Nice word "rehabilitation. Where would this be done? How would you ensure the criminals take it seriously. How do you know rehabilitation does not take place while confined. We are talking about minimum security prison not supermax hell holes. Confinement in minimum security is there to force inmates to spend time thinking about what they did, to reevaluate their lives, and maybe decide to change them.
not exactly an irrational reaction to such abuse.
Wow, confinement in better conditions than many working poor live is abuse?
There is a very old saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
Punitive imprisonment is never effective at preventing future crimes (check out the recidivism rate!)
A couple of points; 1. Who is to say recidivism rates would not be higher of the prison sentence was not there. 2. Recidivism rate do not reflect the number of crimes prevented due to potential criminals not wanting to risk jail time.
There is nothing that you can take from someone that is more precious than years of their life, especially years in the prime of their life.
Exactly and maybe fewer crimes are being commuted because people do not want to risk losing those years.
Going out and physically taking a computer is very different than sitting behind a tor network and hacking. There are many black hat hackers who are averse to physical risk.
So you react to a situation that may be cleared by the time you get there and slow all traffic. I have seen some moron slow down while entering a green light because the light is red a block away and then speed up as it turns yellow. All that did was make me and the three cars behind me miss the current green. That red he slowed down for was green long before he got to that intersection. All traffic has mixed fast and slow regions. That is caused by traffic lights. Fast regions have green lights and slow regions have red lights. You concentrate on not using brakes and ignore the cars behind you.
To be a valid they would need to have at least three sample tested by each person. Some would be given 2 Earth whiskies, some 2 space whiskies, some 3 Earth whiskies and some 3 space whiskies. That way it is easier to weed out biases in this very subjective test. Presenting someone with two samples and asking what are the differences biases the tester towards finding differences when none exist.
There are a lot of probablies and guesses in that post. What I am looking for are facts.
I lay off the accelerator and coast till I come up to a safe distance behind them
Do you have to accelerate to get around them or do you follow them doing 30kmh in a 50kmh zone?
look it up, the studies are endless
I have tried to find on how cycling effect the CO2 production of vehicles that have to modify what they do to accommodate cyclists. I have not seen any. The studies I have seen are confined to comparing the effects of a cyclist vs a person driving a car. That is very different. None of these studies goes into how a cyclist effects the rest of traffic. What if a cyclist has 20% the impact of a car but the cyclist causes 20 cars to have 10% more impact. That means the cyclist has actually 220% the impact than a car.
If I see a cyclist in the distance, I lay off the accelerator and coast till I come up to a safe distance behind them - sometimes not having to touch the brake at all.
To put it another way you slow down traffic even before it is necessary so even fewer cars can make it through the next light and have to idle for the full duration and then accelerate to speed again. See the issue?
This is a rather different project. It is 636 condos, with some affordable housing and low-income apartments on 156-acres. They have plenty of room to work elsewhere while the paleontologists do their work. Most projects do not have that luxury.
Those "bad" decision make sense if you think of it in the context of planned obsolescence. Jobs wanted you to keep buying new toys as he made more money that way. Jobs had one objective in life; make money for Steve Jobs. He was an excellent flimflam man and many people fell for his "reality distortion field".
I have always wondered how much extra fuel is used and CO2 produced by vehicles having to putter along behind cyclists. Combine that with extra braking and acceleration needed to get around cyclist I wonder if bicycles are a positive or negative force with respect to greenhouse gasses.
There is no scenario in which a person is living long-term (decades) on Mars before we've made many, many short-term (~1-3 year) trips.
Take a look at the missions proposed for Mars. None of them have anyone coming back for a very long time. Until there is fuel production on Mars or in orbit around Mars no one is coming back.
Don't criticize the test for not fitting some imaginary mission profile you made up.
Pot, Pot. This is Kettle, Kettle. Colour check, over.
Test engineering is about replicating flight conditions as closely as possible, within technical, budgetary, and (in this case) ethical limitations.
There are also tests which are designed to destroy the test vehicle. That is the main difference between testing mechanical things versus testing people. One can not ethically test a human to destruction.
We could certainly learn something from this experiment that helps the design of future interplanetary spacecraft, or helps with crew selection, or informs training for handling the isolation.
