The "war on drugs" results in increased violence which increases the risk for everyone, not just the drug users. If the government was really concerned about the safety of drug users they could legalize and regulate everything and make it much safer. So far that hasn't happened.
I'm impressed that Dread Pirate Roberts paid a doctor to counsel people, I just don't think that the government will be.
Here in Canada the federal government tried to shut down a safe injection site in Vancouver. The site operated by the provincial government provided IV drug users with a safe place to shoot up. Everything need, except the drugs, was available there.. There were nurses present to offer help and advice, and to deal with any overdoses. The end result was (provably) fewer deaths among IV drug users. That made no difference to the federal government, they still wanted to shut the site down. Fortunately when they took the province to court, they lost - since there was proof of fewer deaths it was considered a health care issue, which is completely up to the province
Technically, no they didn't need to use Lego to do this. But it was probably easier to build using Lego. And much easier for them to provide the plans for how to build it that anyone else can easily follow. (Which they do.)
It would be neat if the Lego picked up the idea and put together a special set that other people could purchase to make it even easier.
I pointed out the ideal gas law to show just how well understood it is. Not simply saying that cooling the air will reduce the pressure, but here's how you could calculate exactly how much difference it would make. (I really can't see how you could think pointing out the ideal gas law would be disagreeing with you.)
OK, so I guess I'm wrong, the NFL has no experience with inflating footballs. There are multiple balls inflated for each of the many games each week throughout the season and this has been going on for quite a few years, but they still don't really know anything about inflated leather balls. Right.
The behaviour of the gas is described nicely by the ideal gas law: PV/T is constant, where P is the pressure of the gas, V is the volume and T is the temperature. (T must use a scale relative to absolute zero.)
The best answer here is to do a bunch of experiments, not a bunch of calculations.
The NFL has plenty of experience in dealing with inflating footballs. It's pretty hard to believe that they don't understand what's going on. They should be well aware of the effects of cooling on both the ball and the air inside it. It's not like they recently started using inflated leather balls.
"we're required to charge ourselves for data usage by us"
And saying that it costs nothing to transmit our bits to our customers but transmitting someone else's bits does cost money is more reasonable?
I guess it's because all of their competitors are still using those old style fat bits that clog up their network, while they themselves are using the new style teflon coated slimmer bits that flow much more readily through the network.
After hearing about the grilled cheese sandwich that looks like the virgin Mary I read this headline and the image that comes to mind is a roast turkey where the pattern of browning on the skin sort of looks like an image of the prophet Muhammad.
Then I think Facebook is being biased. If they allowed pictures of the virgin Mary grilled cheese then they shouldn't censor pictures of the Muhammad roast turkey.
Then I imagine extremists shouting "death to the turkey!"
(News can me so much more entertaining if you allow yourself to be creative.)
The gospels are not evidence that Jesus really did exist.
If you think they are, then do you accept that the Twilight books are evidence that vampires actually exist? Do you think that the Harry Potter books are evidence that wizards and magic actually exist?
Of course you'll say those are just fiction. Wait about hundred years, then have a few people write new books based on those books. Then wait a few thousand years and see what people will make of them.
What about the intent to use/sell counterfeit chips?
As was said above for a different issue. (Intent) must be proven. Proving someone used/sold a counterfeit chip is not enough. To prove intent you have to prove that they knew it was counterfeit.
I went to Apples site and looked around - there were no side views to be seen - hmm.
AC points out that there is a side view and provides a link.
frnic:
I followed it and found none of the "edited" photos you claim are there. I found ONE photo that showed the iPhone from an angle that showed the camera bulge and the bulge was there...
Your original claim was that there was no view from the side. There clearly is. So it sounds like you are accusing someone of having created fake photos, rather than showing photos from the Apple site.
The camera bulge is not visible in that photo. Maybe, as some suggest, the angle is such that the lens is not visible. Or maybe the photo was edited. But you were trying to deny that there were any photos from the side - the AC pointed out that there is, it's the fourth image on the page. That's true whether coming from an AC or a logged in user.
