Bleeding to death internally isn't a problem. It's effective and not painful. Your objection about it being passed on to other animals that eat the dead rats if much more valid. But dead rats stink terribly after awhile, and CO2 is heavier than air, so I don't think it's a good solution for your attic.
Warfarin is painless. What warfarin dies is cause your blood refuse to coagulate, so you are likely to bleed to death from even small scratches. People are often prescribed it for tachycardia to keep their blood from clotting, but they use carefully controlled amounts and they still bruise easily and must be wary of cuts.
Warfarin is also quite bitter, but rats don't taste bitter, so that's not a problem. The problem is that it's been used for so long that some rats are starting to become resistant to it, and they'll often die in inconvenient places.
Liquid Nitrogen might work as well, and would have better penetration ability, but it might be a bit harder to apply.
My suspicion is that CO2 poisoning isn't that horrible. Submarine crews during WWI and WWII frequently had to live in high CO2 concentrations, and while they were frequently fearful, their fear was usually of depth-charges...which was quite reasonable. I never heard reports that the CO2 itself was horrible, though it certainly wasn't described as pleasant. Headaches, etc. during the experience, e.g.
OTOH, liquid Nitrogen would probably induce hypo-oxygenation, which is commonly described as some sort of rapture.
You're correct. They should BOTH be illegal. The question is my mind is whether an officer of the law lying is worse than a CEO lying. It's clear, however, why a different CEO would think attempting to impersonate him for business advantage is worse. What's peculiar is that the law appears to agree so strongly with the CEO.
No. No. No. No. Steve Jobs never ever invented a product. He pushed others to invent products, he sold products, he evangelized product. He was important, he rescued Apple from bankruptcy, but he was not a product designer. He was a salesman and an art critic (in the wider sense of art). He demanded excellence, and often got it.
Steve Jobs was quite important, but he wasn't the company.
I don't have sources either, but there have been multiple stories in the past with multiple groups manipulating the press to the point of writing the stories that they print (often with minor changes). OTOH, bribery, as such, is rarely shown. It doesn't seem to be needed when a nicely written article suffices.
Actually I believe he was a CEO of a manufacturing company...let me check. OK, I was probably wrong: 'There's no such thing as bad publicity' is often associated with Phineas T. Barnum, the 19th century American showman and circus owner. Barnum was a... http://www.phrases.org.uk/mean...
In your particular example you exhibit a problem with this simplistic rule: Say for example, if you have a cereal called Nature's Best.
The problem here is that different people will consider different qualities to be "best" even in the context of a breakfast cereal. E.g.: "How much honey should it contain?" My answer would be none, but I know people who really believe that it should have enough to make it sticky...and they aren't all kids. Eg.: "Should it contain ground hemp?" I think most people would say no, but some would say it should be mainly hemp. Etc. You can go on like that for every proposed ingredient. My wife would strongly maintain that it should have absolutely no added salt. For me it should have less that 10 grams of non-fiber carbohydrate/serving. Etc.
Of course, parts of the US economy currently operate based on slavery. I'm talking here about the prison labor system rather than things that are only metaphorically slavery.
That's fair, but beside the point of the argument. The tactic is not inherently reprehensible. Merely extremely dangerous. If you use it when it isn't justified (how to tell?) then you lose any reasonable expectation of compromise to achieve your goals.
While you are correct, that's not necessarily a bad tactic. If I may quote from a previous generation "Give me liberty or give me death!".
I don't have to approve of every time the tactic is used to consider the tactic reasonable as a tactic. But if you don't use it in moderation, you are just reaffirming absolutist power in whoever is stronger with no compromise considered. Clearly any attempt to compromise with the current Republicans is a very bad move. They'll take, but they won't give. What;s been surprising was the length of time that it took the Democrats to even start to realize this. It makes me wonder if the Republicans weren't doing what they wanted to do, but didn't want to be publicly associated with.
Throwing them in jail doesn't remove them from the committee, it just makes them unable to attend meetings or vote on things. They could, of course, resign and allow someone else to be appointed.
