Another tragedy is that it's often illegal to build housing in industrial zones where land is cheap and close to jobs.
While I'm with you on building cheap apartments or making a granny flat, I'd ask West, TX about the benefits to building housing in/near industrial zones.
Accidents, explosions, spills, and just general pollution makes living in most industrial areas a poor choice.
And thus your privacy is well respected because you're incognito because your phone died due to lack of battery.
This protects your privacy in many ways, since all the other apps can no longer track you, and you don't have to worry about pesky phone calls - making or receiving them.
Uber has no business learning about the state of your phone battery. It doesn't need it and it's YOUR private, personal confidential information that poor software design let Uber steal. They don't tell you about the desperate need for cash by their drivers because their rent is due and they would accept ANY fair.
They don't? I'm pissed at my current phone because the thing is too dumb to throttle down on it's battery usage when the battery is getting low, so it ends up dead a lot of the time.
I'm actually happy that the Uber app apparently has a working low battery mode, which helps conserve battery life. That you'd prefer it run full throttle until your phone dies is your thing.
Indeed. Throw me into that briar patch farmer Brown!
Yes, Uber has been showing that all that regulation is rather useless compared to a free market solution that follows some reasonable rules/regulations.
Care to post a link? Because what I read and experienced (having both a son and a daughter) contradicts what you state.
1. Sure, here you go. I said a lot of reading, remember? 2. You do realize that anecdote is different than data, right? I stuck qualifiers in there like 'average' and 'basically' for very specific reasons.
1) obsessed with the cars and planes (we bought our daughter all kinds of them, because, fuck 'girl/boy' toys model) 2) tends to speak less and has inferior language ability in general 3) shows next to no interest in listening to stories, unless there is a car or a plane involved, his sister would eagerly listen and then repeat the story ("read" the book) 4) is much much less cautious than sister
Your #1 is right in line with expected behavior for a male child. Also, your noting that you bought your daughter 'all kinds' is ALSO right in line with expected, because as I noted, the observed behavior with children was that males tended to go for 'male' toys almost exclusively, while females went for both. 2. I didn't address this, now did I? Also, easily explained by individual variances between children. 3. Again, individual variance, and actually in agreement with my posted theory. Narrower interests for men, remember? 4. Different caution - I didn't address this either. Where's the contradiction?
DNA is what really makes us different, why should we behave the same?
... Didn't I just get done saying that we don't behave the same? I mean, I was outlining detected differences in toy preference! Still, some WTF in your posts.
1a. Define "unique chromosomal pattern", because the only real difference is XX vs XY. Women don't have any genes that men don't, though hormones make them express differently. 1b. Outliving men is a known issue, not sure of it's relevance here. 1c. Citation on the 140 males conceived? I know about the 105 to 100 thing for male babies, and I also know it's even by 16 or so, because males die more often in childhood as well. Was getting ready to rant before I saw that you were talking before birth. 2, 3, 4, 5. Don't see how this is relevant... 6,7. No duh? 8. Not a blood expert, women having less physical endurance than men is known. 9. No duh? 10. Relevance? 11. Repeat from #5 12. Citation? Heat tolerance is more a function of hydration. 13. Relevance? 14. Again, I was mentioning the differences between toy selection. Not that men and women are identical.
So my questions are: 1. Did you intend to reply to me? 2. Did you actually read my post? 3. Do you do more than paste some sort of standard reply in?
I mean, I already know most of what you posted, it's just that I don't bring it up if I don't think it's relevant. For example, bring up a thread about how badly women have it over men and I'll bring up how more men commit suicide, are homeless, suffer from mental illness, are in prison, die earlier, etc... How there's virtually no shelters for abused men, how while male rape is rarer than female rape, the reporting rates are drastically worse(and female reporting sucks to begin with), and there's virtually no support for them - one raped male was referred to a rape prevention hotline intended to 'help' men thinking about raping women! And that's just a sample list, not comprehensive, about how men have it crappier than women.
IMDB could separate mens scores from women's; as well as show what shows were highly or poorly rated by the same people who rated a particular show. That would give you a better idea of the value of a rating in deciding if you might be interested in the show.
You could also implement a netflix type rating system - a sort of "viewers like you rated this as X.X"
The typical chick-flick hating guy will see the 1 star and be satisfied, the woman who loves them sees the 5.0 and is happy.
