That's one of the basis of the TSA, though there was nothing let through that wasn't on the government's allowed list.
And the TSA routinely misses 90% of what inspectors try to sneak through. And they're not trying to sneak through bottles of water and nail clippers. They're sneaking in actual knives, as well as 'simulated' but realistic bombs and guns.
It's ~4,600 miles for me to reach my parent's house by car, ~3,700 by direct shot. Of course, about 2.4k of it is in Canada(going from Alaska to Florida).
Why do I live so far from family? Military service sent me to Alaska, Mom developed a medical condition where she can't stand the cold, so my parents moved to Florida. Bam, we're living about as far from each other as possible while still both being in the USA and on the same continent.
Wait am moment. Checks Hawaii. 4.6k miles. I could be in Hawaii and it'd still be the same distance.
How long have we been vaccinating against polio and it still isn't officially eliminated? It sure looks like the mass vaccinations are not working to "officially eliminate" anything. That's ok, because they weren't intended to.
1. We have officially eliminated 1 of the 3 strains. Yay! We have probably eliminated a second, leaving 'strain 1' the only one around. 2. There's foreign anti-vaxxors who think that the vaccines are sterilization, not disease prevention. In addition, Blame the CIA. They ran a spy op in the Middle East using fake vaccinations as a cover. As a result, we had about a decade of no access to those areas, allowing reserves of the virus to persist. 3. We only had 74 cases in 2015. We are so close.
The reality is, an un-vaccinated child is no threat to others, because the others have been vaccinated to prevent them from contracting that disease.
Incorrect. The child is a threat to other un-vaccinated children, whether voluntary, immune-compromised, or allergic. Also, the vaccine is not 100% effective, but closer to 95-99%. So they can get about 2-3% of the population sick even if everybody who can be immunized is.
Either vaccinations protect people from getting a disease or they don't.
See above for the middle path you missed. Most vaccines are actually only 90-99% effective at providing immunity, and normally provide at least resistance if not that(IE they don't get as sick as they otherwise would). So there are people who HAVE had the vaccine and are still vulnerable. Maybe another booster would fix that, maybe not. There are also those that are naturally immune.
But as the number of vulnerable members of a population grows, the risk to other vulnerable members grows exponentially. If you can keep the vulnerable population low enough, any infections tend to burn themselves out without infecting anybody else. This is called 'herd immunity'. However, for diseases like smallpox and polio, you really need that number below 5%, otherwise you'll get a flare effect that will probably hit every vulnerable member.
Certain specific vaccines likely killed more people than they saved because the threat of the illness was overestimated (deaths due to specific outbreaks of certain flu strains vs. deaths/injuries due to the vaccine.)
Given the number of people that the flu kills every year, can you really say this? Also, the average number of deaths from any given version of the flu vaccine rounds to zero.
Then there's the 'prevention' meme. You could have a situation where NOT vaccinating might cost 100k lives, but vaccinating might cost 100. However, because you vaccinated and it was so effective, only 50 died from the disease itself. But it meets your criteria of 'deaths from outbreak lower than deaths from vaccination'.
The only way to solve the "anti-vaxxer" problem is by education, so I don't disagree with having people attending a science class before opting out, but, I don't think it will resolve the issues. The problem is greater than one science class can resolve.
Much like those that believe in faith-healing, anti-vaxxors are immensely immune to 'education' because they don't want to listen. You need more propaganda and social pressure.
There are a subset of children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
There's also a subset for whom the vaccination isn't effective. For most diseases the immunity rate after the course is 95-99%.
Between these people and those who can't have it for medical reasons, there just isn't much slack - because the risk to the vulnerable members of the population rises exponentially as the vulnerable population increases. This effect is called "herd immunity", as you mentioned.
What about an average US household and something like the flu or chicken pox?
I suggest you look up how many people the flu ends up killing, and the actual effects a bad case of chicken pox can have. It's far less likely to kill you than smallpox was, for example, but it still can, and can cause lifetime disability in rare cases. Also, look up 'shingles'. For example, while I'll never get the chicken-pox vaccine, having had the disease, they're going to have to vaccinate me when I'm older against shingles, which is basically the chicken pox vaccine, because I have the virus living in my spine.
If a blood test shows the first 2 shots were successful and the 3rd isn't necessary - then hey, why chance anything with an unnecessary injection?
Drawing blood has it's own risks, and a antibody assay costs more than the shot. It's kind of like oil changes. There are tests out there that can tell you if you need to change your oil or not. Problem is, their cost exceeds that of just changing the oil for most normal vehicles, and if they come back lacking, you have to pay to change your oil anyways. They only make sense for big trucks and such.
