This may be difficult to follow, but I think the "mentality" is that adding a certain amount of road noise will um save lives
So will outlawing cars. I don't see anyone seriously pushing for that.
Seriously, has there actually been any objective study that conclusively showed that electric cars are any more hazardous in this respect than a car with a new engine and a good muffler?
Get rid of the campus, and operate entirely online. Students take their courses online, they get graded online, and because there is no central meeting place, there is no place that would make an effective bomb target, whether a warning is given or not.
Noise outside the car is not required. The sound of tires on the road are already quite loud when the car is moving at anything higher than parking lot speeds.
And at low velocities, given a new conventional engine and a decent muffler, you might not head a conventional car approaching anyways... so there is no real difference, unless you are going to also propose that they outlaw good mufflers.
Noise inside the car is not required. An inexperienced driver is going to have to glance at a speedometer to know how fast they are going, and an experienced driver will be able to judge roughly how fast they are going by how quickly they appear to be passing things. The most you might need is a startup noise to inform the driver that the engine has successfully started... personally, I'd be partial to something along the lines of a bios POST beep, although I can easily see people wanting to use different (customizable) sounds for it.
Oh noes... the car is too quiet! It could sneak up on somebody before they hear it!!!!
Give me a break.
Seriously... this is just such a colossally stupid idea that it had to be dreamed up by lawyers.
In some newer conventional engine cars, you have to strain to listen for the engine, when its on a low speed. Are they going to now require that mufflers not cut out more than certain amount of sound?
And at higher speeds, you're going to hear the sound of the tires on the road LONG before you hear the sound of engine, unless, again, the engine is an older one or the muffler isn't doing it's job correctly.
Are they going to also require that bicycles have such noisemakers installed? What about motorized wheelchairs? Both can cause extremely serious injury to people when moving at high velocities.
This idea is just so incredibly stupid that it gives me a headache just trying to imagine the mentality of people who thought it was a good notion.
For aiming, it's only slightly worse than the dart style of paper plane, but this one has *WAY* more lift....when made correctly, a gentle toss can send it gliding almost perfectly straight for dozens of yards.
If you're going to work for a company that expects access to such accounts, then I would think that your best course of action is to just not have any such accounts. Even better is to just not work at such a company.
In at-will states, employers can fire you for pretty damn near any reason they want, or no reason at all. I'm pretty sure that not supplying them with access to your facebook account doesn't quality as some form of legal discrimination (even though they might be able to obtain some information from your facebook page that they could potentially discriminate on, I think you'd have to somehow show that searching for such information to discriminate against you for in your facebook profile was somehow at least a genuinely likely motive for asking for the login information).
They can't take your home away if you don't own it... and they can't garnish your wages below what is necessary to survive, taking into consideration standard costs of living in your area.
is made in the present tense, not the past. Whether the government is forcing them to do it or not is entirely irrelevant to the veracity of your above comment. At best, it may *HAVE* been the reason... but you can't still correctly say that it *IS* the reason..
There are standard identity checks that can get performed, even over the phone. Although it's not impossible that a person sufficiently close to you would know all of that information as well, presumably if they are that close to you, they aren't going to want to jerk you around and cost you any real money that you can't afford.
... patents on software and algorithms were no longer allowed, and all existing patents on them were declared null and void?
I hate software patents with all of my being, because I believe that they are equivalent to patenting mental steps (which supposedly cannot be patented, but even worse, effectively legislates what sort of ideas a person is allowed to think about or share with others). To that end, I'm curious what sort of repercussions there would actually be if they were simply dissolved. Would it cause, as advocates of software patents would tend to believe, a stifling of innovation, because companies with the money to do some cutting edge R&D would be less likely to invest in it when they know somebody else could potentially do the same thing later and they'd have no recourse? Or would it foster healthy competition among startups, and end up encouraging new ideas and innovation overall?
Clarke's law is that any sufficiently technology is indistinguishable from magic, not that any sufficiently advanced technology *IS* magic.