And what if your girlfriend wants you to watch it with her?
And go ahead and give teletubbies a bad review if you're watching it with your kids. Maybe you can find a 'kids show' that is sophisticated enough for adults as well.
Recently I did a lot of reading on toy preferences for children. Monkey studies even got involved, as were efforts to no bias the child one way or another beforehand.
The outcome? Girls actually like a 50-50 split, on average, between 'girl' toys like dolls and 'boy' toys like model trucks. Boys are basically 100% involved in 'boy' toys.
Extend this to media like movies and TV shows. Thinking back, mom enjoyed the same movies the males in my family enjoyed. But she also enjoyed the 'girly' shows we didn't.
It could be that media that women's interests are wider, on average, or that an equivalent zone for men to the 'chick flic' hasn't been discovered. I don't know.
Except that you can buy from numerous chemical companies. Hell, buy a nitrogen station. You can use it to fill up the tires of prison vehicles when you're not using it for executions.
There was no due process in the camps. There was no due process with the kill squads. Why not hold the prosecutor responsible? He's the one pressing the charges, displaying evidence, and pushing for the death penalty, after fall.
The same "urge" is the one that keeps us alive throughout our lives. It's not a painful or panicking event, like excessive CO2 buildup from trying to hold your breadth or breathing high co2 air will cause.
And when they later turn out to be innocent the judge and executioner will be executed too? I would support such a law, no judge would dare giving someone the death penalty.
Now be honest, this is just you not supporting the death penalty. There's nothing here saying that Pentium100 support the death penalty for all murders, much less all homicides. If the executed turns out to have been innocent, as long as they did their duty per the best of their ability, at worst it's manslaughter.
Now if, for example, the prosecutor didn't disclose exculpatory evidence, like has happened in the past? Now I start thinking about introducing said prosecutor to the same chamber. Because that's premeditated murder.
The nitrogen options mentioned in these threads seems far more humane with a far less chance of it randomly fucking it up (except for that whole wrongful conviction, forced deals and the like).
To be fair, when I mention Nitrogen as an option, I'm making a technical assessment. I consider the steps leading up to actually conducting the execution a different process. If the thread had been about the accuracy of the death penalty, the process by which a death penalty works it's way to the execution, or such, I wouldn't bring up nitrogen at all. Instead I'd be talking about removing or restricting prosecutorial immunity and such. IE hold them responsible when they withhold exculpatory evidence.
And yes, 'less chance of fucking it up' is a large portion of the reason that I support it. With N2, you're looking at maybe a couple valves. N2 canisters go here, canisters of regular compressed air there(if necessary), make sure the welding shop level equipment is working, that the N2 canisters are full of N2 when you begin, etc... There's no real medical knowledge necessary. No venipunctures to mess up.
Cleanup costs are even more expensive. And we've gotten the 'manual of arms' for execution by firearm complicated enough that it's not really cheaper.
Plus, well, messy body with blood splatter. You want to splatter possibly HIV positive blood around?
I'd just put them in a relatively airtight room. In normal mode, the cell gets outside air pumped in through an array of filters. You have a glade plug-in or something in the air system to provide some smell.
When the time comes, switch over to the N2 bottle, the glade plug-in covers any change in smell that might happen, and the prisoner doesn't know the time of the switch, so can't hold his breath. Hyperventilating will actually speed the process along. Done.
I'll note that I'm examining this in a very technical way - not debating or considering the merits of the penalty itself at the moment, merely the technical challenges presented in carrying it out.
Sure you will. As you metabolize the O2 already in your blood, you'll build up CO2 in your lungs. As you die, the time to build up enough CO2 to generate the "need air" reflex will increase, but it will still build up, however slowly, until you are dead.
Unless you're holding your breath, a pure N2 feed is going to have CO2 levels as negligible as O2, so you'll be purging the CO2 in your blood right along with the O2. Thus, you'll never get the 'need air' reflex because CO2 drops as well.
I'd be careful about painting 'all' supporters of the death penalty with that brush, because I support the death penalty(in limited circumstances) but want nitrogen asphyxiation to be an option.
And yes, quite a bit of the suffering from the death penalty is the fault of the anti-death penalty people, who want it to be as barbaric as possible so they can get it banned. If it's too clean they can't do that.
