It sounds to me like depression and maybe a suicide.
It sounds like a probable accident and gross negligence on the part of the SPA operators; failing to adequately monitor their customer's status while using a deprivation tank.
These chambers can be dangerous. There have been past cases where people died from hyperthermia, by floating in the warm fluid for too long a period of time. Use of certain drugs before entering the chamber or certain health conditions can put a person at risk of a medical emergency happening, And the facility OUGHT to be monitoring isolation chambers for potential issues --- although they probably were not, because such situations are rare enough to build complacency around the use of deprivation tanks, even though they have a possibility to be hazaardous, esp. if there is an equipment malfunction.
I doubt this is the first death in a sensory deprivation chamber....
Police are still investigating the cause of his death.
Until more information is available... Occam's razor say, this the simplest explanation: This was probably just another unfortunate fatal accident in a sensory deprivation chamber...
NO it's not the first death in such a chamber. These chambers can be quite dangerous.... others have died in them by cause of hyperthermia, or drugs/alcohol toxicity. Drowning or electrocution are major risks.
This could also have been a suicide. From this person's documented past behavior.... it is possible the fellow was not sane and had some other issues; Most people aren't comfortable "Injecting themselves" with anything ---- he may have later injected himself with more dangerous stuff, such as heroine, LSD or other hallucinogenics shortly before going into this chamber.
I suspect concrete would be something similar, though a factory should have rooms that are large enough that false flooring wouldn't be as much of a problem.
Uhm.... It is harder to put nice holes in concrete than wood, but it's definitely not as hard to deal with as putting holes in heavy steel rafters, which need to be done to run wiring in certain buildings. Drilling holes of varying sizes in concrete/masonry is a COMMON thing, such that there are common drill bits designed just for that.
it is an eye sore in the city. However it is nearly indestructible, and will cost too much to knock down.
Sounds like a great emergency weather/disaster shelter; if it is so resilient a structure, then going in to "knock it down" would be a damned shame and a ludicrous waste....
So conceal it then. Too expensive to knock down, but there are ways to "decorate" or "cover" things so that they are hidden behind foliage or permanently-installed building-high fences/wire mesh covered in camouflage, for example.
I would suggest future open source projects begin entrenching an Anti-SJW code
CODE OF CONDUCT
1. Act like civilized adults, obey applicable laws, and only flame newbies when deserved.
2. Any change to this code of conduct or establishing additional "Behavior codes" of any nature requires a 45 day discussion period, and a review of proposed changes by the core developers, and unanimous written consent of all core developers and active contributors.
It's a complex problem and there isn't one solution but any reasonable step in the right direction helps. But as it said upthread, there isn't any serious proof that it's a solution at all. So it may all be a folly regardless of intent.
The fact that there's no evidence of sunscreen being related to coral reef issues doubly so makes it an UNREASONABLE step, Because (1) Thus harms people if they're forced to use less-effective sunscreens, or different formulations that later turn out to be dangerous, OR (2) The new formulations turn out to cause environmental harm that the previous ones didn't.
to bad that forced the use of stuff that was a great deal more environmentally destructive.
It doesn't seem there's any evidence that the use of sunscreens are environmentally destructive, and it would appear to be a fairly far-fetched claim.
Someone forgot just how vast the ocean is, the dilutive properties of water, and how the unstable chemicals will degrade and never really come into contact with coral reef's in significant quantity, And people are simply using sunscreen, not dumping millions of gallons of the stuff.....
I don't see how actively encouraging diversity is a bad thing.
Less-diverse teams are often more effective at working together most efficiently toward a common goal. Encouraging diversity in the world may be a good thing, but developer teams should not be striving to increase diversity in their team, unless the objective is to reduce the effectiveness of the team by making it "more average".
I do believe that prolonged preferential treatment given to one population over another is not good.
Lack of diversity existing does not imply or necessarily arise from preferential treatment given to one population over another.
fact that they expect him to treat dark skinned people and people with boobs as equals and with respect.
Your fallacy there is Strawman. Now drop down and give me 100 push-ups, foo.
Just because someone reasonably rejects to an insane overbearing code of conduct requiring people "Welcome everyone," or some such similar bullshit: does not mean that person embodies the antithesis on every topic that code of conduct says something about.
No one other than you suggested treating dark skinned or people with boobs in any unusual or particular way. People should be treated in the manner warranted based on the person's past accomplishments or history, actions, behaviors, and mannerisms; on remote projects like open source development/coding --- more often than not we don't even know each other's physical characteristics, skin tone, gender, etc, Because they should be totally irrelevent to the development process and mailing list participation, And if someone goes to a mailing list and brings those issues up, perhaps because they're looking for special treatment or any other non-germane reason, then that user deserves of course to be treated with the disdain that is natural, rather than be welcomed.
