Are you trying to say that if the death penality would have been an option, then these crimes would not have happened? Because that would be the only argument of any importance given the whole reason we have a punishing justice system at all is to prevent crime. Not to exact revenge. I really doubt these people willingly accepted 20+ years in prison, but would have reconsidered in fear of a death penality.
The punishment which acts as the best deterrant while still being reasonable is the most appropriate one. Not the one that 'feels' most appropriate.
As there is apparently (by looking at past data in countries switching from one form to another) little difference in the deterrant effect between long jail time and death penality on hard crime, it makes no sense to apply the latter one, which is riddled with all kinds of problems for society, both economic and ethical.
I agree that it may make sense to make the jail time itself more of a deterrant, but it is hard to get this factor to influence someone BEFORE they end up in jail, ie before they do the crime, which is what we really want.
In end to end encryption, my end point is my computing device, not my provider. I guess it would be nice if they also encrypted everything within their network (would maybe hide some routing information from listeners?), but that would not be sufficient.
To be fair, the topics they get to speak about are usually very basic, so if they are related to their fields at all, I guess they DO know those things.
For me, this is why I can't really stand watching them: I have never seen them talk about anything really new, or interesting. In every TV segment, they start off from zero and never get very far, or into much detail. I guess as actual scientists they do have their own research projects, or at least interests in more advanced topics. It would be interesting to hear them talk about that once in while. Or in general focus more on the open questions where the current science is done.
The whole cancer discussion aside, infrared sensors are passive. Warm objects radiate infrared by themselves. You don't shower houses in infrared... that's the sun's job. And I doubt it would help you looking through walls much.
If you have a camera which can record 360, then there is no need for a second camera to get 3D, provided your camera's point of view moves around in a circle about the size of a human head. While rotating a head 360 (do not try at home), there is no point of view which is exclusive to one eye. At some point your left eye will see the same thing your right eye saw a couple degrees of rotation earlier (or later). So you should have all the visual information you need from a single 360 recording.
A human standing upright is made up of a lot of parts stacked upon each other. If you increase the size of any of the parts, the human's overall height increases. For each part, there should be at least some individual genes.
From this thought, 700 seems like a pretty low number.
The definition is the same, but not the application.
Instead of looking at the state of order in the system, the article seems to be more interested in the transfer of information. That's what I read from their definition of what life is.
They were mostly wounded while killing, trying to kill, or assissting in killing other people (you know... combat). It is kind of a moot point discussing who the 'good guys' are in a war. However usually it is soldiers on both sides. A soldiers saving grace may be, that they are acting under orders and have limited choice in the matter. However for the same reason I do not see a point why they should have a priviliged status.
All things conssidered they rank pretty low on my sympathy list. Certainly much lower than a wounded cop for example, who was fighting actual criminals and certainly lower than people who were simply the victim of an accident or violence.
This is pretty much what 'unlauterer Wettbewerb' means: Fighting competition through illegal means, or gaining unfair advantage by not following the rules of the business. And it was decided by a court.
That's what we got religion for: No matter what 'we' realize, there will alwas be enough people wo believe something completely different for no reason, to keep the system going.
There are still other resources needed to produce other than work. Such as raw materials and energy. But work is the only resource most humans have to offer in exchange.
My car for example becomes absolutely hysteric if I place something on the passenger's seat, but do not plugin the safety belt. Loud warning noises over the speakers, blinking front display, getting increasingly urgent/annyoing if I do not prombtly react. Same reaction if I leave the driver's seat with the key still in the ignition, too.
And this is a middle class Opel Astra.
Yet this car with all its automation is oblivious to the empty driver''s seat?
Your product name must be at least 8 characters long, contain at least 1 of each of these: upper case letter, lower case letter, number, unprintable symbol, smilie-face, must not have meaning in any language and sound kind of cute."
Slashdot Mirror
Are you trying to say that if the death penality would have been an option, then these crimes would not have happened?
Because that would be the only argument of any importance given the whole reason we have a punishing justice system at all is to prevent crime. Not to exact revenge.
I really doubt these people willingly accepted 20+ years in prison, but would have reconsidered in fear of a death penality.
The punishment which acts as the best deterrant while still being reasonable is the most appropriate one. Not the one that 'feels' most appropriate.
As there is apparently (by looking at past data in countries switching from one form to another) little difference in the deterrant effect between long jail time and death penality on hard crime, it makes no sense to apply the latter one, which is riddled with all kinds of problems for society, both economic and ethical.