And as I said... real magic, if it could actually exist (which I know it cannot), I would expect to literally break any and all rules. It wouldn't be just advanced science, it would be, quite simply, magic... and nothing but.
Of course, the reverse corollary of Clarke's law also applies... that real magic would be indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology, so it stands to reason that even if real magic could exist, we might not recognize it for what it is, and would doubtless still attempt to find laws which govern its operation, just as we would with any newly discovered phenomena. With real magic, however, I would expect that odds are high such laws would ultimately reveal themselves to naught else but superstition rather than be genuine predictors of behavior. They might be still adequate for most purposes, however.
If it had predictable laws, then it wouldn't be magic... it would just be science that we don't understand yet.
Magic breaks laws. That's the whole point. If you really want to follow a predictable set of laws, you just use math and technology.
Were such magic to start actually working, its inability to be predicted or quantified into a finite set of laws that govern its operation could potentially limit magic's practicality for many tasks, but that does not mean it could not ever be useful.
You always pay a premium for a hybrid, one that can chew considerably into the overall price of the vehicle, and it's simply not as readily affordable.
If they were actually priced competitively with gasoline vehicles, you'd find way more people buying them... and probably more repeat buyers.
Where I live, quite a few people work in the nearby big city, but live in the outskirts, where housing is more affordable. This drives up commuting distance considerably, and 75 miles per day probably wouldn't cover a round trip for many people.. 150 miles most likely would though, except for people who live *really* far out.
You are conflating "Animated Dead" and "Raise Dead". The former specifically creates undead. The latter restores actual life, but doesn't regenerate tissue that couldn't otherwise be repaired by simple magical healing, thus leading to permanent scars.
The primary point of Resurrection (7th level, Cl) is to restore complete vitality and life to a subject. You may be confusing it with the spell Raise Dead (3rd level, Cl), which is a spell that creates the undead you refer to. Both are considered necromantic, so it's understandable that a novice might get them mixed up.
Given, however, that Jesus wounds were still visible after his resuscitation, the conditions are probably more in line with Raise Dead (5th level, Cl), which restores life, but does not actually regenerate any tissue.
The advantage of a humanoid robot, especially a bipedal one is that it can make use of tools and vehicles designed to be used by humans.
The idea of a non humanoid robot is so that it can make use of tools and vehicles that are *NOT* designed for human use, where if they were used usable by humans they would be less efficient, more costly to manufacture, etc.
The only real so-called advantage of a humanoid robot is that we simply don't know of any other form that is as adaptable to as wide a range of tasks. A single humanoid robot could potentially do many different things (an unbounded set of them, in fact), and would at most simply require changing its software to change tasks, where many specialized non-humanoid robots would otherwise be required to do various different things, and to perform a new task would require new hardware. This could mean that a humanoid robot can be cheaper in the long run, but again, that's only because we don't know of any other single form that is equally versatile. If the robot could change its physical shape to adapt specifically to the job being demanded, and there were no hardware limits what shapes it could take (other than perhaps precision), then that would probably be even better. Although I think we're a lot further from making a T-1000 style robot than we are from making an adaptable humanoid one.
As a Canadian, I'm torn between taking some sort of sadistic delight in seeing that the characteristic of elected representatives making decisions contrary to the electorate's desires is not a uniquely Canadian trait, and feeling genuine empathy for the USA in this situation.
After careful consideration, I'll go with the latter. It's a more PC.
Well... by too heavy, I mean that you end up having to use a higher power/mass ratio.
Obviously, with more lift you can lift anything, regardless of its mass. It's just that at some point, it's going to get so heavy that it's simply not worth the bother. I would have thought that, generally speaking, using a nuclear reactor as power for a drone would be crossing that line.
Slashdot Mirror
So will outlawing cars. I don't see anyone seriously pushing for that.
Seriously, has there actually been any objective study that conclusively showed that electric cars are any more hazardous in this respect than a car with a new engine and a good muffler?