I'm finding it hard to figure out what exactly he doesn't like. This is the code of conduct:
be friendly and patient,
I think it's very obvious the issues with this "code" (1) Be friendly and patient is absolutely ridiculous --- Don't expect people to pretend to be friendly and patient in every situation. Friendliness and patience are not always warranted or can become reasonably exhausted.
be welcoming, be considerate,
Another example of trying to dictate that project members have a specific happy-go-lucky personality. This bullshit doesn't belong in the code of conduct of a project. As it's gone way beyond setting "reasonable boundaries" and right into territory of trying to dictate someone's idea of what manners should be.
be respectful, be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others, and when we disagree, try to understand why.,
If they're not mining Burst they're missing out on some money.
Burstcoin was a cute idea, but no --- mining it's not profitable if you buy 4TB drives for that: you'll lose money on the purchase, and probably cause a premature failure of your hardware. The coin would either need much more value, or we'd need a much cheaper storage medium than even tape.
It does? Do you mean "customers"? The people who generate video content for Youtube aren't their customers.
Your reply is off-topic.... The point is in response to the question "Why all these people rely on a service for income in without any contractual guarantee"
Ahem... *Cough* MOST real-world businesses rely on the conduct of other people for income without any contractual guarantee.
This is true, even for Youtube itself.... No advertiser provides a contractual guarantee that they will continue advertising with Youtube forever, and most can cancel whenever they want; the advertisers always have the discretion to leave, and they only have to pay for the clicks they already received.
I think the question you are really asking is, "How can I get somebody else to do all this work for me, and provide it to me for free?"
No... it's too hypothetical to be worth something, but if they make the case that they've done real work they could justify a commission on the ad revenue.
It's an interesting question..... How do you get preroll adds implemented for videos on independent websites?
Bummer is that now that you're doing ads --- the company managing the advertising or the advertisers are now in a negotiating position to dictate your content "Or else, we won't advertise with you"
Thanks for that. I hadn't read the OSC letter. So the theory is using official authority to influence the outcome of an election.
Arguably Official authority is not involved -- the official made an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to participate in a panel discussion. Discussions of this nature are designed to allow participants to share their personal beliefs or ideas on certain matters.
Sharing your opinion on what a way to affect policy is during a candid discussion is called 1st Amendment Protected free speech -- that's not "Interference" with an election.
Subsection (c) says they can state political opinions, And the US Constitution makes sure that EVERYONE has the right to state political opinions.
Anyways, removing a FCC commissioner from office or taking other actions to penalize them under 7323 would essentially require congress passes an article of impeachment, and the senate concurs, which is not going to happen over a republican appointee "Suggesting" some people re-elect the president if their object is to maintain the same policies.
Youtube has basically zero liability for 3rd party content on their website, thanks to legal protections and safe harbors. With exception of copyright --- they don't censor crap based on "liability"; it's primarily to protect their reputation with the public, AND with advertisers especially, and secondarily to enforce management's view of politics and what the community standards on Youtube should be (For example, the new Anti-gun policies).
Telling people to try drug X without a medical license and the drug not coming through a properly regulated distribution channel likely leads viewers to buy it on the internet.
The same is true of all snake-oil health supplements, which are big business. Distribution channels for supplements, to the extent they're regulated at all, are only regulated by the manufacturers, and the government's agencies FBI / US Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- is primarily there to enforce the manufacturer's will.
YouTube rejects the appeal for reason given above. News is still at 11.
So YouTube is known for this, BUT this again raises the question: How can we enable small publishers to produce and make available for watching: video for people to see on the internet, and connect with audiences, in a manner in which the videos cannot be taken down or censored by a third party?
Publishing to Youtube used to be the answer, but now Youtube is increasingly unreasonable and taking down more and more less-objectionable stuff, So what system exists that doesn't suffer the centralization of control that YT does?
They know it is against the best interests of the vast majority
But they CAN'T stop it unless it is so obviously illegal that they could deny it and their denial would stand up in court.
See.... the government's currently attempting to deny the ATT / Time Warner merger, and that's been temporarily delayed while the parties currently have proceedings underway in court to override the government's decision by getting a judgement that the merger is legal.
The ICANN process is laborious and expensive.... If the registration violates the cybersquatting act in the US, then it can actually be more efficient sometimes to sue in federal court under the cybersquatting act.