Roughly speaking, the number of shots, booster intervals, and everything are worked out using statistical analysis to minimax the vaccination. Maximize immunity while minimizing risk, with a side of being economical.
Increase what we vaccinate for, whether it's really applicable or not.
How do you determine that it's not applicable? Even if a person has sufficient antibodies against a disease at the moment doesn't mean that another shot won't increase them and extend their effective duration.
You might as well rage against the presence of the tide, dude.
My grandfather is going to throw a party once polio is officially eliminated. After all, it nearly killed him at least 3 times. He spent time in an iron lung, had his last rights done several times.
The more vaccinations, the better.
Any evidence to any immediate benefit is irrelevant in whole.
Immediate benefit? Irrelevant? Do you have any idea of how many people died to diseases like smallpox? Smallpox is gone. That's a benefit that's going to keep giving, and we don't even have to vaccinate for it anymore. Our kids might be the last that have to be vaccinated for polio.
It was not by any wrong action of theirs that they become contaminated. It was by wrong action of the state, acting out of ravenous greed, importing countless people from all over the world to drive down the cost of labor, and it's failure to screen for disease.
Uh... Most of the disease outbreaks are from remaining pockets within the country. After that most of it is importations from our own citizens who were traveling for whatever reason. Screening for disease is tough, unless you want to put everybody coming back from overseas into quarantine for several weeks?
And if you get small leaks in your high-pressure pipeline that only has gas flowing down it and not a heavy rail car, you still have a functional pipeline.
No you don't, you get the EPA breathing down your neck until it's fixed and even after.
I'm in Alaska; the pipeline is a big deal. It hits the news when they have a malfunction.
As you said, stopping immediately after an intersection isn't normal behavior, and most drivers aren't prepared for that.
And would probably earn the driver a ticket for obstructing traffic or such if there isn't a good reason.
Boiled down, I don't enter an intersection I don't anticipate being able to clear before the light goes red. Most of the time, that's because the light goes yellow early enough for me to stop before entering. Sometimes it's on a green because of heavy traffic(and usually a short run to another red light that cars are piling up behind). Even if there's another car ahead of me, if I anticipate them clearing by more than enough, I'll go.
Extreme, in this case, would have to be a balancing of the state of the art of self driving cars - I figure they'll be able to handle more extreme weather(as an absolute measure) as they develop, along with, as you say, getting on with life.
It's something of throwing a dart at the wall - but I think that much past a median of 5 non-moving days a year on the part of self-driving cars, it's time to start considering sticking with a human driver.
That being said, one might want to look at what the median is for the area now, as well as the casualty figures from people venturing out. In some cases I'm sure that people staying home a little more would result in statistically and economically relevant reduced amount of death and destruction.
You don't need superconducting magnets for maglev trains. There are a surprising number of options. At least one uses an induced current into wires to create a temporary magnetic field so the only power source needed is in the train. You can work this in reverse as well, so the train doesn't need to supply any power.
The low pressure tunnel allows for more efficient low drag travel, perhaps even supersonic travel. How do you propose that the train "float" on a cushion of air in a low pressure environment?
The same way a plane 'floats' at high altitude - a large amount of speed gives you access to all the air you need.
Building a low pressure tube that's hundreds of miles long isn't cheap. But it would enable faster speeds, competitive with a plane while cheaper per trip.
1) On a green light? Please show me the citation to Texas law that says that only one car is allowed in an intersection on a green light (yes, I'm calling BS on your claim and putting the burden of proof on you). I'm pretty sure that's the rule for intersections controlled by stop _signs_, but it's not the rule for stop _lights_.
I'm not a lawyer, but you rewrote the phrasing a bit, in my opinion making it a little less correct. To my knowledge, there is NO law saying that only one car is allowed in an intersection, green light or not. It would be silly. However, the op said 'prohibited from entering the intersection until it's clear', which while still not correct, is closer.
The actual rule would be Section 545.302 (3). Which bans, among other things, stopping in an intersection. As such, entering the intersection when your exit is obstructed such that you will probably have to stop, will probably result in you having to commit an illegal action(stopping).
Thing is, most people don't anticipate a vehicle stopping immediately AFTER clearing an intersection unless there's a line of traffic ahead of them, so can be shocked if a car does so.
And yes, I have stopped before an intersection when it was likely that I'd be stuck in the intersection when the light changed. I've also seen cops give tickets for people blocking the road by being in the intersection stuck in traffic when the light changes.
Actually, there's a lot more to congestion than just the amount of cars on the road. Adding lanes is actually counterproductive past a point. There's actually an amazing amount of overlap with fluid dynamics.