Can we learn something? Yes. The issue is one year is not "long term". If you consider that a person may live on Mars for over thirty years (get there at 30 and live till 60) one year is very short. That would be like having someone run a mile and then say they would be fine running a marathon.
All I am saying is that we need to recognize that the long term outcome may be very different than a one year experiment.
The "program three sorting algorithms" is not just about the task at hand. It is designed to do the following; 1. Show that more than one method can have the same outcome. 2. Show the value of prototyping. 3. Show the value of testing and comparisons. 3. Show the value of optimization. The sort is uses because it is a well known problem and can be implemented by beginner programmers in a reasonable amount of time. The problem is that many teachers do not tell students why they are doing things. Programming assignments become merely hoops to jump through.
Is your point that we might as well not test anything until we do the real thing?
That is a little extreme. There are many tests that are valid. The issue is that anyone who think the isolation tests are valid on face value are incorrect. In this case there the testers may need to be very conscious of all small issues that come up as those small issues could become very big issues in the real scenario. They also need to have plans for when things go horribly wrong.
Alternatively, we could do controlled albeit imperfect tests to try to answer specific questions,
There will always be certain things that can not be tested when dealing with people. There has never been a controlled study on human isolation where the time frame is years and the end result is always death in isolation. Even death row inmates have physical contact with different people and get time outdoors without a spacesuit. Experiments like this just obscure that fact. We need to admit that we have no idea what will happen with a given set of people on Mars and that there is a very real risk of homicidal/suicidal actions by crew members. The ironic thing is that the tools needed by the still sane crew members to control these action are the same tools that can be used by the insane crew member(s) to perpetrate this actions.
This has worked pretty well for the aerospace industry for the past ~100 years.
This experiment calls itself a test of long term isolation. It is far from that. This would be like an aerospace firm saying they did a high speed test but only going half the designed speed. The researchers need to be clear about what they are really testing and not what they want to test.
That seems like a long list until you look at what is on that list. You are placing Atucha in the same category with Fukushima. At Atucha one worker was exposed above the annual limit. That is very different than a meltdown. Of that list there have been 3 releases of radioactivity. Three Mile Island of those was 35 years ago. Chernobyl was built 35 years ago. Technology changes and gets better over time.
There are a couple of issues that invalidate these experiments.
1. The experiment participants know that if things go wrong they will not die. There is always the possibility of opening the door and going home. This will cause participants to take more risks and be more open to other people's ideas. If an idea goes horribly wrong in Hawaii no one dies. That is not the case on Mars.
2. Linked to that is the fact that they will be going home. Most people can deal with a bad situation for a defined period of time. Considering that there probably will be no return trip from Mars people will be less tolerant of issues. For most people the answer to "can I live with that for a few months" is yes. If the questions is "can I live with that for the rest of my life" the number of yeses is much smaller.
When every decision is life threatening and may be permanent there is much more stress than an experiment which can be ended at any time. Sorry but "do it wrong and we will die" causes much more stress than "do it wrong and we go home".
PS, Sure we could set up scenarios where the participants could die but then ethics get involved and no government would allow it.
Someone can look at them and that would be government officials who has been allowed to do it by court order. They unseal the boxes, take the tapes out, look at them, return them to the box and reseal them.
How does she look at it when she wants if someone else is looking at it?
I never said she could look at them. Just because she can not look at them does not mean that nobody can.
How does she look at it with an OCR that puts the aggregates into a table without copying it?
Of course, what this argument reveals, if accurate, is that voting officials are routinely able to determine supposedly secret votes, as they have access to the voting records they refuse to reveal to the public.
There is a huge gap between "can" and " routinely able to". For example, certain people "can" run a mile in under 4 minutes but not everyone is "routinely able to". In the instance of these voting records it would take a lot of work to link a vote with a person. Any government agency doing this would probably have at least one whistle blower who would publicize the effort.
Since when did "not bulk copyable for free by anyone who makes a FOI request" equate to "secret"? Do you have any idea how much it would cost to copy all the tape she requested?
Slashdot Mirror
Typical left wing ideas with no practical way to apply them. Saying the word rehabilitation does not rehabilitate anyone.
I believe the word is rehabilitation.
Nice word "rehabilitation. Where would this be done? How would you ensure the criminals take it seriously. How do you know rehabilitation does not take place while confined. We are talking about minimum security prison not supermax hell holes. Confinement in minimum security is there to force inmates to spend time thinking about what they did, to reevaluate their lives, and maybe decide to change them.
not exactly an irrational reaction to such abuse.
