Those are important, but for this particular case irrelevant. This is about the handling of the evidence and about how trustworthy the police are in that job. That can be impacted not only by malice, but also by having a rating that depends on how many arrests you make.
Think carefully about what you're asserting. Are there any "good" countries? There are certainly countries that are worse than others, but I can't think of one that I could comfortably label "good". Doctoring of the evidence has been widely reported from countries that are normally considered "good" by posters on this site.
But are the mug shots of sufficient quality for this system? IIUC they will all be from the same angle (or pair of angles) and against the same background.
There's also the question of whether it is used in learning mode, and many AI programs do learning and use in two separate modes, and they don't learn from data encountered in use mode.
It still seems to me as if he's understating the problems with the system...but I only read the summary.
That said, even with reliable systems the police have a history of jimmying them to come up with the answers they desire, even if it means counterfeiting evidence. It's not clear to me how often they are complicit in labs producing false evidence. (That often seems to be a combination of laziness and carelessness, combined with no repercussions for fraud.)
It's quite reasonable to distrust them, but you need to remember the organization they're joining already contains Microsoft as a "Platinum Member", so I doubt they'll make things worse.
The "Linux Foundation" has long been more like an arm of the Chamber of Commerce than a supporter of Free Software.
Unfortunately, several modern computer languages do just that. Rust even does that and claims to be secure. (True, it's the tool chain, not the base language. I'm not sure that makes things better.)
I'm sure someone could come up with some other use for it. But its primary purpose is specifically to defeat a device intended to protect the lives of people, many of which are not the user. (If it only endangered the user of the device, I'd be OK with it.)
This is a human factors design problem, and Tesla made a bad design decision. People have a lot of trouble focusing attention on a task where they all they do is pay attention and not do anything. What the correct decision is may be arguable, but it will involve people acting whenever they're supposed to be paying attention.
Yeah, and depending on the size that might be significant. With a really large one, though, impact energy is the problem unless you can REALLY spread things around, probably to the extent that most if it will miss us this time around.
A prior respondent suggested that this might be done with multiple nuclear explosions, and "maybe". The problem is you only get one chance to change the velocities of the pieces, so the follow on has to count on vaporizing them. You're after heat rather than explosive force, and not just radiant heat, as that only affects the surface, and is gone too quickly to penetrate. I think that this could probably be done with a custom designed nuclear weapon, but I think it's not the designs we've been building.
Now with a 15 year lead there are several approaches that have been suggested that might work, particularly as with that much lead time you only need to nudge the orbit a trifle. The closer it gets, the worse the problem. If you could get the bomb the 5 years before impact, then exploding it just off to one side would probably change the orbit in time, particularly if you didn't break it up. But it we only see it 5 years ahead of time, it's likely to take us that long to decide what to do. And breaking it up when it's close isn't going to help much unless you also spread it a lot. Most of those things are rubble piles, though, and they break up when the hit the air anyway, but that doesn't do much to their momentum. A significant shock would probably require burying the explosive well under the surface...which is something that we haven't even done to a minor extent on an asteroid. (I think that there was one attempt that ran into trouble when the drill had it's solar cells end up in the shade...but that was *REALLY* minor compared to burying a significant bomb.)
You better know the composition and structural strength if you're going to decide that a nuclear blast would do more good than harm.
If it were largely methane type stuff, then a nuclear blast off to one side would likely be better than direct impact. If it's iron, you'd better think of another approach.
P.S.: Breaking it into fragments doesn't reduce the impact energy. It may cause it to spread, but it won't reduce it. (Of course, some of the fragments may have their orbit altered enough to miss us this time around...)
P.P.S.: Please consider that for a large impactor an ocean strike is much worse than a land strike. If it lands in the middle of a large city, most life will survive, even though the city doesn't. (Unless some idiot decides it's an attack by a foreign government.) The dinosaur killer was as bad as it was because it landed in the ocean near the shore. (I don't know if deep water would have been better or worse.)