Roughly speaking, bigman's point about self driving cars reducing congestion could be true - with fewer accidents, not to mention distracted, stupid, lost, or road-raging drivers, you can go from a turbulant flow to a laminar flow, which can result in a much higher effective capacity.
Though I agree with you on the integrated cities. I've proposed 'semi-arcologies' before - take a 100 story building. First 10 floors are commercial sales, next 10 are business/office, the remaining 80 are residential. Put a skybridge to each neighboring building. I'm tempted to say floor 20 so you can have different elevators serving the residential portion and the commercial portions in the same shaft, saving space. Floor 20 might end up being an interesting design that way, actually. I'm thinking that it might end up being the cafe/quick-stop floor. Anyways, I used to advocate for sliding walkways on this floor and in the skywalks between buildings, but with the spread of small lithium-ion vehicles, we might go with them instead. The core point is to allow a person to cover twice the distance in a given amount of time and/or effort. So if they're willing to walk half a mile, under my rules they'd be willing to travel a mile(horizontal difference). The walking is good for health, you're not using vehicles, and people should be able to get an apartment within a few buildings of their work, maybe even in it, which would really cut down on travel time.
If you own a steering wheel free self-driver, I'd imagine that getting a manual vehicle would still be easy. Using an app on the latest device, you decide which vehicle you want to rent. Then, if it's capable of self-driving, you simply step out your door at the appropriate time and it's waiting for you and your camping gear.
If it's not capable of self driving, you load up your stuff, and your car takes you to the manual drive lot, that might actually be just outside of the park where you need manual drive. You move your stuff over, your car parks itself in the spot where the manual car was, and you're good to go. Or maybe it drives itself home for the weekend.
Slashdot Mirror
4 hours of driving, at say 60 mpg(assuming it's a hybrid), at an average of 20 mph. That's 1.3 gallons. $5 worth of gas?
Now, how many towns wouldn't have somewhere free to park within 20 miles?
Or, what happens when the city, like a few cities already have, institute a 'congestion charge' that charges by the mile?
You forgot the extra 500 deaths due to people driving rather than flying, which is more dangerous on average.
That's one of the basis of the TSA, though there was nothing let through that wasn't on the government's allowed list.
And the TSA routinely misses 90% of what inspectors try to sneak through. And they're not trying to sneak through bottles of water and nail clippers. They're sneaking in actual knives, as well as 'simulated' but realistic bombs and guns.
It's ~4,600 miles for me to reach my parent's house by car, ~3,700 by direct shot. Of course, about 2.4k of it is in Canada(going from Alaska to Florida).
Why do I live so far from family? Military service sent me to Alaska, Mom developed a medical condition where she can't stand the cold, so my parents moved to Florida. Bam, we're living about as far from each other as possible while still both being in the USA and on the same continent.
Wait am moment. Checks Hawaii. 4.6k miles. I could be in Hawaii and it'd still be the same distance.
I used to drive 700 each way to visit my family rather than fly.
How long have we been vaccinating against polio and it still isn't officially eliminated? It sure looks like the mass vaccinations are not working to "officially eliminate" anything. That's ok, because they weren't intended to.
1. We have officially eliminated 1 of the 3 strains. Yay! We have probably eliminated a second, leaving 'strain 1' the only one around.
2. There's foreign anti-vaxxors who think that the vaccines are sterilization, not disease prevention. In addition, Blame the CIA. They ran a spy op in the Middle East using fake vaccinations as a cover. As a result, we had about a decade of no access to those areas, allowing reserves of the virus to persist.
3. We only had 74 cases in 2015. We are so close.
The reality is, an un-vaccinated child is no threat to others, because the others have been vaccinated to prevent them from contracting that disease.
Incorrect. The child is a threat to other un-vaccinated children, whether voluntary, immune-compromised, or allergic. Also, the vaccine is not 100% effective, but closer to 95-99%. So they can get about 2-3% of the population sick even if everybody who can be immunized is.
Either vaccinations protect people from getting a disease or they don't.
See above for the middle path you missed. Most vaccines are actually only 90-99% effective at providing immunity, and normally provide at least resistance if not that(IE they don't get as sick as they otherwise would). So there are people who HAVE had the vaccine and are still vulnerable. Maybe another booster would fix that, maybe not. There are also those that are naturally immune.
But as the number of vulnerable members of a population grows, the risk to other vulnerable members grows exponentially. If you can keep the vulnerable population low enough, any infections tend to burn themselves out without infecting anybody else. This is called 'herd immunity'. However, for diseases like smallpox and polio, you really need that number below 5%, otherwise you'll get a flare effect that will probably hit every vulnerable member.