Why would there be any dorms if there is no centralized campus?
Decentralize.
Get rid of the campus, and operate entirely online. Students take their courses online, they get graded online, and because there is no central meeting place, there is no place that would make an effective bomb target, whether a warning is given or not.
Noise outside the car is not required. The sound of tires on the road are already quite loud when the car is moving at anything higher than parking lot speeds.
And at low velocities, given a new conventional engine and a decent muffler, you might not head a conventional car approaching anyways... so there is no real difference, unless you are going to also propose that they outlaw good mufflers.
Noise inside the car is not required. An inexperienced driver is going to have to glance at a speedometer to know how fast they are going, and an experienced driver will be able to judge roughly how fast they are going by how quickly they appear to be passing things. The most you might need is a startup noise to inform the driver that the engine has successfully started... personally, I'd be partial to something along the lines of a bios POST beep, although I can easily see people wanting to use different (customizable) sounds for it.
You can just as easily be caught by surprise by a conventional engine car with a newer engine too. Should they also outlaw very good mufflers?
Oh noes... the car is too quiet! It could sneak up on somebody before they hear it!!!!
Give me a break.
Seriously... this is just such a colossally stupid idea that it had to be dreamed up by lawyers.
In some newer conventional engine cars, you have to strain to listen for the engine, when its on a low speed. Are they going to now require that mufflers not cut out more than certain amount of sound?
And at higher speeds, you're going to hear the sound of the tires on the road LONG before you hear the sound of engine, unless, again, the engine is an older one or the muffler isn't doing it's job correctly.
Are they going to also require that bicycles have such noisemakers installed? What about motorized wheelchairs? Both can cause extremely serious injury to people when moving at high velocities.
This idea is just so incredibly stupid that it gives me a headache just trying to imagine the mentality of people who thought it was a good notion.
For aiming, it's only slightly worse than the dart style of paper plane, but this one has *WAY* more lift....when made correctly, a gentle toss can send it gliding almost perfectly straight for dozens of yards.
If you're going to work for a company that expects access to such accounts, then I would think that your best course of action is to just not have any such accounts. Even better is to just not work at such a company.
In at-will states, employers can fire you for pretty damn near any reason they want, or no reason at all. I'm pretty sure that not supplying them with access to your facebook account doesn't quality as some form of legal discrimination (even though they might be able to obtain some information from your facebook page that they could potentially discriminate on, I think you'd have to somehow show that searching for such information to discriminate against you for in your facebook profile was somehow at least a genuinely likely motive for asking for the login information).
They can't take your home away if you don't own it... and they can't garnish your wages below what is necessary to survive, taking into consideration standard costs of living in your area.
is made in the present tense, not the past. Whether the government is forcing them to do it or not is entirely irrelevant to the veracity of your above comment. At best, it may *HAVE* been the reason... but you can't still correctly say that it *IS* the reason..
If that were the actual reason, then it should follow that it would not ever get implemented in the USA. Except that it *IS*.
There are standard identity checks that can get performed, even over the phone. Although it's not impossible that a person sufficiently close to you would know all of that information as well, presumably if they are that close to you, they aren't going to want to jerk you around and cost you any real money that you can't afford.
I hate software patents with all of my being, because I believe that they are equivalent to patenting mental steps (which supposedly cannot be patented, but even worse, effectively legislates what sort of ideas a person is allowed to think about or share with others). To that end, I'm curious what sort of repercussions there would actually be if they were simply dissolved. Would it cause, as advocates of software patents would tend to believe, a stifling of innovation, because companies with the money to do some cutting edge R&D would be less likely to invest in it when they know somebody else could potentially do the same thing later and they'd have no recourse? Or would it foster healthy competition among startups, and end up encouraging new ideas and innovation overall?
Clarke's law is that any sufficiently technology is indistinguishable from magic, not that any sufficiently advanced technology *IS* magic.
