Not even close. China does the majority of their own coal.
I didn't say we sold them all of the coal they use. The point is, that we sell them all of the coal we produce, then it doesn't much matter who's burning it, climate-wise.
The pollution I blame on the US (and Europe, don't feel left out on the Asian peninsula!) is that WE let them get away with it. We buy their cheap, pollution producing crap. We buy it. And as long as we buy it, they will produce it. It is our pollution, whether you like it or not.
The measured rate of rise has been averaged out at 1.1 millimeters per year, so who in their right mind with the credentials to back it up would predict 20cm by 2100?
Honestly, at 1.1 mm per year, in a hundred years that gives you 11 cm. A projection of 20 cm is entirely reasonable. But don't actual numbers stand in your way or anything, because, you know, Benghazi. Or whatever.
No. That would be assuming you can go faster than the speed of light, without limits, which isn't the case.
Even if you were a massless particle, you would reach the speed of light in less than 1 year of accelerating at 1G, and then, you wouldn't be able to go faster.
Nope. GP was correct: note he said 30 years ship time You can accelerate at 1G indefinitely and you won't exceed the speed of light. You will asymptotically approach the speed of light, and time dilation will make the trip seem very short to the crew on board the ship.
Self driving cars are absolute nonsense. It requires intellect to decide whether an object is a plastic bear or a real bear about to enter the road, and has to be braked for. Any business/investment into this self driving car design field is setting themselves up for a major lawsuit because the basic principle is that you require artificial intelligence on par with a human to make the same correct decisions while driving, identifying objects and predicting their future behavior correctly. Even a dog's level won't cut it, as shepherds have dogs and sheep, and the trio exists well together, but dogs and sheep can't coexist, or at least wolves haven't figured out a way yet, and you need a human to decide things like we're gonna take that mountain pass yonder instead of the one over here. Alpha wolves and wolf packs make similar decisions, and a whole lot of wolf lives depend on a good or bad decision, in middle of winter, similar to the Donner Party back in the Oregon Trail/California Trail days. Even humans make horrible judgment calls sometimes which way to drive, or in an accident piling up in front of you which way to swerve, how are you gonna trust these decisions to a machine, or intellect less than a human? Driving is a matter of life and death. If anything you need a machine smarter than a human in comprehending the world around it, and predicting actions of objects like insane people as pedestrians, walking in the middle of the road. Saying you ran someone over "legally" does not fly far in court, just because someone crossed the street before you when they had red light and you had green, or stopped in the middle like Rain Man, you still have to judge for yourself what to do.
Well, I for one would totally totally feel better if you were replaced by a machine.
This is about infotainment systems, not self-driving cars.
I would certainly hope that any car with an "infotainment" system is self-driving, so that the driver isn't looking at the fucking "infotainment" instead of the road.
Any bets on how much of the "infotainment" is going to be ads?
Compare the geographic size and population density of the US with Japan, South Korea and Sweden. The US has a much larger rural population and much more space to cover. I'm not saying internet access in the US isn't abysmal, which it is. But I don't think that is a useful comparison for the majority of the US.
Which is why rural areas on the U.S. have no water or electricity, of course.
And this is one of my major gripes with modern western women: There is actual REAL BAD SHIT happening to women in this world. However, it's not happening in any 1st world country, but ya'll want to talk about patriarchy, the boy's club, and the horriblenogoodverybadthings you have to put up with when in reality you are the SAFEST, LEAST OPPRESSED, MOST ENTITLED group of females to ever grace this planet.
And the shit thing is, even after all that progress, they still have to put up with you.
This is an "ask Slashdot" article. A question has been asked by someone in real need. I wish I had a real answer, but I really am not up on the state of the art in the field. I do know a counter-productive non-answer when I see one and, in the described situation, posts like yours are exactly such.
We'll have to disagree on that one. Anybody trying to respond compassionately and effectively to the situation described should be considering the very real possibility that the condition is mostly irreversible. Of course it's going to come up if you choose to discuss it on a public forum, and there is nothing wrong with that. Quite the contrary: the fact that people so commonly respond with venom and denial to discussion of end-of-life planning is a massive problem, and contributes to unimaginable suffering for many, many people.
within certain limits; these absolutes you seem to be reasoning in don't play well with reality. To give a more extreme example, if you are involved in an accident in which you lose your genitals, and end up in intensive care for a short while, with little acute pain and a prognosis of full recovery, you don't get to decide to die because you dread staying a virgin forever.
Last I checked, losing your balls doesn't come with being unable to breathe on your own. You're accusing me of setting up strawmen?
Do any of you people grasp at all the fact that she may not be permanantly stuck in this state?
This is a totally fair point. Another totally fair point is that nobody should be diagnosing anybody over the internet. So allow me to clarify: instead of "her position" (nobody here knows exactly what that is), I would substitute "to have irreversible brain stem damage that left me in her position". That makes it rather a lot more hypothetical.
What part of "without being in constant agony" did you not understand?