I agree that it may make sense to make the jail time itself more of a deterrant, but it is hard to get this factor to influence someone BEFORE they end up in jail, ie before they do the crime, which is what we really want.
In end to end encryption, my end point is my computing device, not my provider.
I guess it would be nice if they also encrypted everything within their network (would maybe hide some routing information from listeners?), but that would not be sufficient.
To be fair, the topics they get to speak about are usually very basic, so if they are related to their fields at all, I guess they DO know those things.
For me, this is why I can't really stand watching them:
I have never seen them talk about anything really new, or interesting.
In every TV segment, they start off from zero and never get very far, or into much detail.
I guess as actual scientists they do have their own research projects, or at least interests in more advanced topics. It would be interesting to hear them talk about that once in while. Or in general focus more on the open questions where the current science is done.
The whole cancer discussion aside, infrared sensors are passive.
Warm objects radiate infrared by themselves. You don't shower houses in infrared... that's the sun's job. And I doubt it would help you looking through walls much.
pew pew pew
So, the expensive parts of a drone are not the motors, electronics, battery, camera... but the chunk of plastics holding it all together?
Well, given we know the isotope ratios for at least these two planets in the solar system, it seems we do not have to assume.
If you have a camera which can record 360, then there is no need for a second camera to get 3D, provided your camera's point of view moves around in a circle about the size of a human head.
While rotating a head 360 (do not try at home), there is no point of view which is exclusive to one eye. At some point your left eye will see the same thing your right eye saw a couple degrees of rotation earlier (or later).
So you should have all the visual information you need from a single 360 recording.
But he produced a first post!
A human standing upright is made up of a lot of parts stacked upon each other.
If you increase the size of any of the parts, the human's overall height increases.
For each part, there should be at least some individual genes.
From this thought, 700 seems like a pretty low number.
German too.
Seems like this is another one of those random english quirks as it's not even consistent. Why is there no 'Identication' for example?
Considering the print itself can take hours, it hardly matters if the initial calculation takes a couple milliseconds, or minutes...
The definition is the same, but not the application.
Instead of looking at the state of order in the system, the article seems to be more interested in the transfer of information. That's what I read from their definition of what life is.
Pumping energy into a system does not necessarily the order of things.
Also even though the article also mentions therodynamics, shouldn't it be the information theory entropy that is used here?
'unlikely to be unusual' is a weird way to put it.
I understand that to be the same as 'likely to be usual', or as one would normally say: 'likely'.
So environments favorable to life are likely?
They were mostly wounded while killing, trying to kill, or assissting in killing other people (you know... combat).
It is kind of a moot point discussing who the 'good guys' are in a war. However usually it is soldiers on both sides. A soldiers saving grace may be, that they are acting under orders and have limited choice in the matter.
However for the same reason I do not see a point why they should have a priviliged status.
All things conssidered they rank pretty low on my sympathy list.
Certainly much lower than a wounded cop for example, who was fighting actual criminals and certainly lower than people who were simply the victim of an accident or violence.
Wasn't this theory debunked like 50 years ago?
This is pretty much what 'unlauterer Wettbewerb' means:
Fighting competition through illegal means, or gaining unfair advantage by not following the rules of the business.
And it was decided by a court.
So there.. exactly what you wanted.
The whole point of such a person would be, they are not showing symptoms,so how the duck are you going to find them?
That's what we got religion for:
No matter what 'we' realize, there will alwas be enough people wo believe something completely different for no reason, to keep the system going.
There are still other resources needed to produce other than work.
Such as raw materials and energy.
But work is the only resource most humans have to offer in exchange.
But... uhm... you need free light to 'see'.
So how could you see the light while it is still traveling inside the glass?
I wonder how this could be even possible.
My car for example becomes absolutely hysteric if I place something on the passenger's seat, but do not plugin the safety belt.
Loud warning noises over the speakers, blinking front display, getting increasingly urgent/annyoing if I do not prombtly react.
Same reaction if I leave the driver's seat with the key still in the ignition, too.
And this is a middle class Opel Astra.
Yet this car with all its automation is oblivious to the empty driver''s seat?
Which does not answer the question what the X stands for either, now does it?
"ERROR
Your product name must be at least 8 characters long, contain at least 1 of each of these: upper case letter, lower case letter, number, unprintable symbol, smilie-face, must not have meaning in any language and sound kind of cute."