Have you ever seen a mammal die of Displacement Asphyxiation (via nitrogen, argon, or anything else inert and devoid of oxygen)?
Seen humans die from it, lab accident. You have to be careful about nitrogen, it's sneaky.
And yes, death can take a while. Brain death will take some time. The trick is that you're unconscious within a few breaths.
It takes a minute or two at the least. And the suffoccee will gasp ferociously while tearing at their throat during before unconsciousness ensues. It is a horror show.
Are you sure that you didn't witness a case of CO2 asphyxiation? That's where you get the symptoms you describe. You must absolutely avoid CO2, as that's what the human body detects. For that matter, N2 asphyxiation doesn't work with most burrowing animals - they often have a working O2 level detection system.
No matter your view on capital punishment (pro or con), a death with such a dramatic behavior will scar those who see it
What dramatic behavior? They go unconscious almost immediately, and there are no dramatic moments like clutching for the throat - Look up hypoxia sometime.
Couple problems with what you said. First, the bends is caused by N2 'bubbling' out of solution in the blood due to a drop in pressure - at higher pressures more N2 will dissolve into water, and therefore blood. That's why you need to pause when rising from sufficient depth.
Keep the pressure the same, no N2 bubbling will take place, and therefore no bends.
Second, As the AC said, humans detect CO2 levels, not O2 levels. So what happens is that CO2 AND O2 will both tend to diffuse out of the blood - CO2 dissolves out and O2 in during normal respiration because O2 levels in the air are higher than in the blood, and CO2 levels are lower.
Introduce a mix that's about 0% of both and both will dissolve out. Because CO2 levels never rise, you never feel out of breadth or anything. O2 levels leave so quickly that you lose consciousness very quickly. You'd last longer holding your breadth, but part of what I'd do is hit the person up with some Valium to keep them calm, and not tell them the precise time of the execution so they don't know when the switch is made.
Perhaps have some warmed oil type incense so the condemned can't tell by smell changes or anything. You have to avoid burning incense because it'd go out with the switch.
Just switch to nitrogen asphyxiation if you want a humane execution which isn't dependent upon strapping the condemned down to a table, having to have a non-professional put an IV in, trouble getting drugs, etc...
The supplies can be had at any welding shop for not much money.
Some almost like one or the other, some in between. Rarely economical as a whole.
Indeed. I grew up in corn country, so sometimes I forget that not all plants are hybridized that way. In any case, the big seed companies are normally able to offer enough value-add even with non-GMO seed that farmers consider it worth it to buy each year rather then try to manage their own seed program.
For example, let's say that there's a new pest or disease making it's way towards your fields. It's much easier to buy resistant seed from the dealer than it is to try to recreate that resistance in your own seed, or obtain a new source of unrestricted seed on your own.
This new vaccine is hoped to help by training the body to target a different part of the virus, as best I can tell. I wouldn't get hopes up too high on this- vaccines have proven very frustrating for dealing with HIV.
They haven't even hit the vaccine part. They've only found a new antibody that *might* be more effective at fighting the virus than is normally generated. The subject where it was found has a relatively low virus load(from what I can tell) for a patient not on antivirals, but high for one that is(should be under 200 in that case). However, his T-cell count is still acceptably high.
Their hope is to create a vaccine that encourages development of that antibody.
HIV is a retrovirus, it inserts it's code into the cell where it stays long term until triggered to replicate somehow. Ergo, a person could have all active viral particles removed and still be infected unless you blow away all the infected cells somehow as well. This is a large part of the reason why HIV can't be cured.
That being said, if they can figure out how to train the body to produce these antibodies, it's possible that one could keep the infection rate of the viral particles low enough(the antibody isn't going to block 100% of viral particles from depositing their payload) that a person is effectively immune to the disease, because it just won't be successful enough at infecting cells. That would probably also have the benefit that even if they're exposed, there will be a prompt enough immune response to keep them from being a realistic infection vector, so no Typhoid Mary for them.
That being said, there's a high probability that a vaccinated person would test as HIV positive today, because most HIV tests look for the antibodies, not the virus. Give them a vaccine that stimulates antivirus production...
Slashdot Mirror
Another tragedy is that it's often illegal to build housing in industrial zones where land is cheap and close to jobs.
