The executive branch considers both to be either ornamental or objectively pro-terror; but RE: passwords and the 5th, my understanding is that judicial opinion has been rather muddled and decisions have gone both ways in various places, which counts as 'controversy' in my book.
I...hesitate... to appeal to public opinion because that seems to vacillate, among all but the most studiously consistent, between "The gummint is taking my rights!!!" and "I saw on TV that he did it, why can't we just lynch him?".
Of course there will be no government-mandated backdoors in this.
Why would there need to be? It is a matter of controversy whether passwords/phrases are protected from disclosure under the 5th amendment; but physical unlock fobs that can be seized definitely don't enjoy anything more than 4th amendment warrant requirements (and, on a bad day, probably not even that...) A physical fob makes the system markedly more accesssible to authorities, even ones acting within the law.
The difference between Joe Retirement who owns some slices in a mutual fund and hopes for the best and some of the more...exotic (and dangerous) market activity is rougly on par with the difference between 'people who live wooden houses' and 'people who build graphene-nanotube space elevators'(except that those would actually be an amazingly useful thing...). Both carbon-based structures? Sure. Otherwise similar, not so much.
If you can do that you've solved the fresh water problem, world wide.
We can it 'reverse osmosis' and it works just fine. Costs a hell of a lot more than just pumping up well water (and so is confined largely to locations where that isn't an option, or where you need your 'water' to actually be within 5 9s of being nothing but water); but it's totally doable.
With the exception of ones specifically designed for the purpose (which remain mostly theoretical and definitely unused), Nuclear bombs aren't really designed for radiation release, and definitely not the loads of messy decay products that you see with nuclear fuel rods that have been stewing in their own neutrons for months to years.
The initial blast is pretty dramatic, and certainly spreads whatever nuclear fuel isn't converted into energy all over the place; but for them to release as much radiation, and cause as much contamination, as a defective nuclear generator they'd have to be so large that they wouldn't fit on anything short of heroically large transport aircraft.
"The pill only seems to work on the physical side of things... and only part of that. It seems to work on aerobic exercise which means it wont do much for muscle development (read: bulking up), so you'll likely still need to be sweating and grunting for that one."
Oh, I don't have any significant optimism about the broader utility of this drug(heck, it might not even work on humans, or cause cancer, or horrifying hypertrophy of the muscles that control eye movement, or who knows what). I just objected to the notion that there was something 'wrong', immoral, or lazy about achieving exercise results by non-exercise means.
For the moment, if you want the benefits of exercise, you have to exercise. That much is to be admitted. If improvements in engineering obviated that requirement, though, all the better. Doing things the hard way isn't superior virtue, it's what you do because the easy way doesn't work.
It would have the same beneficial effects of SR9009 plus the laundry would always be done.
Amphetamines really put some pep in your step. Legal, too, if you can find a reasonably service-oriented shrink... Plus, they've been tested for safety on millions of children!
When you consider the morbidity and mortality inflicted by inactivity-related health conditions, being concerned about its effect on sports is pretty close to the attitude that somebody would need to say something like "I wouldn't want Korea to get embroiled in full scale war because it would probably increase RAM prices."
"Good for the welfare generation, maybe. Entitled little shits who want everything but don't want to put in the work."
Are boats just for lazy fucks who are too good to swim, and computers for people who lack the moral fiber for doing math in their heads?
Why is 'putting in the work', when an engineering solution (may, research is still preliminary) offer a labor saving method of solving the same problem? Is all of applied science and engineering immoral laziness, or is there some special virtue to sweating and grunting?
Aside from that, this use of chemical weapons is supposed to be more shocking than... beheading, which the Sunni rebels engage in?
If you pick them right, sure. War gasses aren't exactly inhalation anaesthetics in terms of how pleasantly they kill you. Plus, they tend to be substantially more efficient at working over an entire area than even somebody with a herculean capacity for decapitation could be.
Some of the really nice ones are even relatively persistent area denial tools, a class of weapon that has a particularly unenviable reputation when used in proximity to civilians(It's like a landmine; but causes agonizing chemical burns!).
The trick is knowing when the solution to pollution is dilution and when the solution to dilution is bio-accumulation...