Being in "constant agony" is nowhere specified in the ethical guidelines as a defining criterion for a best-interests analysis. You're simply pulling that out of your ass. And you continue to conflate withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment with euthanasia. They are two completely different things.
The basic standard, clearly articulated, is that the preferences of the patient are paramount. It's the patient who gets to decide what his or her level of suffering is, and whether or not it is reasonable to continue life-sustaining medical intervention. And yes, there is substantial precedent for this.
It continues to amaze me how human beings refuse to view death as part of the natural process of life, much to their own and society's detriment.
Totally, utterly incorrect. Even in the most liberal jurisdictions (I'm thinking Belgium and the Netherlands), pulling the plug on the life support system of a patient who has a reasonable prospect of regaining concsiousness and being able to communicate with her surroundings without being in constant agony is leaglly murder.
Fortunately for a lot of suffering people, you are completely full of shit. From the American Medial Association Code of Medical Ethics:
"The principle of patient autonomy requires that physicians respect the decision to forego life-sustaining treatment of a patient who possesses decision-making capacity. Life-sustaining treatment is any treatment that serves to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical condition [...] Even if the patient is not terminally ill or permanently unconscious, it is not unethical to discontinue all means of life-sustaining medical treatment in accordance with a proper substituted judgment or best interests analysis. "
So you are advocating pulling the plug on quadripelegics, because they have no motor control? You people disgust me. She has full consciousness and ability to think. She can communicate by blinking. Why don't they just ask her?
I certainly know for sure that if I were in her position, I would want the plug pulled. According to the OP, she is incapable of breathing on her own. There is no medical or ethical obligation to keep her on artificial life support against her wishes, or the wishes of her medical proxy if she is incapable of making a decision on her own. Pulling the plug is not euthanasia, it is simply allowing death to happen in a natural way. Death is as natural and normal as birth.
In this case, it appears that she has rudemintary communication ability. Agree that the sensible thing to do is ask her what she wants.
Slashdot Mirror
Not even close. China does the majority of their own coal.
I didn't say we sold them all of the coal they use. The point is, that we sell them all of the coal we produce, then it doesn't much matter who's burning it, climate-wise.
The pollution I blame on the US (and Europe, don't feel left out on the Asian peninsula!) is that WE let them get away with it. We buy their cheap, pollution producing crap. We buy it. And as long as we buy it, they will produce it. It is our pollution, whether you like it or not.
Don't forget that we also sell them the coal.
The measured rate of rise has been averaged out at 1.1 millimeters per year, so who in their right mind with the credentials to back it up would predict 20cm by 2100?
You mean aside from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
Honestly, at 1.1 mm per year, in a hundred years that gives you 11 cm. A projection of 20 cm is entirely reasonable. But don't actual numbers stand in your way or anything, because, you know, Benghazi. Or whatever.
nobody gets a Nobel Prize for dropping rocks off a tower.
Fuck.
Given that we're talking about Legos, I assume you meant "misogynistic, homophobic yellow guy brigade"?
They already made a Lego of the GGP.
Social Justice Warriors want to parade about the most trivial crap I tell you.
We'll stop when it's possible to release a female scientist Lego set without a bunch of benighted troglodytes whinging about it on Slashdot.
Does it come with a Lego Dean who can pay them less and deny them tenure when they have children?
No. That would be assuming you can go faster than the speed of light, without limits, which isn't the case.
Even if you were a massless particle, you would reach the speed of light in less than 1 year of accelerating at 1G, and then, you wouldn't be able to go faster.
Nope. GP was correct: note he said 30 years ship time You can accelerate at 1G indefinitely and you won't exceed the speed of light. You will asymptotically approach the speed of light, and time dilation will make the trip seem very short to the crew on board the ship.
Now calculate the reaction mass required.
Self driving cars are absolute nonsense. It requires intellect to decide whether an object is a plastic bear or a real bear about to enter the road, and has to be braked for. Any business/investment into this self driving car design field is setting themselves up for a major lawsuit because the basic principle is that you require artificial intelligence on par with a human to make the same correct decisions while driving, identifying objects and predicting their future behavior correctly. Even a dog's level won't cut it, as shepherds have dogs and sheep, and the trio exists well together, but dogs and sheep can't coexist, or at least wolves haven't figured out a way yet, and you need a human to decide things like we're gonna take that mountain pass yonder instead of the one over here. Alpha wolves and wolf packs make similar decisions, and a whole lot of wolf lives depend on a good or bad decision, in middle of winter, similar to the Donner Party back in the Oregon Trail/California Trail days. Even humans make horrible judgment calls sometimes which way to drive, or in an accident piling up in front of you which way to swerve, how are you gonna trust these decisions to a machine, or intellect less than a human? Driving is a matter of life and death. If anything you need a machine smarter than a human in comprehending the world around it, and predicting actions of objects like insane people as pedestrians, walking in the middle of the road. Saying you ran someone over "legally" does not fly far in court, just because someone crossed the street before you when they had red light and you had green, or stopped in the middle like Rain Man, you still have to judge for yourself what to do.