And get the judge to sign an order directing the registrar, registry-operator, ICANN, Etc, to transfer ownership of the domain to the plaintiff
In many ways the guy owning the domain should have probably seen it coming and had a backup domain name?
The guy owning the domain should have seen it coming and placed a $300/Year REGISTRY LOCK on the domain so that not even the domain registrar would be able to make changes to it without Verisign calling up the registrant and receiving permission to temporarily unlock the domain for changes.
All other countries get a TLD (.fr for France) which they are (AFAIK) free to administer as they please.
There's something you've misunderstood....
TLDs such as.fr don't "Belong" to the country --- Yes, the local government will be _consulted_ in the process of appointing a ccTLD manager (to allow the government to offer any objections it might have), but the ccTLDs are not owned by, run by, or controlled by any "government"; the ccTLDs get delegated to a corporation or other entity that applies to have the ccTLD delegated and thus become the ccTLD manager, and the requirements to have the ccTLD delegated include that the operation must be "In the public interest" for the benefit of the community represented by the ccTLD.
There's an application / delegation process, and ultimately there's a decision made by the internet community in regards to appointing ccTLD managers, and it's the ccTLD manager that decides the registration policies.
Whois privacy is a thing. Most registrars just charge extra for it. I see no problem with making that free and the default option.
When you use the "whois privacy" option: the legal owner of the domain according to the registry will be a proxy service. That means technically you no longer own the domain, except according to the proxy service you've hired --- if they go bankrupt or something, there's a chance "your" domain gets sold to satisfy their debts.
It's an expensive gene therapy that turbocharges a patient's own immune system cells to attack cancer. The cost for such a procedure can exceed $370,000 per patient.
Rather than trying to Find a way to pay for it; we need to figure out WTH is the cost per patient so high for such a promising procedure --- is it due to the actual amount of work involved, or is some company levying an arbitrary tax based on how much they think it's "worth" for those that need it? What are the complexities in the process that make it expensive to perform?
The cost of the process needs to be made reasonable to become a viable treatment option.....
All those extra pixels will go to waste on such a tiny little "big" screen TV...... On the other hand, imagine how cool 8K would look projected onto a 400-inch wide x 300-inch high rectangle on the wall.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds to me like depression and maybe a suicide.
It sounds like a probable accident and gross negligence on the part of the SPA operators; failing to adequately monitor their customer's status while using a deprivation tank.
These chambers can be dangerous. There have been past cases where people died from hyperthermia, by floating in the warm fluid for too long a period of time. Use of certain drugs before entering the chamber or certain health conditions can put a person at risk of a medical emergency happening, And the facility OUGHT to be monitoring isolation chambers for potential issues --- although they probably were not, because such situations are rare enough to build complacency around the use of deprivation tanks, even though they have a possibility to be hazaardous, esp. if there is an equipment malfunction.
I doubt this is the first death in a sensory deprivation chamber....
Police are still investigating the cause of his death.
Until more information is available... Occam's razor say, this the simplest
explanation: This was probably just another unfortunate fatal accident in a sensory
deprivation chamber...
NO it's not the first death in such a chamber.
These chambers can be quite dangerous.... others have died in them by cause of hyperthermia,
or drugs/alcohol toxicity. Drowning or electrocution are major risks.
This could also have been a suicide. From this person's documented past behavior.... it is possible the fellow was not sane and had some other issues; Most people aren't comfortable "Injecting themselves" with anything ---- he may have later injected himself with more dangerous stuff, such as heroine, LSD or other hallucinogenics shortly before going into this chamber.
I suspect concrete would be something similar, though a factory should have rooms that are large enough that false flooring wouldn't be as much of a problem.
Uhm.... It is harder to put nice holes in concrete than wood, but it's definitely not as hard to deal with as putting holes in heavy steel rafters, which need to be done to run wiring in certain buildings. Drilling holes of varying sizes in concrete/masonry is a COMMON thing, such that there are common drill bits designed just for that.
it is an eye sore in the city. However it is nearly indestructible, and will cost too much to knock down.
Sounds like a great emergency weather/disaster shelter; if it is so resilient a structure, then going in to "knock it down" would be a damned shame and a ludicrous waste....
So conceal it then. Too expensive to knock down, but there are ways to "decorate" or "cover" things so that they are hidden behind foliage or permanently-installed building-high fences/wire mesh covered in camouflage, for example.
I would suggest future open source projects begin entrenching an Anti-SJW code
CODE OF CONDUCT
1. Act like civilized adults, obey applicable laws, and only flame newbies when deserved.
2. Any change to this code of conduct or establishing additional "Behavior codes" of any nature requires a 45 day discussion period, and a review of proposed changes by the core developers, and unanimous written consent of all core developers and active contributors.