Some pollutants do, indeed, dilute almost as neatly as a chem101 'concentrations of mixtures' exercise (some even better, if some quirk of the enviromnet causes them to form a nice insoluble, biologically inactive, precipate somewhere that nobody cares about). Others (most notoriously some of the nastier lipid soluble persistent organics) get hoovered up by the small fry and shunted in alarming concentrations to the apex predators in short order.
I have no idea which category the isotopes currently leaking fall into; but that's always the major variable.
TEPCO is pleased to announce that additional capacity has become available in one of the radioactive coolant storage tanks, a development certain to ease fears of a capacity shortage.
That would be why having field video would seem like a useful training tool: not because you can eliminate 100% of error; but because you don't want Joe The New Guy to encounter any more totally unexpected things than necessary, under conditions where fast responses count.
Given that a firefighters' job description includes "Rush into assorted private buildings with all due speed and an axe because they are on fire and/or contain somebody the paramedics are performing emergency maintenance on" there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the process for handling some of the footage they generate (I, for one, would be deeply vexed if somebody's helmet-cam of 'sleepy-looking guy runs out of house in underwear' turned me into a youtube star...); but the notion that those concerns rise to the level of banning cameras seems like transparent CYA, especially given the training utility of having a record of past fuckups to work with.
Ridiculous. Because the gov't want to promote electric cars, will we now see artificially high safety ratings on electric cars to promote sales? Since when did the gov't get into the marketing business?
Did you get served the secret version of the articles, the one that revealed that conspiracy? The only mention of electricalness contributing to the safety rating was the speculation that the freedom of layout afforded by not having a conventional engine block allowed them to build more crumple zone into the design.
(As for governments in the marketing business, that's actually a core function: states have been asserting the legitimacy of their power through marketing since that marketing involved alleging the favor of some cryptic figures from the Sumerian pantheon, with various modifications to suit the times and advances in efficiency (the high-water mark probably being 20th century nationalism, before that Ended Badly) over time.)
Given the number of 'apps' that are almost entirely just the creator's mobile website puked into a platform-appropriate application package, I suspect that the similarity will be very substantial indeed.
If you're creating an application that hasn't existed yet, you're instructing the computer as to how to do something, i.e., you're programming, i.e., you're creating code in one way or another. Either that, or the environment is so limited as to make the "write apps" part completely meaningless.
I suspect that Microsoft is, at very least, looking to make it trivial to write those 'Hey, I'm just going to wrap my website in an app for no reason' apps that are so horribly common these days. Other iOS and Android are rotten with the things, and Microsoft should know (based on what their customers do and have done with Access and Excel) how much demand there is for something that lets a relative noob slap a frontend on a database of some description.
It remains to be seen whether it will actually work or not; but it's a fairly reasonable scheme (although not one likely to lead to any terribly pleasant applications).
Your examples actually work very much against the premise that this would work on humans. We cannot encyst ourselves or self-altar our internal organization and chemistry, both of which your references do to accomplish the hibernation..
Oh, I'm very pessimistic about it working in humans, without truly remarkable advances (especially in neuroimaging before the subject dies, so you have something to work from); but SirGarlon asked "Show me the evidence that ressurecting a dead organism of any kind -- even a bacterium, even a plant -- will ever be possible. *Ever.*" and it seemed worth pointing out that a decent number of bacteria, and some larger organisms, achieve something close to resurrection without outside assistance. There are some interesting preliminary results on induced hibernation in mice (apparently, gassing them with hydrogen sulfide isn't always bad for their health...) Obviously, organisms that do it naturally have an advantage; but their existence suggests that the development of external assistance might be possible in principle.
For humans, though, where the major interest would be in preserving neural behavior with a high degree of accuracy, I'm not particularly optimistic about keeping bit rot at bay aggressively enough to still have 'the person' available to thaw at a later time. For other organs, you can handwave as much damage as you think future medical nanites or pluripotent stem cells or whatnot can fix; but the more brain structure you lose, the more underdetermined the hypothetical thawing process will be. If your regrowth/repair tech were good enough, you could get somebody out of the process; but if that somebody isn't the same as the person you iced, both being preserved and deicing the preserved get a lot less interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
The executive branch considers both to be either ornamental or objectively pro-terror; but RE: passwords and the 5th, my understanding is that judicial opinion has been rather muddled and decisions have gone both ways in various places, which counts as 'controversy' in my book.
I...hesitate... to appeal to public opinion because that seems to vacillate, among all but the most studiously consistent, between "The gummint is taking my rights!!!" and "I saw on TV that he did it, why can't we just lynch him?".