Yes there is. They were given a subpoena and they refused to obey it. That's, IIUC, Contempt of Congress, and the penalty is whatever Congress decides. But even now it's clearly being asserted that a crime has been committed.
It was an implicit assumption. He never talks much about the mechanism of decision making, but there are various implicit assumptions. I suspect he was highly influenced by Plato's Republic to where he only became voluble in areas where he disagreed with Plato. And Plato's model wouldn't work without someone in charge of deciding. (Plato was a lousy politician, to the extent that he at one point accepted voluntary exile to avoid something worse.)
Ok. But SOMETHING other than what we're using needs to be done. Something that holds police responsible when they break the law...and not just an administrative punishment.
Every system has it's problems, but the current US police situation is actively preventing many neighborhoods from recovering. It's not really to the point (I don't think it is) where many neighborhoods would be better off without any police, but it's getting close. And it seems to be a system design problem more than a problem with individual officers (though that's involved too).
Unfortunately, while Marx saw the problem, his answer was a load of garbage. It is a system that would not work. The problem is it creates a system with centralized control by a human, and humans have a very long history of abusing such power. Even an oligarchy is better than a dictatorship.
The real promise of automation is that it might automate management. When that happens we only need to get the goals right and everything should work out fine. Of course, if we get the goals really wrong it's exit humanity, but we've already been within 30 seconds of nuclear war, so automated government may really be our best hope.
The problem is that there are lots of possible approaches, and generally a mixed strategy will be needed for this kind of problem. One possible solution that hasn't been tried is to give the local communities (which are generally neighborhoods rather than cities) more control over their local police. That would clearly not be sufficient, but it might well be a necessary ingredient.
Got a reference to that claim by Google? I suspect you are overstating their claims. I don't expect a real general AI for 5 years, minimum, and I'm still predicting that the self-improving one will be 2030 (but then I've been predicting that since around 2000).
If you want to say it was once more expensive, I'd be hard put to disagree with you, but I got out of college debt-free working summers at less than twice minimum wage, and part time during semesters at minimum wage. You can't do that now. Even the junior colleges have significantly increased their prices.
It's worse than that. The new skills that would currently lead to a job will take time to acquire. (Also support, and are also likely to be more difficult.) Say it would take 5 years. But the world doesn't stand still. During those 5 years new, more advanced robots will be introduced that will automate other job. Perhaps the one you're training for, but even if not they'll have increased the competition for that job, and therefore decreased the payoff in getting it.
And 5 years from then the job you've retrained for will itself be automated. (In case you haven't noticed, the rate at which robots are replacing people in jobs has been increasing...especially if you give "robot" a wide interpretation to include things like redesigning cashier stations to allow self-service checkout.
Why do there need to be "acceptable nudity policies"?
I generally consider people who worry about nudity to be sick, and I wouldn't object if they got free medical treatment for their problem (except I don't think there is any accepted medical treatment).
I also consider those who support most censorship to be sick, with a similar comment. There are a few cases where public safety does indicate that censorship is desirable. E.g., people's bank account numbers, instructions in how to weaponize anthrax, etc. But nudity? Be serious!
The argument is about whether they should be criticized, not about whether their actions were legal. If you want to talk about legal, then you need to consider "under the laws of which country". And would it be proper for a country to ban Facebook for doing this in favor of a local company which refrained? If not, why not?
You don't get into such things if you are just considering whether they should be criticized, and I feel that they should be severely and repeatedly criticized. I'd be willing to consider arguments that their actions were illegal, or possibly made them criminally liable for any illegal material posted on their site. (I know there aren't "common carriers" in the meaning of the legislation, but if they didn't exercise editorial control then there would be an argument for considering their position to be analogous. IANAL, so I don't know whether that kind of argument would hold any water, and in which countries...)
Slashdot Mirror
Bleeding to death internally isn't a problem. It's effective and not painful. Your objection about it being passed on to other animals that eat the dead rats if much more valid. But dead rats stink terribly after awhile, and CO2 is heavier than air, so I don't think it's a good solution for your attic.