I don't see anywhere in the AC's post where he says the photos were edited. Nor did he claim that there were no photos in which the bulge is visible. So one can at least wonder if that photo was edited. You were trying to claim there was no photo to wonder about.
I guess it was for the 13% of people who got the wrong answer. I liked the following quote in the CBC article:
"While 87 per cent knowing that the earth goes around the sun is pretty good, that still leaves 13 per cent of Canadians that haven't absorbed the scientific knowledge of several centuries ago," Ingram said.
It was also a pretty tough question for the Catholic church for quite a long time. And their top guy is supposed to have a direct line to the guy who created the universe.
And then there are also plenty of people who still have problems with the second question, about humans evolving from earlier species.
I live near the border and I can see all the wealthy Canadians bypass the socialized system by coming down here with cash.
Now look across the border and see the non wealthy Canadians who still get treated* without going bankrupt just because they got sick. Who don't have to worry about what a trip to the doctor will cost when they need treatment. (*Get treated, including preventative care, without having to wait until problems become serious enough to justify a trip to the emergency room.)
The US health care system may be really good for the wealthy, but it really is not so good for the non wealthy people who can't afford it. We socialist Canadians think everyone should have health care.
The linked article is not very clear. There's much better coverage on the CBC site.
The study considered two different things, scientific literacy, and level of reservations towards science.
The "we depend too much on science..." was from the second part - about reservations towards science.
The science literacy part asked questions like:
Does the sun go around the earth or does the earth go around the sun?
Human beings as we know them today developed from earlier species of animals. True or false?
Electrons are smaller than atoms. True or false?
Your reason for doing something and whether or not you are brave or a coward are two very different things.
Suppose someone was willing to jump into a cage with multiple wild animals likely to attack them, just for the fame. Would you call them a coward?
In the case of Snowden he might refuse a deal because he doesn't trust the government. And many would say he's smart to do so, there are plenty of examples of the government and the NSA lying already.
Maybe they can't afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that's the case, we'll provide it.
Does that sound serious to you? I'm sure the part about them being willing to provide the cable is serious. The part about maybe Verizon not being able to afford the cable... probably not. Verizon are trying to get other people to pay for the service their customers are already paying them to provide. They have to justify that somehow. L3 seems to be pointing out how ridiculous Verizon is being. I was just piling on.
Oh and:
Not very apparent - seems confusing
I'm pretty sure that subtracting "seems confusing" from "Not very apparent" yields 0.;-)
Level3 also offered to pay for the necessary upgrades to Verizon hardware: "... these cards are very cheap, a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more
Verizon's response was "Ok, but these cards tend to wear out pretty quickly so we'll need you to pay that amount each month. 5,000 streams may sound like a lot, but they don't last very long. A person watches a few movies a week, maybe a couple of youtube videos per day, that's like 20 streams in one week, and that's only one customer. Before you know it, you've used up all 5,000 of those streams and the card needs to be replaced."
"Oh yeah, and if it's coming from Netflix then we're using twice as many streams. We use one stream from Netflix to us, then another stream from us to our customers. Maybe you should really pay us that amount every week."
This is interesting. I posted elsewhere the idea that something like a "striatum deficiency" (as you phrase it) may be the cause of my depression and frequent porn watching. I didn't think of ADHD, but a few years ago I was diagnosed as having ADHD.
As someone with a long history of depression and high intelligence I've spent quite a bit of time trying to understand my condition. One thing I've noted frequently is that I tend to derive less enjoyment than other people from most activities. (I think this is a cause of the depression rather than a result of it.) The most notable exception is sexual gratification, whether from sex with a partner or from masturbation. I don't find this surprising as I think that it is such a basic part of the way our brains are wired. Given that I am not in a relationship more often than I am, I frequently watch porn to masturbate.
So in my case, I'd say it seems likely that a deficiency in the part of the brain associated with reward processing causes a greater exposure to porn.
Fourthly, there's good reason to believe that at least some of the ones this week were started by (d-bag) arsonists.
The claim is that climate change is making the fires worse. That's very different than the question of how any one fire started.
Your argument is like pointing to a smoker killed in a car crash and saying "see, cigarettes don't cause cancer."