And as I said... real magic, if it could actually exist (which I know it cannot), I would expect to literally break any and all rules. It wouldn't be just advanced science, it would be, quite simply, magic... and nothing but.
Of course, the reverse corollary of Clarke's law also applies... that real magic would be indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology, so it stands to reason that even if real magic could exist, we might not recognize it for what it is, and would doubtless still attempt to find laws which govern its operation, just as we would with any newly discovered phenomena. With real magic, however, I would expect that odds are high such laws would ultimately reveal themselves to naught else but superstition rather than be genuine predictors of behavior. They might be still adequate for most purposes, however.
If it had predictable laws, then it wouldn't be magic... it would just be science that we don't understand yet.
Magic breaks laws. That's the whole point. If you really want to follow a predictable set of laws, you just use math and technology.
Were such magic to start actually working, its inability to be predicted or quantified into a finite set of laws that govern its operation could potentially limit magic's practicality for many tasks, but that does not mean it could not ever be useful.
No... it's not a fad. It's the high prices.
You always pay a premium for a hybrid, one that can chew considerably into the overall price of the vehicle, and it's simply not as readily affordable.
If they were actually priced competitively with gasoline vehicles, you'd find way more people buying them... and probably more repeat buyers.
Where I live, quite a few people work in the nearby big city, but live in the outskirts, where housing is more affordable. This drives up commuting distance considerably, and 75 miles per day probably wouldn't cover a round trip for many people.. 150 miles most likely would though, except for people who live *really* far out.
You are conflating "Animated Dead" and "Raise Dead". The former specifically creates undead. The latter restores actual life, but doesn't regenerate tissue that couldn't otherwise be repaired by simple magical healing, thus leading to permanent scars.
FWIW, the third level spell is Animate Dead.
The primary point of Resurrection (7th level, Cl) is to restore complete vitality and life to a subject. You may be confusing it with the spell Raise Dead (3rd level, Cl), which is a spell that creates the undead you refer to. Both are considered necromantic, so it's understandable that a novice might get them mixed up.
Given, however, that Jesus wounds were still visible after his resuscitation, the conditions are probably more in line with Raise Dead (5th level, Cl), which restores life, but does not actually regenerate any tissue.
Depends on the edition. In first edition AD&D, you actually gained some XP when your character was raised from the dead for the first time.
The idea of a non humanoid robot is so that it can make use of tools and vehicles that are *NOT* designed for human use, where if they were used usable by humans they would be less efficient, more costly to manufacture, etc.
The only real so-called advantage of a humanoid robot is that we simply don't know of any other form that is as adaptable to as wide a range of tasks. A single humanoid robot could potentially do many different things (an unbounded set of them, in fact), and would at most simply require changing its software to change tasks, where many specialized non-humanoid robots would otherwise be required to do various different things, and to perform a new task would require new hardware. This could mean that a humanoid robot can be cheaper in the long run, but again, that's only because we don't know of any other single form that is equally versatile. If the robot could change its physical shape to adapt specifically to the job being demanded, and there were no hardware limits what shapes it could take (other than perhaps precision), then that would probably be even better. Although I think we're a lot further from making a T-1000 style robot than we are from making an adaptable humanoid one.
As a Canadian, I'm torn between taking some sort of sadistic delight in seeing that the characteristic of elected representatives making decisions contrary to the electorate's desires is not a uniquely Canadian trait, and feeling genuine empathy for the USA in this situation.
After careful consideration, I'll go with the latter. It's a more PC.
I am Canadian, after all.
Well... by too heavy, I mean that you end up having to use a higher power/mass ratio.
Obviously, with more lift you can lift anything, regardless of its mass. It's just that at some point, it's going to get so heavy that it's simply not worth the bother. I would have thought that, generally speaking, using a nuclear reactor as power for a drone would be crossing that line.
Nuclear reactors aren't exactly lightweight... and one of the chief goals in running an efficient air vehicle is to minimize its mass.