Warfarin is painless. What warfarin dies is cause your blood refuse to coagulate, so you are likely to bleed to death from even small scratches. People are often prescribed it for tachycardia to keep their blood from clotting, but they use carefully controlled amounts and they still bruise easily and must be wary of cuts.
Warfarin is also quite bitter, but rats don't taste bitter, so that's not a problem. The problem is that it's been used for so long that some rats are starting to become resistant to it, and they'll often die in inconvenient places.
Liquid Nitrogen might work as well, and would have better penetration ability, but it might be a bit harder to apply.
My suspicion is that CO2 poisoning isn't that horrible. Submarine crews during WWI and WWII frequently had to live in high CO2 concentrations, and while they were frequently fearful, their fear was usually of depth-charges...which was quite reasonable. I never heard reports that the CO2 itself was horrible, though it certainly wasn't described as pleasant. Headaches, etc. during the experience, e.g.
OTOH, liquid Nitrogen would probably induce hypo-oxygenation, which is commonly described as some sort of rapture.
You're correct. They should BOTH be illegal. The question is my mind is whether an officer of the law lying is worse than a CEO lying. It's clear, however, why a different CEO would think attempting to impersonate him for business advantage is worse. What's peculiar is that the law appears to agree so strongly with the CEO.
No. No. No. No. Steve Jobs never ever invented a product. He pushed others to invent products, he sold products, he evangelized product. He was important, he rescued Apple from bankruptcy, but he was not a product designer. He was a salesman and an art critic (in the wider sense of art). He demanded excellence, and often got it.
Steve Jobs was quite important, but he wasn't the company.
I don't have sources either, but there have been multiple stories in the past with multiple groups manipulating the press to the point of writing the stories that they print (often with minor changes). OTOH, bribery, as such, is rarely shown. It doesn't seem to be needed when a nicely written article suffices.
Actually I believe he was a CEO of a manufacturing company...let me check. OK, I was probably wrong: ... http://www.phrases.org.uk/mean...
'There's no such thing as bad publicity' is often associated with Phineas T. Barnum, the 19th century American showman and circus owner. Barnum was a
I don't think a conspiracy is needed. It's unusual and exciting news on a slow news day, that's all that it takes.
In your particular example you exhibit a problem with this simplistic rule:
Say for example, if you have a cereal called Nature's Best.
The problem here is that different people will consider different qualities to be "best" even in the context of a breakfast cereal.
E.g.: "How much honey should it contain?" My answer would be none, but I know people who really believe that it should have enough to make it sticky...and they aren't all kids.
Eg.: "Should it contain ground hemp?" I think most people would say no, but some would say it should be mainly hemp.
Etc. You can go on like that for every proposed ingredient. My wife would strongly maintain that it should have absolutely no added salt. For me it should have less that 10 grams of non-fiber carbohydrate/serving. Etc.
But some did it more recently than others.
Of course, parts of the US economy currently operate based on slavery. I'm talking here about the prison labor system rather than things that are only metaphorically slavery.
That's fair, but beside the point of the argument. The tactic is not inherently reprehensible. Merely extremely dangerous. If you use it when it isn't justified (how to tell?) then you lose any reasonable expectation of compromise to achieve your goals.
You could reasonably argue that the contempt was justified. That's different from arguing that it isn't a crime.
While you are correct, that's not necessarily a bad tactic. If I may quote from a previous generation "Give me liberty or give me death!".
I don't have to approve of every time the tactic is used to consider the tactic reasonable as a tactic. But if you don't use it in moderation, you are just reaffirming absolutist power in whoever is stronger with no compromise considered. Clearly any attempt to compromise with the current Republicans is a very bad move. They'll take, but they won't give. What;s been surprising was the length of time that it took the Democrats to even start to realize this. It makes me wonder if the Republicans weren't doing what they wanted to do, but didn't want to be publicly associated with.
