vitrification is not helpful in any way.
Granted, we don't know future tech. But it seems like a super good guess that one of these things will be true:
1)- Today's cryo patients are forever dead, AND anyone else who dies today and is not preserved is forever dea. 2)- Today's cryo patients could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech, but anyone else could not be. 3)- Anyone, living or dead, could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech.
The case where "Those who decay can be revived, but cryo patients cannot" seems EXTREMELY unlikely- less likely than (2) and (3), both of which are pinned on thin hopes to begin with.
There is also the question as to why future generations will find it desirable to revive those long dead who have neither any resources to finance their existence nor any sort of experience which will prepare them for the world in which they find themselves awake. Imagine if cryogenics had begun in the past and the awakening process had been perfected now. "I'm able to read and write and in the past I have been able to support myself as a scribe. Hey, is that fellow an escaped slave? Shouldn't his master be notified?"
What does Nick have to do with all this?
PR plus lack of obvious public disdain = I guess it must be worth a try.
You'd have better luck trying to clone the kid.
The difference is, when you've been a faithful Catholic for 20 years, and tithed the whole time and whatever else, they don't take you aside one day and say "Hey, here's the super-duper secret Bible that almost no one gets to look at. You're going to love the chapter where after Jesus' resurrection, grey aliens from Proxima 9 took him on a 2-millienium mission to the stars."
Scientology does just that. If you have no idea, going in, about what thetans are, or where they come from, you don't find out about them until you're so invested in Scientology that it's very difficult to break away from it. "It has to be true, look how much time and money I've invested in it."
And that's another thing.
Let's say, for whatever reason, that I want to study up on Christianity. Well, one option that a lot of churches have are discussion groups/classes on it, especially for people who are converting to that church.
A lot of those classes are pretty cheap, if not outright free, and here's the important bit. You don't actually have to take them. I could, right now, walk into practically any church in the country and join, for free.
In Scientology, if you want to learn more (or are peer-pressured to do so), every class costs money. The higher you go, the pricier the classes. Oh, but you can get around some of the costs by signing a billion-year contract.
Yeah, that's all completely normal and above board.
(picturing Dana Carvey in drag) "And who told you all this, hmm??? Could it be...... Thetan?"
I always tithe, but God doesn't want it.
end of each month I take my money and throw it in air, whatever God wants he can take, whatever lands on ground I keep.
so far he's never wanted any.
You just asking for a tornado, boy. (humor)
You're kvetching about giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with, I have yet to see why we should acknowledge it as actually being a religion.
You're preaching to the choir condemning Scientology, I doubt you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you there. I certainly don't. That said, can you at least acknowledge the frightening potential for abuse if we empower some Government bureaucrat to determine what is and is not a legitimate religion? How do you draw the line? There's no objective test. You can't go by age, that shuts out LDS, UUism, Wiccans, and a bunch of others. There's a lot of people that would welcome them being shut out, but I'm sure that's not what you're advocating for.
The only fair way to do it would be to treat all non-profit corporations (which is how all churches are incorporated in the US) the same. Leave religion out of it. If you want to tighten the rules for non-profit corporations you might find more support, there's plenty of abuse there, mostly in the secular world, but it's still a tough needle to thread.
I miss the Church of the Subgenius.
With most religions they are more than willing to give me copies of their holy books some are quite persistent (look at you Mormons) so I don't think they would care about the copyright thing as they just want more people to have their stuff. Scientology on the other hand basically is the BMG CD club of religion.
The Book of Mormon was originally published in 1830, so the text is in the public domain. The current copyright covers things like the page layout, chapter headings, footnotes, and the study guides. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints protects its copyright holdings religiously. The Church wants to "flood the earth" with copies of the Book of Mormon, but wants to make sure that any Book of Mormon in circulation is accurate. We give a copy of the Book of Mormon to anyone who accepts a visit from our missionaries and promises to read from it. Missionaries assume most people they come in contact with are already Christian so don't give out copies of the Bible (in fact, missionaries need to obtain special permission to teach non-Christians).
I've been in a couple of hotel rooms where the Book of Mormon shared a drawer with the Bible.