Maybe someone did start some of the fires. That's happened in the past as well. The real question is, are the fires worse now? From the article: in the 80's an average of 2.9 million acres burned each year, from 2010 to 2013 it was 6.4 million acres per year. That sounds quite a bit worse. Maybe the last few years were just unlucky years, or maybe the fires really are getting worse.
Maybe it's statements like yours from "non-scientists" arguing issues other than the ones raised that are confusing things.
But wind produces considerably less force at angles.
True, which is why that is not normally considered. But in this case the lack of support at the corners made the building particularly vulnerable to diagonal forces. That was the point I was trying to make with the Lego example. And if you're designing such an unusual building maybe you should consider more than just the first "first obvious choice" for what could go wrong.
LeMessurier had accounted for the perpendicular winds, but not the quartering winds.
With only the forces of the perpendicular winds considered and reported, the contractor's decision was ok. While it is true that the bolts were weaker than the welds would have been, they were strong enough to handle the forces the design specified. There's a quote by LeMessurier in the podcast that says this.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but not considering the effect of wind hitting the corners of the building seems unbelievable. With no support at the corners it seems obvious* that the easiest way to cause a failure would be to apply force directed towards a corner. TFA does say that wind at the corners is not usually an issue, but when designing something so radically different you have to consider the effects of those differences.
*For anyone who has ever played with Lego: imagine building something that looks like that building and think of the easiest way to push it over. Consider how you control the direction when felling a tree.
I also think that autonomous vehicles will be much safer than human-driven vehicles. We can keep making them better based on experience while on the other hand we would keep adding new inexperienced human drivers. I'm sure that we can correct any problems that we may find with early autonomous vehicles. I doubt that we'll ever be able to correct human distraction, emotional reactions, bad judgement and general stupidity.
Do you have any stats on the percentage of accidents caused by physical wear and tear on brakes rotors and axles? Or on the "other thousands of extraneous factors" that you've considered? How do those compare to the percentage caused by any sort of human error?
The following claims human error is the sole cause 57% of the time and a contributing factor 90% of the time, while mechanical fault is the sole cause only 2.4% of the time.
TheRaven64 says there are a million people with the same clearance level and asks what are the chances that none are Chinese agents. You counter by making them all sysadmins who are all* stealing other people's credentials. And you think he's using hyperbole?
The opposite of none is at least one, not all of them.
* I know you don't use the word "all" but it is clearly implied in what you wrote. Compare the following: "There are a million people who have cancer." and "There are a million people, some of whom have cancer."
Slashdot Mirror
The "war on drugs" results in increased violence which increases the risk for everyone, not just the drug users. If the government was really concerned about the safety of drug users they could legalize and regulate everything and make it much safer. So far that hasn't happened.
I'm impressed that Dread Pirate Roberts paid a doctor to counsel people, I just don't think that the government will be.
Here in Canada the federal government tried to shut down a safe injection site in Vancouver. The site operated by the provincial government provided IV drug users with a safe place to shoot up. Everything need, except the drugs, was available there.. There were nurses present to offer help and advice, and to deal with any overdoses. The end result was (provably) fewer deaths among IV drug users. That made no difference to the federal government, they still wanted to shut the site down. Fortunately when they took the province to court, they lost - since there was proof of fewer deaths it was considered a health care issue, which is completely up to the province
Technically, no they didn't need to use Lego to do this. But it was probably easier to build using Lego. And much easier for them to provide the plans for how to build it that anyone else can easily follow. (Which they do.)
It would be neat if the Lego picked up the idea and put together a special set that other people could purchase to make it even easier.
I pointed out the ideal gas law to show just how well understood it is. Not simply saying that cooling the air will reduce the pressure, but here's how you could calculate exactly how much difference it would make. (I really can't see how you could think pointing out the ideal gas law would be disagreeing with you.)
OK, so I guess I'm wrong, the NFL has no experience with inflating footballs. There are multiple balls inflated for each of the many games each week throughout the season and this has been going on for quite a few years, but they still don't really know anything about inflated leather balls. Right.
The NFL has plenty of experience in dealing with inflating footballs. It's pretty hard to believe that they don't understand what's going on. They should be well aware of the effects of cooling on both the ball and the air inside it. It's not like they recently started using inflated leather balls.