Okay, that one was lack of editing/proofing, not autocorrect being weird.
Certain specific vaccines likely killed more people than they saved because the threat of the illness was overestimated (deaths due to specific outbreaks of certain flu strains vs. deaths/injuries due to the vaccine.)
Given the number of people that the flu kills every year, can you really say this? Also, the average number of deaths from any given version of the flu vaccine rounds to zero.
Then there's the 'prevention' meme. You could have a situation where NOT vaccinating might cost 100k lives, but vaccinating might cost 100. However, because you vaccinated and it was so effective, only 50 died from the disease itself. But it meets your criteria of 'deaths from outbreak lower than deaths from vaccination'.
The only way to solve the "anti-vaxxer" problem is by education, so I don't disagree with having people attending a science class before opting out, but, I don't think it will resolve the issues. The problem is greater than one science class can resolve.
Much like those that believe in faith-healing, anti-vaxxors are immensely immune to 'education' because they don't want to listen. You need more propaganda and social pressure.
There are a subset of children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
There's also a subset for whom the vaccination isn't effective. For most diseases the immunity rate after the course is 95-99%.
Between these people and those who can't have it for medical reasons, there just isn't much slack - because the risk to the vulnerable members of the population rises exponentially as the vulnerable population increases. This effect is called "herd immunity", as you mentioned.
What about an average US household and something like the flu or chicken pox?
I suggest you look up how many people the flu ends up killing, and the actual effects a bad case of chicken pox can have. It's far less likely to kill you than smallpox was, for example, but it still can, and can cause lifetime disability in rare cases. Also, look up 'shingles'. For example, while I'll never get the chicken-pox vaccine, having had the disease, they're going to have to vaccinate me when I'm older against shingles, which is basically the chicken pox vaccine, because I have the virus living in my spine.
It's living in yours as well if you've had it.
If a blood test shows the first 2 shots were successful and the 3rd isn't necessary - then hey, why chance anything with an unnecessary injection?
Drawing blood has it's own risks, and a antibody assay costs more than the shot. It's kind of like oil changes. There are tests out there that can tell you if you need to change your oil or not. Problem is, their cost exceeds that of just changing the oil for most normal vehicles, and if they come back lacking, you have to pay to change your oil anyways. They only make sense for big trucks and such.
Roughly speaking, the number of shots, booster intervals, and everything are worked out using statistical analysis to minimax the vaccination. Maximize immunity while minimizing risk, with a side of being economical.
Increase what we vaccinate for, whether it's really applicable or not.
How do you determine that it's not applicable? Even if a person has sufficient antibodies against a disease at the moment doesn't mean that another shot won't increase them and extend their effective duration.
the fact that such medication is necessary
You might as well rage against the presence of the tide, dude.
My grandfather is going to throw a party once polio is officially eliminated. After all, it nearly killed him at least 3 times. He spent time in an iron lung, had his last rights done several times.
The more vaccinations, the better.
Any evidence to any immediate benefit is irrelevant in whole.
Immediate benefit? Irrelevant? Do you have any idea of how many people died to diseases like smallpox? Smallpox is gone. That's a benefit that's going to keep giving, and we don't even have to vaccinate for it anymore. Our kids might be the last that have to be vaccinated for polio.
It was not by any wrong action of theirs that they become contaminated. It was by wrong action of the state, acting out of ravenous greed, importing countless people from all over the world to drive down the cost of labor, and it's failure to screen for disease.
Uh... Most of the disease outbreaks are from remaining pockets within the country. After that most of it is importations from our own citizens who were traveling for whatever reason. Screening for disease is tough, unless you want to put everybody coming back from overseas into quarantine for several weeks?
I think that MightyMartian was simply looking to 'distract' the parents long enough to vaccinate the kids anyways.
And if you get small leaks in your high-pressure pipeline that only has gas flowing down it and not a heavy rail car, you still have a functional pipeline.
No you don't, you get the EPA breathing down your neck until it's fixed and even after.
I'm in Alaska; the pipeline is a big deal. It hits the news when they have a malfunction.
As you said, stopping immediately after an intersection isn't normal behavior, and most drivers aren't prepared for that.
And would probably earn the driver a ticket for obstructing traffic or such if there isn't a good reason.
Boiled down, I don't enter an intersection I don't anticipate being able to clear before the light goes red. Most of the time, that's because the light goes yellow early enough for me to stop before entering. Sometimes it's on a green because of heavy traffic(and usually a short run to another red light that cars are piling up behind). Even if there's another car ahead of me, if I anticipate them clearing by more than enough, I'll go.