Of course there will be no government-mandated backdoors in this.
Why would there need to be? It is a matter of controversy whether passwords/phrases are protected from disclosure under the 5th amendment; but physical unlock fobs that can be seized definitely don't enjoy anything more than 4th amendment warrant requirements (and, on a bad day, probably not even that...) A physical fob makes the system markedly more accesssible to authorities, even ones acting within the law.
Umm, AC specifically praised the grandparent poster for not being a day trader.
The difference between Joe Retirement who owns some slices in a mutual fund and hopes for the best and some of the more...exotic (and dangerous) market activity is rougly on par with the difference between 'people who live wooden houses' and 'people who build graphene-nanotube space elevators'(except that those would actually be an amazingly useful thing...). Both carbon-based structures? Sure. Otherwise similar, not so much.
How do you filter a water soluble?
If you can do that you've solved the fresh water problem, world wide.
We can it 'reverse osmosis' and it works just fine. Costs a hell of a lot more than just pumping up well water (and so is confined largely to locations where that isn't an option, or where you need your 'water' to actually be within 5 9s of being nothing but water); but it's totally doable.
With the exception of ones specifically designed for the purpose (which remain mostly theoretical and definitely unused), Nuclear bombs aren't really designed for radiation release, and definitely not the loads of messy decay products that you see with nuclear fuel rods that have been stewing in their own neutrons for months to years.
The initial blast is pretty dramatic, and certainly spreads whatever nuclear fuel isn't converted into energy all over the place; but for them to release as much radiation, and cause as much contamination, as a defective nuclear generator they'd have to be so large that they wouldn't fit on anything short of heroically large transport aircraft.
"The pill only seems to work on the physical side of things... and only part of that. It seems to work on aerobic exercise which means it wont do much for muscle development (read: bulking up), so you'll likely still need to be sweating and grunting for that one."
Oh, I don't have any significant optimism about the broader utility of this drug(heck, it might not even work on humans, or cause cancer, or horrifying hypertrophy of the muscles that control eye movement, or who knows what). I just objected to the notion that there was something 'wrong', immoral, or lazy about achieving exercise results by non-exercise means.
For the moment, if you want the benefits of exercise, you have to exercise. That much is to be admitted. If improvements in engineering obviated that requirement, though, all the better. Doing things the hard way isn't superior virtue, it's what you do because the easy way doesn't work.
Only if the lights are on, and it's not for the express purpose of pumping out obnoxious children, or so I'm told.
It would have the same beneficial effects of SR9009 plus the laundry would always be done.
Amphetamines really put some pep in your step. Legal, too, if you can find a reasonably service-oriented shrink... Plus, they've been tested for safety on millions of children!
When you consider the morbidity and mortality inflicted by inactivity-related health conditions, being concerned about its effect on sports is pretty close to the attitude that somebody would need to say something like "I wouldn't want Korea to get embroiled in full scale war because it would probably increase RAM prices."
I, for one, might actually tune in if genetic engineering can bring us horrible, superhuman, freak-athletes.
"Good for the welfare generation, maybe. Entitled little shits who want everything but don't want to put in the work."
Are boats just for lazy fucks who are too good to swim, and computers for people who lack the moral fiber for doing math in their heads?
Why is 'putting in the work', when an engineering solution (may, research is still preliminary) offer a labor saving method of solving the same problem? Is all of applied science and engineering immoral laziness, or is there some special virtue to sweating and grunting?
It probably helps that Daddy Assad set an unhelpful example and suffered no particular consequences. That's probably a bit of a learning experience.
Aside from that, this use of chemical weapons is supposed to be more shocking than... beheading, which the Sunni rebels engage in?
If you pick them right, sure. War gasses aren't exactly inhalation anaesthetics in terms of how pleasantly they kill you. Plus, they tend to be substantially more efficient at working over an entire area than even somebody with a herculean capacity for decapitation could be.
Some of the really nice ones are even relatively persistent area denial tools, a class of weapon that has a particularly unenviable reputation when used in proximity to civilians(It's like a landmine; but causes agonizing chemical burns!).
The trick is knowing when the solution to pollution is dilution and when the solution to dilution is bio-accumulation...