And saying that it costs nothing to transmit our bits to our customers but transmitting someone else's bits does cost money is more reasonable?
I guess it's because all of their competitors are still using those old style fat bits that clog up their network, while they themselves are using the new style teflon coated slimmer bits that flow much more readily through the network.
After hearing about the grilled cheese sandwich that looks like the virgin Mary I read this headline and the image that comes to mind is a roast turkey where the pattern of browning on the skin sort of looks like an image of the prophet Muhammad.
Then I think Facebook is being biased. If they allowed pictures of the virgin Mary grilled cheese then they shouldn't censor pictures of the Muhammad roast turkey.
Then I imagine extremists shouting "death to the turkey!"
(News can me so much more entertaining if you allow yourself to be creative.)
It's wrong to kill people, if you do so, we will execute you. (Slashdot is quite US centric and the US still uses the death penalty.)
The gospels are not evidence that Jesus really did exist.
If you think they are, then do you accept that the Twilight books are evidence that vampires actually exist? Do you think that the Harry Potter books are evidence that wizards and magic actually exist?
Of course you'll say those are just fiction. Wait about hundred years, then have a few people write new books based on those books. Then wait a few thousand years and see what people will make of them.
Again, I'd say that needs to be proven. Isn't the sequence generally something like:
chip maker -> device maker -> distributor -> retail chain -> local store -> cashier who actually carries out transaction -> buyer
Exactly how far along that chain does knowledge of counterfeit go?
As was said above for a different issue. (Intent) must be proven. Proving someone used/sold a counterfeit chip is not enough. To prove intent you have to prove that they knew it was counterfeit.
AC points out that there is a side view and provides a link. frnic:
Your original claim was that there was no view from the side. There clearly is. So it sounds like you are accusing someone of having created fake photos, rather than showing photos from the Apple site.
The camera bulge is not visible in that photo. Maybe, as some suggest, the angle is such that the lens is not visible. Or maybe the photo was edited. But you were trying to deny that there were any photos from the side - the AC pointed out that there is, it's the fourth image on the page. That's true whether coming from an AC or a logged in user.
I don't see anywhere in the AC's post where he says the photos were edited. Nor did he claim that there were no photos in which the bulge is visible. So one can at least wonder if that photo was edited. You were trying to claim there was no photo to wonder about.
I guess it was for the 13% of people who got the wrong answer. I liked the following quote in the CBC article:
It was also a pretty tough question for the Catholic church for quite a long time. And their top guy is supposed to have a direct line to the guy who created the universe.
And then there are also plenty of people who still have problems with the second question, about humans evolving from earlier species.
Now look across the border and see the non wealthy Canadians who still get treated* without going bankrupt just because they got sick. Who don't have to worry about what a trip to the doctor will cost when they need treatment. (*Get treated, including preventative care, without having to wait until problems become serious enough to justify a trip to the emergency room.)
The US health care system may be really good for the wealthy, but it really is not so good for the non wealthy people who can't afford it. We socialist Canadians think everyone should have health care.
The linked article is not very clear. There's much better coverage on the CBC site.
The study considered two different things, scientific literacy, and level of reservations towards science.
The "we depend too much on science..." was from the second part - about reservations towards science.
The science literacy part asked questions like:
Does the sun go around the earth or does the earth go around the sun?
Human beings as we know them today developed from earlier species of animals. True or false?
Electrons are smaller than atoms. True or false?
Your reason for doing something and whether or not you are brave or a coward are two very different things.
Suppose someone was willing to jump into a cage with multiple wild animals likely to attack them, just for the fame. Would you call them a coward?
In the case of Snowden he might refuse a deal because he doesn't trust the government. And many would say he's smart to do so, there are plenty of examples of the government and the NSA lying already.
Woosh? Continuing from the part I quoted:
Does that sound serious to you? I'm sure the part about them being willing to provide the cable is serious. The part about maybe Verizon not being able to afford the cable ... probably not. Verizon are trying to get other people to pay for the service their customers are already paying them to provide. They have to justify that somehow. L3 seems to be pointing out how ridiculous Verizon is being. I was just piling on.