OTOH, the most likely impactors aren't extinction event initiators. Most of them are at most city city killers. Or only a tiny bit worse. For those we might be better off if they land in the ocean.
An additional consideration is that we don't get to choose. But how bad any particular event is depends heavily on just where it hits. If the dinosaur killer had hit in the middle of a continent, we probably would all be dinosaurs. (Possibly intelligent ones, but still, dinosaurs.)
Currently the answer is "no" whether they detect it in advance or not. I suppose if they found that something was on a collision course in 5 years they *MIGHT* be able to do something, but given current knowledge the something they could do would be as likely to make things worse as better.
If there were 15 years warning, and goals didn't change with each election, then something reasonable could probably be done.
Potassium is more likely. It's often found in metabolism, and is actively concentrated by life. Then there's Carbon14, which is built right into the foundation, and when it decays to Nitrogen the configuration of the molecule is required to change.
Of all the CHON components, Carbon is the one most susceptible to radioactive decay. Deuterium is stable, and Tritium has too short a half-life to persist in the environment (and is also rare for other reasons). But Carbon14 is made all the time in the atmosphere at a rate which replenishes the supply as it decays.
N.B.: This kind of change is quite unlikely to have initiated life, but may have played a part in its evolution.
This may eventually count as an early result from which something useful can be developed, but the odds aren't really that good. (Also, it's not the first such result...though I found just using a piece of yarn as the lure to be interesting.)
Using the word "all" there is really weird. I couldn't argue if you said reducing diseases was extremely important, but other things are also important.
OTOH, the question in my mind was "What does this section of DNA do besides allowing the virus access?". It's true that it's possible it has no valid function, but this is unlikely. Much DNA that's been called "junk" has turned out to have important functionality when more closely examined. Of course, some hasn't. Some was never functional, like the gene that eventually turned into one yielding our third cone variety. That was from a accidental duplication of one of the pre-existing cone specifying genes. And some was only useful in an ancestor, like the genes for eyes in fish that have long lived inside caves.
Thinking about it, modern pigs have a very different lifestyle than do their wild ancestors, so there's probably lots of unused DNA in their genomes...but it would be interesting to know what the function of the deleted section was.
No, they DON'T serve the same masters. It's just that neither of them serve the voters. E.g., the Democrats are much more in the pocket of the RIAA and the MPAA than are the Republicans.
There exist Democrats who do not support Net Neutrality, and there exist Republicans that do. In neither case are they the majority within their party, but the arguments for/against Net Neutrality aren't along normal party lines.
Actually, that's true for a lot of measures that affect technology. You have to look at each politician independently. Some of them won't care much, and will adhere to the standard party line, others will have their own ax to grind. (Please note that I did not specify whether or not the party line should be adhered to...but there's usually a cost if you don't.)
That's not something only one side is guilty of. I'm sorry, but all the guilt is not on "the other side".
The criticism of the current government is, indeed, valid, and in recent decades the conservatives have tended to shout about liberal news more that conversely...but it's only relatively, and even that's not an "always true".
OTOH, it's more frequently true for "true conservatives", because they want to have things stay the way they are. (If you want things to change, you're not a conservative, no matter what label you apply to yourself. I'm moderately conservative, as I want to preserve the good features of the current situation. I'm not a real conservative because there are a number of ways I want things to change.)
Please note: Conservative is not part of the left-right spectrum. It's something separate. The left-right spectrum is about arguments over social humanitarianism vs. individual control. There's also a argument about centralized control vs. distributed control, but that one's usually conducted via sub-texts rather than explicitly. But note that both the "left" politicians (US definition) and the "right" politicians (again US definition) *act* to favor centralized control, whatever their rhetoric.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are important, but for this particular case irrelevant. This is about the handling of the evidence and about how trustworthy the police are in that job. That can be impacted not only by malice, but also by having a rating that depends on how many arrests you make.
Think carefully about what you're asserting. Are there any "good" countries? There are certainly countries that are worse than others, but I can't think of one that I could comfortably label "good". Doctoring of the evidence has been widely reported from countries that are normally considered "good" by posters on this site.