While I'm with you on building cheap apartments or making a granny flat, I'd ask West, TX about the benefits to building housing in/near industrial zones.
Accidents, explosions, spills, and just general pollution makes living in most industrial areas a poor choice.
And thus your privacy is well respected because you're incognito because your phone died due to lack of battery.
This protects your privacy in many ways, since all the other apps can no longer track you, and you don't have to worry about pesky phone calls - making or receiving them.
Uber has no business learning about the state of your phone battery. It doesn't need it and it's YOUR private, personal confidential information that poor software design let Uber steal. They don't tell you about the desperate need for cash by their drivers because their rent is due and they would accept ANY fair.
They don't? I'm pissed at my current phone because the thing is too dumb to throttle down on it's battery usage when the battery is getting low, so it ends up dead a lot of the time.
I'm actually happy that the Uber app apparently has a working low battery mode, which helps conserve battery life. That you'd prefer it run full throttle until your phone dies is your thing.
Indeed. Throw me into that briar patch farmer Brown!
Yes, Uber has been showing that all that regulation is rather useless compared to a free market solution that follows some reasonable rules/regulations.
Care to post a link?
Because what I read and experienced (having both a son and a daughter) contradicts what you state.
1. Sure, here you go. I said a lot of reading, remember?
2. You do realize that anecdote is different than data, right? I stuck qualifiers in there like 'average' and 'basically' for very specific reasons.
1) obsessed with the cars and planes (we bought our daughter all kinds of them, because, fuck 'girl/boy' toys model)
2) tends to speak less and has inferior language ability in general
3) shows next to no interest in listening to stories, unless there is a car or a plane involved, his sister would eagerly listen and then repeat the story ("read" the book)
4) is much much less cautious than sister
Your #1 is right in line with expected behavior for a male child. Also, your noting that you bought your daughter 'all kinds' is ALSO right in line with expected, because as I noted, the observed behavior with children was that males tended to go for 'male' toys almost exclusively, while females went for both.
2. I didn't address this, now did I? Also, easily explained by individual variances between children.
3. Again, individual variance, and actually in agreement with my posted theory. Narrower interests for men, remember?
4. Different caution - I didn't address this either.
Where's the contradiction?
DNA is what really makes us different, why should we behave the same?
... Didn't I just get done saying that we don't behave the same? I mean, I was outlining detected differences in toy preference! Still, some WTF in your posts.
1a. Define "unique chromosomal pattern", because the only real difference is XX vs XY. Women don't have any genes that men don't, though hormones make them express differently.
1b. Outliving men is a known issue, not sure of it's relevance here.
1c. Citation on the 140 males conceived? I know about the 105 to 100 thing for male babies, and I also know it's even by 16 or so, because males die more often in childhood as well. Was getting ready to rant before I saw that you were talking before birth.
2, 3, 4, 5. Don't see how this is relevant...
6,7. No duh?
8. Not a blood expert, women having less physical endurance than men is known.
9. No duh?
10. Relevance?
11. Repeat from #5
12. Citation? Heat tolerance is more a function of hydration.
13. Relevance?
14. Again, I was mentioning the differences between toy selection. Not that men and women are identical.
So my questions are:
1. Did you intend to reply to me?
2. Did you actually read my post?
3. Do you do more than paste some sort of standard reply in?
I mean, I already know most of what you posted, it's just that I don't bring it up if I don't think it's relevant. For example, bring up a thread about how badly women have it over men and I'll bring up how more men commit suicide, are homeless, suffer from mental illness, are in prison, die earlier, etc... How there's virtually no shelters for abused men, how while male rape is rarer than female rape, the reporting rates are drastically worse(and female reporting sucks to begin with), and there's virtually no support for them - one raped male was referred to a rape prevention hotline intended to 'help' men thinking about raping women! And that's just a sample list, not comprehensive, about how men have it crappier than women.
I wouldn't just file counter notice, I'd file a counter-suit saying that they infringed on MY copyright.
I think they should DMCA that episode that contains the offending clip wherever it might be found.
IMDB could separate mens scores from women's; as well as show what shows were highly or poorly rated by the same people who rated a particular show. That would give you a better idea of the value of a rating in deciding if you might be interested in the show.
You could also implement a netflix type rating system - a sort of "viewers like you rated this as X.X"
The typical chick-flick hating guy will see the 1 star and be satisfied, the woman who loves them sees the 5.0 and is happy.