However, a 4 foot diameter pipeline is a HUGE pipe, here we're looking at more like 8-10'.
Extreme, in this case, would have to be a balancing of the state of the art of self driving cars - I figure they'll be able to handle more extreme weather(as an absolute measure) as they develop, along with, as you say, getting on with life.
It's something of throwing a dart at the wall - but I think that much past a median of 5 non-moving days a year on the part of self-driving cars, it's time to start considering sticking with a human driver.
That being said, one might want to look at what the median is for the area now, as well as the casualty figures from people venturing out. In some cases I'm sure that people staying home a little more would result in statistically and economically relevant reduced amount of death and destruction.
You don't need superconducting magnets for maglev trains. There are a surprising number of options. At least one uses an induced current into wires to create a temporary magnetic field so the only power source needed is in the train. You can work this in reverse as well, so the train doesn't need to supply any power.
Most are still expensive, of course.
The low pressure tunnel allows for more efficient low drag travel, perhaps even supersonic travel. How do you propose that the train "float" on a cushion of air in a low pressure environment?
The same way a plane 'floats' at high altitude - a large amount of speed gives you access to all the air you need.
Building a low pressure tube that's hundreds of miles long isn't cheap. But it would enable faster speeds, competitive with a plane while cheaper per trip.
Anyway... the Tesla, more than any other vehicle, is going to have some kind of "flight recorder", right?
Of course, which is how the Tesla Engineers are able to go 'Hey, you put it in summon mode and crashed it yourself!'
1) On a green light? Please show me the citation to Texas law that says that only one car is allowed in an intersection on a green light (yes, I'm calling BS on your claim and putting the burden of proof on you). I'm pretty sure that's the rule for intersections controlled by stop _signs_, but it's not the rule for stop _lights_.
I'm not a lawyer, but you rewrote the phrasing a bit, in my opinion making it a little less correct. To my knowledge, there is NO law saying that only one car is allowed in an intersection, green light or not. It would be silly. However, the op said 'prohibited from entering the intersection until it's clear', which while still not correct, is closer.
The actual rule would be Section 545.302 (3). Which bans, among other things, stopping in an intersection. As such, entering the intersection when your exit is obstructed such that you will probably have to stop, will probably result in you having to commit an illegal action(stopping).
Thing is, most people don't anticipate a vehicle stopping immediately AFTER clearing an intersection unless there's a line of traffic ahead of them, so can be shocked if a car does so.
And yes, I have stopped before an intersection when it was likely that I'd be stuck in the intersection when the light changed. I've also seen cops give tickets for people blocking the road by being in the intersection stuck in traffic when the light changes.
Actually, there's a lot more to congestion than just the amount of cars on the road. Adding lanes is actually counterproductive past a point. There's actually an amazing amount of overlap with fluid dynamics.
Roughly speaking, bigman's point about self driving cars reducing congestion could be true - with fewer accidents, not to mention distracted, stupid, lost, or road-raging drivers, you can go from a turbulant flow to a laminar flow, which can result in a much higher effective capacity.
Though I agree with you on the integrated cities. I've proposed 'semi-arcologies' before - take a 100 story building. First 10 floors are commercial sales, next 10 are business/office, the remaining 80 are residential. Put a skybridge to each neighboring building. I'm tempted to say floor 20 so you can have different elevators serving the residential portion and the commercial portions in the same shaft, saving space. Floor 20 might end up being an interesting design that way, actually. I'm thinking that it might end up being the cafe/quick-stop floor. Anyways, I used to advocate for sliding walkways on this floor and in the skywalks between buildings, but with the spread of small lithium-ion vehicles, we might go with them instead. The core point is to allow a person to cover twice the distance in a given amount of time and/or effort. So if they're willing to walk half a mile, under my rules they'd be willing to travel a mile(horizontal difference). The walking is good for health, you're not using vehicles, and people should be able to get an apartment within a few buildings of their work, maybe even in it, which would really cut down on travel time.
If you own a steering wheel free self-driver, I'd imagine that getting a manual vehicle would still be easy. Using an app on the latest device, you decide which vehicle you want to rent. Then, if it's capable of self-driving, you simply step out your door at the appropriate time and it's waiting for you and your camping gear.
If it's not capable of self driving, you load up your stuff, and your car takes you to the manual drive lot, that might actually be just outside of the park where you need manual drive. You move your stuff over, your car parks itself in the spot where the manual car was, and you're good to go. Or maybe it drives itself home for the weekend.
Lots of options.