Oh and:
I'm pretty sure that subtracting "seems confusing" from "Not very apparent" yields 0. ;-)
Verizon's response was "Ok, but these cards tend to wear out pretty quickly so we'll need you to pay that amount each month. 5,000 streams may sound like a lot, but they don't last very long. A person watches a few movies a week, maybe a couple of youtube videos per day, that's like 20 streams in one week, and that's only one customer. Before you know it, you've used up all 5,000 of those streams and the card needs to be replaced."
"Oh yeah, and if it's coming from Netflix then we're using twice as many streams. We use one stream from Netflix to us, then another stream from us to our customers. Maybe you should really pay us that amount every week."
This is interesting. I posted elsewhere the idea that something like a "striatum deficiency" (as you phrase it) may be the cause of my depression and frequent porn watching. I didn't think of ADHD, but a few years ago I was diagnosed as having ADHD.
As someone with a long history of depression and high intelligence I've spent quite a bit of time trying to understand my condition. One thing I've noted frequently is that I tend to derive less enjoyment than other people from most activities. (I think this is a cause of the depression rather than a result of it.) The most notable exception is sexual gratification, whether from sex with a partner or from masturbation. I don't find this surprising as I think that it is such a basic part of the way our brains are wired. Given that I am not in a relationship more often than I am, I frequently watch porn to masturbate.
So in my case, I'd say it seems likely that a deficiency in the part of the brain associated with reward processing causes a greater exposure to porn.
The claim is that climate change is making the fires worse. That's very different than the question of how any one fire started.
Your argument is like pointing to a smoker killed in a car crash and saying "see, cigarettes don't cause cancer."
Maybe someone did start some of the fires. That's happened in the past as well. The real question is, are the fires worse now? From the article: in the 80's an average of 2.9 million acres burned each year, from 2010 to 2013 it was 6.4 million acres per year. That sounds quite a bit worse. Maybe the last few years were just unlucky years, or maybe the fires really are getting worse.
Maybe it's statements like yours from "non-scientists" arguing issues other than the ones raised that are confusing things.
True, which is why that is not normally considered. But in this case the lack of support at the corners made the building particularly vulnerable to diagonal forces. That was the point I was trying to make with the Lego example. And if you're designing such an unusual building maybe you should consider more than just the first "first obvious choice" for what could go wrong.
No, they didn't.
With only the forces of the perpendicular winds considered and reported, the contractor's decision was ok. While it is true that the bolts were weaker than the welds would have been, they were strong enough to handle the forces the design specified. There's a quote by LeMessurier in the podcast that says this.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but not considering the effect of wind hitting the corners of the building seems unbelievable. With no support at the corners it seems obvious* that the easiest way to cause a failure would be to apply force directed towards a corner. TFA does say that wind at the corners is not usually an issue, but when designing something so radically different you have to consider the effects of those differences.
*For anyone who has ever played with Lego: imagine building something that looks like that building and think of the easiest way to push it over. Consider how you control the direction when felling a tree.
I also think that autonomous vehicles will be much safer than human-driven vehicles. We can keep making them better based on experience while on the other hand we would keep adding new inexperienced human drivers. I'm sure that we can correct any problems that we may find with early autonomous vehicles. I doubt that we'll ever be able to correct human distraction, emotional reactions, bad judgement and general stupidity.
Do you have any stats on the percentage of accidents caused by physical wear and tear on brakes rotors and axles? Or on the "other thousands of extraneous factors" that you've considered? How do those compare to the percentage caused by any sort of human error?
The following claims human error is the sole cause 57% of the time and a contributing factor 90% of the time, while mechanical fault is the sole cause only 2.4% of the time.
TheRaven64 says there are a million people with the same clearance level and asks what are the chances that none are Chinese agents. You counter by making them all sysadmins who are all* stealing other people's credentials. And you think he's using hyperbole?
The opposite of none is at least one, not all of them.
* I know you don't use the word "all" but it is clearly implied in what you wrote. Compare the following: "There are a million people who have cancer." and "There are a million people, some of whom have cancer."