But are the mug shots of sufficient quality for this system? IIUC they will all be from the same angle (or pair of angles) and against the same background.
There's also the question of whether it is used in learning mode, and many AI programs do learning and use in two separate modes, and they don't learn from data encountered in use mode.
It still seems to me as if he's understating the problems with the system...but I only read the summary.
That said, even with reliable systems the police have a history of jimmying them to come up with the answers they desire, even if it means counterfeiting evidence. It's not clear to me how often they are complicit in labs producing false evidence. (That often seems to be a combination of laziness and carelessness, combined with no repercussions for fraud.)
It's quite reasonable to distrust them, but you need to remember the organization they're joining already contains Microsoft as a "Platinum Member", so I doubt they'll make things worse.
The "Linux Foundation" has long been more like an arm of the Chamber of Commerce than a supporter of Free Software.
Unfortunately, several modern computer languages do just that. Rust even does that and claims to be secure. (True, it's the tool chain, not the base language. I'm not sure that makes things better.)
I'm sure someone could come up with some other use for it. But its primary purpose is specifically to defeat a device intended to protect the lives of people, many of which are not the user. (If it only endangered the user of the device, I'd be OK with it.)
This is a human factors design problem, and Tesla made a bad design decision. People have a lot of trouble focusing attention on a task where they all they do is pay attention and not do anything. What the correct decision is may be arguable, but it will involve people acting whenever they're supposed to be paying attention.
Yeah, and depending on the size that might be significant. With a really large one, though, impact energy is the problem unless you can REALLY spread things around, probably to the extent that most if it will miss us this time around.
A prior respondent suggested that this might be done with multiple nuclear explosions, and "maybe". The problem is you only get one chance to change the velocities of the pieces, so the follow on has to count on vaporizing them. You're after heat rather than explosive force, and not just radiant heat, as that only affects the surface, and is gone too quickly to penetrate. I think that this could probably be done with a custom designed nuclear weapon, but I think it's not the designs we've been building.
Now with a 15 year lead there are several approaches that have been suggested that might work, particularly as with that much lead time you only need to nudge the orbit a trifle. The closer it gets, the worse the problem. If you could get the bomb the 5 years before impact, then exploding it just off to one side would probably change the orbit in time, particularly if you didn't break it up. But it we only see it 5 years ahead of time, it's likely to take us that long to decide what to do. And breaking it up when it's close isn't going to help much unless you also spread it a lot. Most of those things are rubble piles, though, and they break up when the hit the air anyway, but that doesn't do much to their momentum. A significant shock would probably require burying the explosive well under the surface...which is something that we haven't even done to a minor extent on an asteroid. (I think that there was one attempt that ran into trouble when the drill had it's solar cells end up in the shade...but that was *REALLY* minor compared to burying a significant bomb.)
According to the poster above this was a very small sample group consisting only of type 1 patients.
You better know the composition and structural strength if you're going to decide that a nuclear blast would do more good than harm.
If it were largely methane type stuff, then a nuclear blast off to one side would likely be better than direct impact. If it's iron, you'd better think of another approach.
P.S.: Breaking it into fragments doesn't reduce the impact energy. It may cause it to spread, but it won't reduce it. (Of course, some of the fragments may have their orbit altered enough to miss us this time around...)
P.P.S.: Please consider that for a large impactor an ocean strike is much worse than a land strike. If it lands in the middle of a large city, most life will survive, even though the city doesn't. (Unless some idiot decides it's an attack by a foreign government.) The dinosaur killer was as bad as it was because it landed in the ocean near the shore. (I don't know if deep water would have been better or worse.)
OTOH, the most likely impactors aren't extinction event initiators. Most of them are at most city city killers. Or only a tiny bit worse. For those we might be better off if they land in the ocean.
An additional consideration is that we don't get to choose. But how bad any particular event is depends heavily on just where it hits. If the dinosaur killer had hit in the middle of a continent, we probably would all be dinosaurs. (Possibly intelligent ones, but still, dinosaurs.)