Some pollutants do, indeed, dilute almost as neatly as a chem101 'concentrations of mixtures' exercise (some even better, if some quirk of the enviromnet causes them to form a nice insoluble, biologically inactive, precipate somewhere that nobody cares about). Others (most notoriously some of the nastier lipid soluble persistent organics) get hoovered up by the small fry and shunted in alarming concentrations to the apex predators in short order.
I have no idea which category the isotopes currently leaking fall into; but that's always the major variable.
TEPCO is pleased to announce that additional capacity has become available in one of the radioactive coolant storage tanks, a development certain to ease fears of a capacity shortage.
That would be why having field video would seem like a useful training tool: not because you can eliminate 100% of error; but because you don't want Joe The New Guy to encounter any more totally unexpected things than necessary, under conditions where fast responses count.
Members of the department are still forbidden to refer to bumper-mounted cameras on any department vehicles as 'the squish cam'.
Given that a firefighters' job description includes "Rush into assorted private buildings with all due speed and an axe because they are on fire and/or contain somebody the paramedics are performing emergency maintenance on" there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the process for handling some of the footage they generate (I, for one, would be deeply vexed if somebody's helmet-cam of 'sleepy-looking guy runs out of house in underwear' turned me into a youtube star...); but the notion that those concerns rise to the level of banning cameras seems like transparent CYA, especially given the training utility of having a record of past fuckups to work with.
Ridiculous. Because the gov't want to promote electric cars, will we now see artificially high safety ratings on electric cars to promote sales? Since when did the gov't get into the marketing business?
Did you get served the secret version of the articles, the one that revealed that conspiracy? The only mention of electricalness contributing to the safety rating was the speculation that the freedom of layout afforded by not having a conventional engine block allowed them to build more crumple zone into the design.
(As for governments in the marketing business, that's actually a core function: states have been asserting the legitimacy of their power through marketing since that marketing involved alleging the favor of some cryptic figures from the Sumerian pantheon, with various modifications to suit the times and advances in efficiency (the high-water mark probably being 20th century nationalism, before that Ended Badly) over time.)
Given the number of 'apps' that are almost entirely just the creator's mobile website puked into a platform-appropriate application package, I suspect that the similarity will be very substantial indeed.
If you're creating an application that hasn't existed yet, you're instructing the computer as to how to do something, i.e., you're programming, i.e., you're creating code in one way or another. Either that, or the environment is so limited as to make the "write apps" part completely meaningless.
I suspect that Microsoft is, at very least, looking to make it trivial to write those 'Hey, I'm just going to wrap my website in an app for no reason' apps that are so horribly common these days. Other iOS and Android are rotten with the things, and Microsoft should know (based on what their customers do and have done with Access and Excel) how much demand there is for something that lets a relative noob slap a frontend on a database of some description.
It remains to be seen whether it will actually work or not; but it's a fairly reasonable scheme (although not one likely to lead to any terribly pleasant applications).
Why is the case history salient when deciding whether or not a dead person's organs should be used?
The whole 'execution' phase seems like the place where the ethical problems would reside.
Your examples actually work very much against the premise that this would work on humans. We cannot encyst ourselves or self-altar our internal organization and chemistry, both of which your references do to accomplish the hibernation..
Oh, I'm very pessimistic about it working in humans, without truly remarkable advances (especially in neuroimaging before the subject dies, so you have something to work from); but SirGarlon asked "Show me the evidence that ressurecting a dead organism of any kind -- even a bacterium, even a plant -- will ever be possible. *Ever.*" and it seemed worth pointing out that a decent number of bacteria, and some larger organisms, achieve something close to resurrection without outside assistance. There are some interesting preliminary results on induced hibernation in mice (apparently, gassing them with hydrogen sulfide isn't always bad for their health...) Obviously, organisms that do it naturally have an advantage; but their existence suggests that the development of external assistance might be possible in principle.
For humans, though, where the major interest would be in preserving neural behavior with a high degree of accuracy, I'm not particularly optimistic about keeping bit rot at bay aggressively enough to still have 'the person' available to thaw at a later time. For other organs, you can handwave as much damage as you think future medical nanites or pluripotent stem cells or whatnot can fix; but the more brain structure you lose, the more underdetermined the hypothetical thawing process will be. If your regrowth/repair tech were good enough, you could get somebody out of the process; but if that somebody isn't the same as the person you iced, both being preserved and deicing the preserved get a lot less interesting.
Oh, compared to a Fox News talking head. That stings. Hard.