Throwing them in jail doesn't remove them from the committee, it just makes them unable to attend meetings or vote on things. They could, of course, resign and allow someone else to be appointed.
Yes there is. They were given a subpoena and they refused to obey it. That's, IIUC, Contempt of Congress, and the penalty is whatever Congress decides. But even now it's clearly being asserted that a crime has been committed.
It was an implicit assumption. He never talks much about the mechanism of decision making, but there are various implicit assumptions. I suspect he was highly influenced by Plato's Republic to where he only became voluble in areas where he disagreed with Plato. And Plato's model wouldn't work without someone in charge of deciding. (Plato was a lousy politician, to the extent that he at one point accepted voluntary exile to avoid something worse.)
Ok. But SOMETHING other than what we're using needs to be done. Something that holds police responsible when they break the law...and not just an administrative punishment.
Every system has it's problems, but the current US police situation is actively preventing many neighborhoods from recovering. It's not really to the point (I don't think it is) where many neighborhoods would be better off without any police, but it's getting close. And it seems to be a system design problem more than a problem with individual officers (though that's involved too).
Unfortunately, while Marx saw the problem, his answer was a load of garbage. It is a system that would not work. The problem is it creates a system with centralized control by a human, and humans have a very long history of abusing such power. Even an oligarchy is better than a dictatorship.
The real promise of automation is that it might automate management. When that happens we only need to get the goals right and everything should work out fine. Of course, if we get the goals really wrong it's exit humanity, but we've already been within 30 seconds of nuclear war, so automated government may really be our best hope.
Perhaps the wrong approach is being adopted?
The problem is that there are lots of possible approaches, and generally a mixed strategy will be needed for this kind of problem. One possible solution that hasn't been tried is to give the local communities (which are generally neighborhoods rather than cities) more control over their local police. That would clearly not be sufficient, but it might well be a necessary ingredient.
Not rap exactly, but look into the history of Mili-Vanilli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and Hatsune Miku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Got a reference to that claim by Google? I suspect you are overstating their claims. I don't expect a real general AI for 5 years, minimum, and I'm still predicting that the self-improving one will be 2030 (but then I've been predicting that since around 2000).
If you want to say it was once more expensive, I'd be hard put to disagree with you, but I got out of college debt-free working summers at less than twice minimum wage, and part time during semesters at minimum wage. You can't do that now. Even the junior colleges have significantly increased their prices.
It's worse than that. The new skills that would currently lead to a job will take time to acquire. (Also support, and are also likely to be more difficult.) Say it would take 5 years. But the world doesn't stand still. During those 5 years new, more advanced robots will be introduced that will automate other job. Perhaps the one you're training for, but even if not they'll have increased the competition for that job, and therefore decreased the payoff in getting it.
And 5 years from then the job you've retrained for will itself be automated. (In case you haven't noticed, the rate at which robots are replacing people in jobs has been increasing...especially if you give "robot" a wide interpretation to include things like redesigning cashier stations to allow self-service checkout.
Why do there need to be "acceptable nudity policies"?
I generally consider people who worry about nudity to be sick, and I wouldn't object if they got free medical treatment for their problem (except I don't think there is any accepted medical treatment).
I also consider those who support most censorship to be sick, with a similar comment. There are a few cases where public safety does indicate that censorship is desirable. E.g., people's bank account numbers, instructions in how to weaponize anthrax, etc. But nudity? Be serious!
The argument is about whether they should be criticized, not about whether their actions were legal. If you want to talk about legal, then you need to consider "under the laws of which country". And would it be proper for a country to ban Facebook for doing this in favor of a local company which refrained? If not, why not?
You don't get into such things if you are just considering whether they should be criticized, and I feel that they should be severely and repeatedly criticized. I'd be willing to consider arguments that their actions were illegal, or possibly made them criminally liable for any illegal material posted on their site. (I know there aren't "common carriers" in the meaning of the legislation, but if they didn't exercise editorial control then there would be an argument for considering their position to be analogous. IANAL, so I don't know whether that kind of argument would hold any water, and in which countries...)