And what if your girlfriend wants you to watch it with her?
And go ahead and give teletubbies a bad review if you're watching it with your kids. Maybe you can find a 'kids show' that is sophisticated enough for adults as well.
Recently I did a lot of reading on toy preferences for children. Monkey studies even got involved, as were efforts to no bias the child one way or another beforehand.
The outcome? Girls actually like a 50-50 split, on average, between 'girl' toys like dolls and 'boy' toys like model trucks. Boys are basically 100% involved in 'boy' toys.
Extend this to media like movies and TV shows. Thinking back, mom enjoyed the same movies the males in my family enjoyed. But she also enjoyed the 'girly' shows we didn't.
It could be that media that women's interests are wider, on average, or that an equivalent zone for men to the 'chick flic' hasn't been discovered. I don't know.
Except that you can buy from numerous chemical companies. Hell, buy a nitrogen station. You can use it to fill up the tires of prison vehicles when you're not using it for executions.
Congratulations on the slippery slope Godwin.
There was no due process in the camps. There was no due process with the kill squads. Why not hold the prosecutor responsible? He's the one pressing the charges, displaying evidence, and pushing for the death penalty, after fall.
Blocked in the USA, sadly. I think I've seen the video though.
The same "urge" is the one that keeps us alive throughout our lives. It's not a painful or panicking event, like excessive CO2 buildup from trying to hold your breadth or breathing high co2 air will cause.
And when they later turn out to be innocent the judge and executioner will be executed too? I would support such a law, no judge would dare giving someone the death penalty.
Now be honest, this is just you not supporting the death penalty. There's nothing here saying that Pentium100 support the death penalty for all murders, much less all homicides. If the executed turns out to have been innocent, as long as they did their duty per the best of their ability, at worst it's manslaughter.
Now if, for example, the prosecutor didn't disclose exculpatory evidence, like has happened in the past? Now I start thinking about introducing said prosecutor to the same chamber. Because that's premeditated murder.
The nitrogen options mentioned in these threads seems far more humane with a far less chance of it randomly fucking it up (except for that whole wrongful conviction, forced deals and the like).
To be fair, when I mention Nitrogen as an option, I'm making a technical assessment. I consider the steps leading up to actually conducting the execution a different process. If the thread had been about the accuracy of the death penalty, the process by which a death penalty works it's way to the execution, or such, I wouldn't bring up nitrogen at all. Instead I'd be talking about removing or restricting prosecutorial immunity and such. IE hold them responsible when they withhold exculpatory evidence.
And yes, 'less chance of fucking it up' is a large portion of the reason that I support it. With N2, you're looking at maybe a couple valves. N2 canisters go here, canisters of regular compressed air there(if necessary), make sure the welding shop level equipment is working, that the N2 canisters are full of N2 when you begin, etc... There's no real medical knowledge necessary. No venipunctures to mess up.
Cleanup costs are even more expensive. And we've gotten the 'manual of arms' for execution by firearm complicated enough that it's not really cheaper.
Plus, well, messy body with blood splatter. You want to splatter possibly HIV positive blood around?
I'd just put them in a relatively airtight room. In normal mode, the cell gets outside air pumped in through an array of filters. You have a glade plug-in or something in the air system to provide some smell.
When the time comes, switch over to the N2 bottle, the glade plug-in covers any change in smell that might happen, and the prisoner doesn't know the time of the switch, so can't hold his breath. Hyperventilating will actually speed the process along. Done.
I'll note that I'm examining this in a very technical way - not debating or considering the merits of the penalty itself at the moment, merely the technical challenges presented in carrying it out.
Sure you will. As you metabolize the O2 already in your blood, you'll build up CO2 in your lungs. As you die, the time to build up enough CO2 to generate the "need air" reflex will increase, but it will still build up, however slowly, until you are dead.
Unless you're holding your breath, a pure N2 feed is going to have CO2 levels as negligible as O2, so you'll be purging the CO2 in your blood right along with the O2. Thus, you'll never get the 'need air' reflex because CO2 drops as well.
I'd be careful about painting 'all' supporters of the death penalty with that brush, because I support the death penalty(in limited circumstances) but want nitrogen asphyxiation to be an option.