Well, I for one would totally totally feel better if you were replaced by a machine.
Well done, Sir. Well done.
This is about infotainment systems, not self-driving cars.
I would certainly hope that any car with an "infotainment" system is self-driving, so that the driver isn't looking at the fucking "infotainment" instead of the road.
Any bets on how much of the "infotainment" is going to be ads?
They had the same problem prior to the year 2000, so why wasn't this lesson already learned?
This. Especially once the predicted apocalypse brought the world to its knees. You'd think we would learn.
Compare the geographic size and population density of the US with Japan, South Korea and Sweden. The US has a much larger rural population and much more space to cover. I'm not saying internet access in the US isn't abysmal, which it is. But I don't think that is a useful comparison for the majority of the US.
Which is why rural areas on the U.S. have no water or electricity, of course.
You rock.
And this is one of my major gripes with modern western women: There is actual REAL BAD SHIT happening to women in this world. However, it's not happening in any 1st world country, but ya'll want to talk about patriarchy, the boy's club, and the horriblenogoodverybadthings you have to put up with when in reality you are the SAFEST, LEAST OPPRESSED, MOST ENTITLED group of females to ever grace this planet.
And the shit thing is, even after all that progress, they still have to put up with you.
Sorry for this long cri de coeur, but you guys are my peeps and the responses broke my heart.
Thanks for posting. Brave thing to do in this sort of toxic environment.
a blunt 4' long and 18" across
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to you newsletter.
This is an "ask Slashdot" article. A question has been asked by someone in real need. I wish I had a real answer, but I really am not up on the state of the art in the field. I do know a counter-productive non-answer when I see one and, in the described situation, posts like yours are exactly such.
We'll have to disagree on that one. Anybody trying to respond compassionately and effectively to the situation described should be considering the very real possibility that the condition is mostly irreversible. Of course it's going to come up if you choose to discuss it on a public forum, and there is nothing wrong with that. Quite the contrary: the fact that people so commonly respond with venom and denial to discussion of end-of-life planning is a massive problem, and contributes to unimaginable suffering for many, many people.
within certain limits; these absolutes you seem to be reasoning in don't play well with reality. To give a more extreme example, if you are involved in an accident in which you lose your genitals, and end up in intensive care for a short while, with little acute pain and a prognosis of full recovery, you don't get to decide to die because you dread staying a virgin forever.
Last I checked, losing your balls doesn't come with being unable to breathe on your own. You're accusing me of setting up strawmen?
Fuck you and goodbye.
Do any of you people grasp at all the fact that she may not be permanantly stuck in this state?
This is a totally fair point. Another totally fair point is that nobody should be diagnosing anybody over the internet. So allow me to clarify: instead of "her position" (nobody here knows exactly what that is), I would substitute "to have irreversible brain stem damage that left me in her position". That makes it rather a lot more hypothetical.
What part of "without being in constant agony" did you not understand?
Being in "constant agony" is nowhere specified in the ethical guidelines as a defining criterion for a best-interests analysis. You're simply pulling that out of your ass. And you continue to conflate withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment with euthanasia. They are two completely different things.
The basic standard, clearly articulated, is that the preferences of the patient are paramount. It's the patient who gets to decide what his or her level of suffering is, and whether or not it is reasonable to continue life-sustaining medical intervention. And yes, there is substantial precedent for this.
It continues to amaze me how human beings refuse to view death as part of the natural process of life, much to their own and society's detriment.
Forgot the link: http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/p...
Totally, utterly incorrect. Even in the most liberal jurisdictions (I'm thinking Belgium and the Netherlands), pulling the plug on the life support system of a patient who has a reasonable prospect of regaining concsiousness and being able to communicate with her surroundings without being in constant agony is leaglly murder.
Fortunately for a lot of suffering people, you are completely full of shit. From the American Medial Association Code of Medical Ethics:
"The principle of patient autonomy requires that physicians respect the decision to forego life-sustaining treatment of a patient who possesses decision-making capacity. Life-sustaining treatment is any treatment that serves to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical condition [...] Even if the patient is not terminally ill or permanently unconscious, it is not unethical to discontinue all means of life-sustaining medical treatment in accordance with a proper substituted judgment or best interests analysis. "
Italics mine.
So you are advocating pulling the plug on quadripelegics, because they have no motor control? You people disgust me. She has full consciousness and ability to think. She can communicate by blinking. Why don't they just ask her?
I certainly know for sure that if I were in her position, I would want the plug pulled. According to the OP, she is incapable of breathing on her own. There is no medical or ethical obligation to keep her on artificial life support against her wishes, or the wishes of her medical proxy if she is incapable of making a decision on her own. Pulling the plug is not euthanasia, it is simply allowing death to happen in a natural way. Death is as natural and normal as birth.
In this case, it appears that she has rudemintary communication ability. Agree that the sensible thing to do is ask her what she wants.
I am fairly certain that now that they're in college and looking at their peers, they appreciate the way they were raised.
Nah. They're probably passed out in a closet somewhere.