Currently the answer is "no" whether they detect it in advance or not. I suppose if they found that something was on a collision course in 5 years they *MIGHT* be able to do something, but given current knowledge the something they could do would be as likely to make things worse as better.
If there were 15 years warning, and goals didn't change with each election, then something reasonable could probably be done.
Potassium is more likely. It's often found in metabolism, and is actively concentrated by life. Then there's Carbon14, which is built right into the foundation, and when it decays to Nitrogen the configuration of the molecule is required to change.
Of all the CHON components, Carbon is the one most susceptible to radioactive decay. Deuterium is stable, and Tritium has too short a half-life to persist in the environment (and is also rare for other reasons). But Carbon14 is made all the time in the atmosphere at a rate which replenishes the supply as it decays.
N.B.: This kind of change is quite unlikely to have initiated life, but may have played a part in its evolution.
Thorium reactors are still more theoretical than practical, though I think I've heard that India is working to change that.
Because it's essentially useless.
This may eventually count as an early result from which something useful can be developed, but the odds aren't really that good. (Also, it's not the first such result...though I found just using a piece of yarn as the lure to be interesting.)
I think you're assuming too high an efficiency for the Uranium extraction process.
Mod parent up as insightful!
More likely in the wild state they don't tend to catch the virus, because they don't live as close to other pigs that are infected.
It's inappropriate to nuke Bayer from orbit. Some of their facilities are near beautiful buildings.
Using the word "all" there is really weird. I couldn't argue if you said reducing diseases was extremely important, but other things are also important.
OTOH, the question in my mind was "What does this section of DNA do besides allowing the virus access?". It's true that it's possible it has no valid function, but this is unlikely. Much DNA that's been called "junk" has turned out to have important functionality when more closely examined. Of course, some hasn't. Some was never functional, like the gene that eventually turned into one yielding our third cone variety. That was from a accidental duplication of one of the pre-existing cone specifying genes. And some was only useful in an ancestor, like the genes for eyes in fish that have long lived inside caves.
Thinking about it, modern pigs have a very different lifestyle than do their wild ancestors, so there's probably lots of unused DNA in their genomes...but it would be interesting to know what the function of the deleted section was.
This reminds me of a short story by R. A. Lafferty, "The Doggone Highly Scientific Door". Read it.
Of course Lafferty was being silly, but that does mean he wasn't being serious.
P.S.: The guy had a valid contract, it just hadn't been entered into the new system...which also sort of matches the story.
They were both at fault in different ways.
No, they DON'T serve the same masters. It's just that neither of them serve the voters. E.g., the Democrats are much more in the pocket of the RIAA and the MPAA than are the Republicans.
There exist Democrats who do not support Net Neutrality, and there exist Republicans that do. In neither case are they the majority within their party, but the arguments for/against Net Neutrality aren't along normal party lines.
Actually, that's true for a lot of measures that affect technology. You have to look at each politician independently. Some of them won't care much, and will adhere to the standard party line, others will have their own ax to grind. (Please note that I did not specify whether or not the party line should be adhered to...but there's usually a cost if you don't.)
That's not something only one side is guilty of. I'm sorry, but all the guilt is not on "the other side".
The criticism of the current government is, indeed, valid, and in recent decades the conservatives have tended to shout about liberal news more that conversely...but it's only relatively, and even that's not an "always true".
OTOH, it's more frequently true for "true conservatives", because they want to have things stay the way they are. (If you want things to change, you're not a conservative, no matter what label you apply to yourself. I'm moderately conservative, as I want to preserve the good features of the current situation. I'm not a real conservative because there are a number of ways I want things to change.)
Please note: Conservative is not part of the left-right spectrum. It's something separate. The left-right spectrum is about arguments over social humanitarianism vs. individual control. There's also a argument about centralized control vs. distributed control, but that one's usually conducted via sub-texts rather than explicitly. But note that both the "left" politicians (US definition) and the "right" politicians (again US definition) *act* to favor centralized control, whatever their rhetoric.
They solve that problem by locking the kids in cages to minimize the need for childcare.