Wow, confinement in better conditions than many working poor live is abuse?
There is a very old saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
Punitive imprisonment is never effective at preventing future crimes (check out the recidivism rate!)
A couple of points;
1. Who is to say recidivism rates would not be higher of the prison sentence was not there.
2. Recidivism rate do not reflect the number of crimes prevented due to potential criminals not wanting to risk jail time.
There is nothing that you can take from someone that is more precious than years of their life, especially years in the prime of their life.
Exactly and maybe fewer crimes are being commuted because people do not want to risk losing those years.
Just stop trying to defend punitive imprisonment.
What is your alternative?
Going out and physically taking a computer is very different than sitting behind a tor network and hacking. There are many black hat hackers who are averse to physical risk.
So you react to a situation that may be cleared by the time you get there and slow all traffic. I have seen some moron slow down while entering a green light because the light is red a block away and then speed up as it turns yellow. All that did was make me and the three cars behind me miss the current green. That red he slowed down for was green long before he got to that intersection. All traffic has mixed fast and slow regions. That is caused by traffic lights. Fast regions have green lights and slow regions have red lights. You concentrate on not using brakes and ignore the cars behind you.
To be a valid they would need to have at least three sample tested by each person. Some would be given 2 Earth whiskies, some 2 space whiskies, some 3 Earth whiskies and some 3 space whiskies. That way it is easier to weed out biases in this very subjective test. Presenting someone with two samples and asking what are the differences biases the tester towards finding differences when none exist.
There are a lot of probablies and guesses in that post. What I am looking for are facts.
I lay off the accelerator and coast till I come up to a safe distance behind them
Do you have to accelerate to get around them or do you follow them doing 30kmh in a 50kmh zone?
look it up, the studies are endless
I have tried to find on how cycling effect the CO2 production of vehicles that have to modify what they do to accommodate cyclists. I have not seen any. The studies I have seen are confined to comparing the effects of a cyclist vs a person driving a car. That is very different. None of these studies goes into how a cyclist effects the rest of traffic. What if a cyclist has 20% the impact of a car but the cyclist causes 20 cars to have 10% more impact. That means the cyclist has actually 220% the impact than a car.
If I see a cyclist in the distance, I lay off the accelerator and coast till I come up to a safe distance behind them - sometimes not having to touch the brake at all.
To put it another way you slow down traffic even before it is necessary so even fewer cars can make it through the next light and have to idle for the full duration and then accelerate to speed again. See the issue?
This is a rather different project. It is 636 condos, with some affordable housing and low-income apartments on 156-acres. They have plenty of room to work elsewhere while the paleontologists do their work. Most projects do not have that luxury.
Those "bad" decision make sense if you think of it in the context of planned obsolescence. Jobs wanted you to keep buying new toys as he made more money that way. Jobs had one objective in life; make money for Steve Jobs. He was an excellent flimflam man and many people fell for his "reality distortion field".
I have always wondered how much extra fuel is used and CO2 produced by vehicles having to putter along behind cyclists. Combine that with extra braking and acceleration needed to get around cyclist I wonder if bicycles are a positive or negative force with respect to greenhouse gasses.
Just what every project manager wants to hear, "Everybody go home we found some bones. We'll call you when you can come back".
Headline;
In New Study, HIV Prevention Pill Truvada Is 100% Effective
Summary;
This is encouraging news in the fight against AIDS, though it shouldn't be taken to mean the drug is perfectly effective.
Slashdot needs new editors.
There is no scenario in which a person is living long-term (decades) on Mars before we've made many, many short-term (~1-3 year) trips.
Take a look at the missions proposed for Mars. None of them have anyone coming back for a very long time. Until there is fuel production on Mars or in orbit around Mars no one is coming back.
Don't criticize the test for not fitting some imaginary mission profile you made up.
Pot, Pot. This is Kettle, Kettle. Colour check, over.
Test engineering is about replicating flight conditions as closely as possible, within technical, budgetary, and (in this case) ethical limitations.
There are also tests which are designed to destroy the test vehicle. That is the main difference between testing mechanical things versus testing people. One can not ethically test a human to destruction.