It's a complex problem and there isn't one solution but any reasonable step in the right direction helps. But as it said upthread, there isn't any serious proof that it's a solution at all. So it may all be a folly regardless of intent.
The fact that there's no evidence of sunscreen being related to coral reef issues doubly so makes it an UNREASONABLE step, Because (1) Thus harms people if they're forced to use less-effective sunscreens, or different formulations that later turn out to be dangerous, OR (2) The new formulations turn out to cause environmental harm that the previous ones didn't.
to bad that forced the use of stuff that was a great deal more environmentally destructive.
It doesn't seem there's any evidence that the use of sunscreens are environmentally destructive, and it would appear to be a fairly far-fetched claim.
Someone forgot just how vast the ocean is, the dilutive properties of water, and how the unstable chemicals will degrade and never really come into contact with coral reef's in significant quantity, And people are simply using sunscreen, not dumping millions of gallons of the stuff.....
I don't see how actively encouraging diversity is a bad thing.
Less-diverse teams are often more effective at working together most efficiently toward a common goal.
Encouraging diversity in the world may be a good thing, but developer teams should not be striving to increase
diversity in their team, unless the objective is to reduce the effectiveness of the team by making it "more average".
I do believe that prolonged preferential treatment given to one population over another is not good.
Lack of diversity existing does not imply or necessarily arise from preferential treatment given to one population over another.
fact that they expect him to treat dark skinned people and people with boobs as equals and with respect.
Your fallacy there is Strawman.
Now drop down and give me 100 push-ups, foo.
Just because someone reasonably rejects to an insane overbearing code of conduct requiring people
"Welcome everyone," or some such similar bullshit: does not mean that person
embodies the antithesis on every topic that code of conduct says something about.
No one other than you suggested treating dark skinned or people with boobs in any unusual or particular way.
People should be treated in the manner warranted based on the person's past accomplishments or history, actions, behaviors, and mannerisms;
on remote projects like open source development/coding --- more often than not we don't even know each other's physical characteristics,
skin tone, gender, etc, Because they should be totally irrelevent to the development process and mailing list participation, And
if someone goes to a mailing list and brings those issues up, perhaps because they're looking for special treatment or any other non-germane reason,
then that user deserves of course to be treated with the disdain that is natural, rather than be welcomed.
I'm finding it hard to figure out what exactly he doesn't like. This is the code of conduct:
be friendly and patient,
I think it's very obvious the issues with this "code" (1) Be friendly and patient is absolutely ridiculous ---
Don't expect people to pretend to be friendly and patient in every situation.
Friendliness and patience are not always warranted or can become reasonably exhausted.
be welcoming, be considerate,
Another example of trying to dictate that project members have a specific happy-go-lucky personality.
This bullshit doesn't belong in the code of conduct of a project.
As it's gone way beyond setting "reasonable boundaries" and right into territory of trying to dictate someone's idea
of what manners should be.
be respectful,
be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others, and
when we disagree, try to understand why.,
This is mostly just a repetition of the above.
If they're not mining Burst they're missing out on some money.
Burstcoin was a cute idea, but no --- mining it's not profitable if you buy 4TB drives for that: you'll lose money on the purchase,
and probably cause a premature failure of your hardware.
The coin would either need much more value, or we'd need a much cheaper storage medium than even tape.
It does? Do you mean "customers"? The people who generate video content for Youtube aren't their customers.
Your reply is off-topic.... The point is in response to the question "Why all these people rely on a service for income in without any contractual guarantee"
Ahem... *Cough* MOST real-world businesses rely on the conduct of other people for income without any contractual guarantee.
This is true, even for Youtube itself.... No advertiser provides a contractual guarantee that they will continue advertising with Youtube forever, and most can cancel whenever they want; the advertisers always have the discretion to leave, and they only have to pay for the clicks they already received.
I think the question you are really asking is, "How can I get somebody else to do all this work for me, and provide it to me for free?"
No... it's too hypothetical to be worth something, but if they make the case that they've done real work they could justify a commission on the ad revenue.
It's an interesting question..... How do you get preroll adds implemented for videos on independent websites?
Bummer is that now that you're doing ads --- the company managing the advertising or the advertisers are now in a negotiating position to dictate your content "Or else, we won't advertise with you"
Thanks for that. I hadn't read the OSC letter. So the theory is using official authority to influence the outcome of an election.