And yes, quite a bit of the suffering from the death penalty is the fault of the anti-death penalty people, who want it to be as barbaric as possible so they can get it banned. If it's too clean they can't do that.
Have you ever seen a mammal die of Displacement Asphyxiation (via nitrogen, argon, or anything else inert and devoid of oxygen)?
Seen humans die from it, lab accident. You have to be careful about nitrogen, it's sneaky.
And yes, death can take a while. Brain death will take some time. The trick is that you're unconscious within a few breaths.
It takes a minute or two at the least. And the suffoccee will gasp ferociously while tearing at their throat during before unconsciousness ensues. It is a horror show.
Are you sure that you didn't witness a case of CO2 asphyxiation? That's where you get the symptoms you describe. You must absolutely avoid CO2, as that's what the human body detects. For that matter, N2 asphyxiation doesn't work with most burrowing animals - they often have a working O2 level detection system.
https://archive.org/details/go...
No matter your view on capital punishment (pro or con), a death with such a dramatic behavior will scar those who see it
What dramatic behavior? They go unconscious almost immediately, and there are no dramatic moments like clutching for the throat - Look up hypoxia sometime.
Couple problems with what you said. First, the bends is caused by N2 'bubbling' out of solution in the blood due to a drop in pressure - at higher pressures more N2 will dissolve into water, and therefore blood. That's why you need to pause when rising from sufficient depth.
Keep the pressure the same, no N2 bubbling will take place, and therefore no bends.
Second, As the AC said, humans detect CO2 levels, not O2 levels. So what happens is that CO2 AND O2 will both tend to diffuse out of the blood - CO2 dissolves out and O2 in during normal respiration because O2 levels in the air are higher than in the blood, and CO2 levels are lower.
Introduce a mix that's about 0% of both and both will dissolve out. Because CO2 levels never rise, you never feel out of breadth or anything. O2 levels leave so quickly that you lose consciousness very quickly. You'd last longer holding your breadth, but part of what I'd do is hit the person up with some Valium to keep them calm, and not tell them the precise time of the execution so they don't know when the switch is made.
Perhaps have some warmed oil type incense so the condemned can't tell by smell changes or anything. You have to avoid burning incense because it'd go out with the switch.
Just switch to nitrogen asphyxiation if you want a humane execution which isn't dependent upon strapping the condemned down to a table, having to have a non-professional put an IV in, trouble getting drugs, etc...
The supplies can be had at any welding shop for not much money.
Some almost like one or the other, some in between. Rarely economical as a whole.
Indeed. I grew up in corn country, so sometimes I forget that not all plants are hybridized that way. In any case, the big seed companies are normally able to offer enough value-add even with non-GMO seed that farmers consider it worth it to buy each year rather then try to manage their own seed program.
For example, let's say that there's a new pest or disease making it's way towards your fields. It's much easier to buy resistant seed from the dealer than it is to try to recreate that resistance in your own seed, or obtain a new source of unrestricted seed on your own.
This new vaccine is hoped to help by training the body to target a different part of the virus, as best I can tell. I wouldn't get hopes up too high on this- vaccines have proven very frustrating for dealing with HIV.
They haven't even hit the vaccine part. They've only found a new antibody that *might* be more effective at fighting the virus than is normally generated. The subject where it was found has a relatively low virus load(from what I can tell) for a patient not on antivirals, but high for one that is(should be under 200 in that case). However, his T-cell count is still acceptably high.
Their hope is to create a vaccine that encourages development of that antibody.
HIV is a retrovirus, it inserts it's code into the cell where it stays long term until triggered to replicate somehow. Ergo, a person could have all active viral particles removed and still be infected unless you blow away all the infected cells somehow as well. This is a large part of the reason why HIV can't be cured.
That being said, if they can figure out how to train the body to produce these antibodies, it's possible that one could keep the infection rate of the viral particles low enough(the antibody isn't going to block 100% of viral particles from depositing their payload) that a person is effectively immune to the disease, because it just won't be successful enough at infecting cells. That would probably also have the benefit that even if they're exposed, there will be a prompt enough immune response to keep them from being a realistic infection vector, so no Typhoid Mary for them.
That being said, there's a high probability that a vaccinated person would test as HIV positive today, because most HIV tests look for the antibodies, not the virus. Give them a vaccine that stimulates antivirus production...