We could certainly learn something from this experiment that helps the design of future interplanetary spacecraft, or helps with crew selection, or informs training for handling the isolation.
Can we learn something? Yes. The issue is one year is not "long term". If you consider that a person may live on Mars for over thirty years (get there at 30 and live till 60) one year is very short. That would be like having someone run a mile and then say they would be fine running a marathon.
All I am saying is that we need to recognize that the long term outcome may be very different than a one year experiment.
The "program three sorting algorithms" is not just about the task at hand. It is designed to do the following;
1. Show that more than one method can have the same outcome.
2. Show the value of prototyping.
3. Show the value of testing and comparisons.
3. Show the value of optimization.
The sort is uses because it is a well known problem and can be implemented by beginner programmers in a reasonable amount of time.
The problem is that many teachers do not tell students why they are doing things. Programming assignments become merely hoops to jump through.
Is your point that we might as well not test anything until we do the real thing?
That is a little extreme. There are many tests that are valid. The issue is that anyone who think the isolation tests are valid on face value are incorrect. In this case there the testers may need to be very conscious of all small issues that come up as those small issues could become very big issues in the real scenario. They also need to have plans for when things go horribly wrong.
Alternatively, we could do controlled albeit imperfect tests to try to answer specific questions,
There will always be certain things that can not be tested when dealing with people. There has never been a controlled study on human isolation where the time frame is years and the end result is always death in isolation. Even death row inmates have physical contact with different people and get time outdoors without a spacesuit. Experiments like this just obscure that fact. We need to admit that we have no idea what will happen with a given set of people on Mars and that there is a very real risk of homicidal/suicidal actions by crew members. The ironic thing is that the tools needed by the still sane crew members to control these action are the same tools that can be used by the insane crew member(s) to perpetrate this actions.
This has worked pretty well for the aerospace industry for the past ~100 years.
This experiment calls itself a test of long term isolation. It is far from that. This would be like an aerospace firm saying they did a high speed test but only going half the designed speed. The researchers need to be clear about what they are really testing and not what they want to test.
Here is an article from 2010.
This is not a proof. Does the 90 year old chain smoker disprove that cigarettes cause cancer?
That seems like a long list until you look at what is on that list. You are placing Atucha in the same category with Fukushima. At Atucha one worker was exposed above the annual limit. That is very different than a meltdown. Of that list there have been 3 releases of radioactivity. Three Mile Island of those was 35 years ago. Chernobyl was built 35 years ago. Technology changes and gets better over time.
There are a couple of issues that invalidate these experiments.
1. The experiment participants know that if things go wrong they will not die. There is always the possibility of opening the door and going home. This will cause participants to take more risks and be more open to other people's ideas. If an idea goes horribly wrong in Hawaii no one dies. That is not the case on Mars.
2. Linked to that is the fact that they will be going home. Most people can deal with a bad situation for a defined period of time. Considering that there probably will be no return trip from Mars people will be less tolerant of issues. For most people the answer to "can I live with that for a few months" is yes. If the questions is "can I live with that for the rest of my life" the number of yeses is much smaller.
When every decision is life threatening and may be permanent there is much more stress than an experiment which can be ended at any time. Sorry but "do it wrong and we will die" causes much more stress than "do it wrong and we go home".
PS, Sure we could set up scenarios where the participants could die but then ethics get involved and no government would allow it.
How exactly did I lie?
Someone can look at them and that would be government officials who has been allowed to do it by court order. They unseal the boxes, take the tapes out, look at them, return them to the box and reseal them.
How does she look at it when she wants if someone else is looking at it?
I never said she could look at them. Just because she can not look at them does not mean that nobody can.
How does she look at it with an OCR that puts the aggregates into a table without copying it?
She can't without a court order as is the law.
Of course, what this argument reveals, if accurate, is that voting officials are routinely able to determine supposedly secret votes, as they have access to the voting records they refuse to reveal to the public.
There is a huge gap between "can" and " routinely able to". For example, certain people "can" run a mile in under 4 minutes but not everyone is "routinely able to". In the instance of these voting records it would take a lot of work to link a vote with a person. Any government agency doing this would probably have at least one whistle blower who would publicize the effort.
Since when did "not bulk copyable for free by anyone who makes a FOI request" equate to "secret"? Do you have any idea how much it would cost to copy all the tape she requested?
Look at and copy are very different things. She wants a copy.