Arguably Official authority is not involved -- the official made an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to participate in a panel discussion. Discussions of this nature are designed to allow participants to share their personal beliefs or ideas on certain matters.
Sharing your opinion on what a way to affect policy is during a candid discussion is called 1st Amendment Protected free speech -- that's not "Interference" with an election.
Subsection (c) says they can state political opinions, And the US Constitution makes sure that EVERYONE has the right to state political opinions.
Anyways, removing a FCC commissioner from office or taking other actions to penalize them under 7323 would essentially require congress passes an article of impeachment, and the senate concurs, which is not going to happen over a republican appointee "Suggesting" some people re-elect the president if their object is to maintain the same policies.
There's tremendous liability here.
Youtube has basically zero liability for 3rd party content on their website, thanks to legal protections and safe harbors.
With exception of copyright --- they don't censor crap based on "liability";
it's primarily to protect their reputation with the public, AND with advertisers especially, and
secondarily to enforce management's view of politics and what the community standards on Youtube should be (For example, the new Anti-gun policies).
Telling people to try drug X without a medical license and the drug not coming through
a properly regulated distribution channel likely leads viewers to buy it on the internet.
The same is true of all snake-oil health supplements, which are big business.
Distribution channels for supplements, to the extent they're regulated at all, are only regulated by the manufacturers, and
the government's agencies FBI / US Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- is primarily there to enforce the manufacturer's will.
Every restaurant and retail store on the planet relies on the conduct of other people for income without any contractual guarantee.
YouTube rejects the appeal for reason given above. News is still at 11.
So YouTube is known for this, BUT this again raises the question: How can we enable small publishers to produce and make available for watching: video for people to see on the internet, and connect with audiences, in a manner in which the videos cannot be taken down or censored by a third party?
Publishing to Youtube used to be the answer, but now Youtube is increasingly unreasonable and taking down more and more less-objectionable stuff, So what system exists that doesn't suffer the centralization of control that YT does?
They know it is against the best interests of the vast majority
But they CAN'T stop it unless it is so obviously illegal that they could deny it and their denial would stand up in court.
See.... the government's currently attempting to deny the ATT / Time Warner merger, and that's been temporarily delayed while the parties currently have proceedings underway in court to override the government's decision by getting a judgement that the merger is legal.
The ICANN process is laborious and expensive.... If the registration violates the cybersquatting act in the US, then it can actually be more efficient sometimes to sue in federal court under the cybersquatting act.
And get the judge to sign an order directing the registrar, registry-operator, ICANN, Etc, to transfer ownership of the domain to the plaintiff
In many ways the guy owning the domain should have probably seen it coming and had a backup domain name?
The guy owning the domain should have seen it coming and placed a $300/Year REGISTRY LOCK on the domain so that not even the domain registrar would be able to make changes to it without Verisign calling up the registrant and receiving permission to temporarily unlock the domain for changes.
All other countries get a TLD (.fr for France) which they are (AFAIK) free to administer as they please.
There's something you've misunderstood.... .fr don't "Belong" to the country --- Yes, the local government will be _consulted_ in the process of appointing a ccTLD manager (to allow the government to offer any objections it might have), but the ccTLDs are not owned by, run by, or controlled by any "government"; the ccTLDs get delegated to a corporation or other entity that applies to have the ccTLD delegated and thus become the ccTLD manager, and the requirements to have the ccTLD delegated include that the operation must be "In the public interest" for the benefit of the community represented by the ccTLD.
TLDs such as
There's an application / delegation process, and ultimately there's a decision made by the internet community in regards to appointing ccTLD managers, and it's the ccTLD manager that decides the registration policies.
Whois privacy is a thing. Most registrars just charge extra for it. I see no problem with making that free and the default option.
When you use the "whois privacy" option: the legal owner of the domain according to the registry will be a proxy service. That means technically you no longer own the domain, except according to the proxy service you've hired --- if they go bankrupt or something, there's a chance "your" domain gets sold to satisfy their debts.
It's an expensive gene therapy that turbocharges a patient's own immune system cells to attack cancer. The cost for such a procedure can exceed $370,000 per patient.
Rather than trying to Find a way to pay for it; we need to figure out WTH is the cost per patient so high for such a promising procedure --- is it due to the actual amount of work involved, or is some company levying an arbitrary tax based on how much they think it's "worth" for those that need it? What are the complexities in the process that make it expensive to perform?
The cost of the process needs to be made reasonable to become a viable treatment option.....
All those extra pixels will go to waste on such a tiny little "big" screen TV...... On the other hand, imagine how cool 8K
would look projected onto a 400-inch wide x 300-inch high rectangle on the wall.