For example an US Gallon of petrol is about 6.6USD right now
Petrol in the US is very cheap compared to other western nations, so it is not a very good indications of prices. You are better off looking at the The Big Mac Index to do comparisons.
So how in the word is it possible that in the US 15/hour is barely a living wage? How wasteful a life are you living there seriously?
In a word.. extremely. With 2400 sq foot homes being normal, and 3000 sq foot home not unusual, and the car being the basis of personal transport what do you expect?
Bad analogy. Noone would market a car as a "flying car" is the only flight it could do is lift up enough to make it easier to change the oil.
Why is it a bad analogy? All these doctors are doing is chilling people down in order to perform a brief surgery, so I can understand why they are trying to stay away from a moniker of "SUSPENDED ANIMATION!!!!!"
The point I was making with my analogy is that a flying car company wouldn't do it either.
Nothing wrong with calling it Suspended Animation if that's EXACTLY what it is.
I think that the problem they are trying to avoid is that most people have a preconceived ideas as to what "Suspended Animation" should be. These people are trying as much as possible to stay away from those preconceived ideas, and hence avoid being ridiculed for not living up to a hundred years of sic-fi hype.
As an analogy, what would happen to a company that after years of design and testing released A FLYING CAR!!!! But play down the fact that this car could only perform vertical flight limited to 6 feet high whilst in your own driveway, solely to facilitate under car maintenance? Sure it flies, and it is useful, but it don't quite meet all those expectations.
It kind of reminds me when futurists used to imagine robots as humanoid devices, pulling levers and turning knobs--with it never occurring to them that it would be much more efficient to actually REPLACE the old levers and knobs altogether and let the machine be operated directly by computer.
Well if the robots have to co-exist with us, do we change our environment to suite them, or do we build them to suite our environment?
For example, why are all the self driving cars actually cars? Surely there is a better form factor for schlepping around people and goods. But getting to that form factor would mean tearing down our current infrastructure. Its only after we replace all the manually driven cars that we can go to the next step and build an entirely new infrastructure to replace roads.
Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this sun of York; And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house In the deep bosom of the ocean buried. Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths; Our bruised arms hung up for monuments; Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings, Our dreadful marches to delightful measures. Grim-visaged war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front; And now, instead of mounting barded steeds To fright the souls of fearful adversaries, He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber To the lascivious pleasing of a lute. But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks, Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass; I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty To strut before a wanton ambling nymph; I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion, Cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time Into this breathing world, scarce half made up, And that so lamely and unfashionable That dogs bark at me as I halt by them; Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace, Have no delight to pass away the time, Unless to spy my shadow in the sun And descant on mine own deformity: And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain And hate the idle pleasures of these days. Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams, To set my brother Clarence and the king In deadly hate the one against the other: And if King Edward be as true and just As I am subtle, false and treacherous, This day should Clarence closely be mew'd up, About a prophecy, which says that 'G' Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be. Dive, thoughts, down to my soul: here Clarence comes.
The journal didn't publish the paper because the referee said it was an unsalvageable piece of crap, which is precisely how peer review is supposed to work.
Obviously the referee is a part of the AGM movement and was doing his part to make sure the truth isn't published/sarcasm*
* Sadly I expect this to be used as a genuine counter argument.
So if the dumb fucks who don't/won't secure their weapons, how else do you protect the innocents aside from making sure that the dumb fuck's guns are secured for them?
You put the "dumb fucks" in jail when they screw up and/or remove the children from their custody.
The problem is that when the Dumb fucks screw, someone is already dead.
Gun enthusiasts have no interest in this technology. Who wants something that will reduce reliability and increase price?
The only people pushing for it are those who dislike the idea of civilian firearm ownership.
That's more than enough to make me suspicious.
LK
It pains me to do this, but I'm going to have to bring forth the "Think of the children" argument.
Its well known that if you have a gun in the home that you are more likely to die a violent death. At that also includes family members who also reside in your home. Now you could say a responsible gun owner would make their weapon safe (and I know there are plenty of responsible gun owners) - but that smacks of a true scotsman argument as its the irresponsible ones who are leading this death charge. And as with all populations that can be described with a bell curve, more gun ownership means more idiots owning guns, which means more innocent people dying.
So if the dumb fucks who don't/won't secure their weapons, how else do you protect the innocents aside from making sure that the dumb fuck's guns are secured for them?
Education obviously hasn't worked as the dumb fucks are still leaving unsecured weapons lying around. The only other solution is to ensure that the dumb fucks don't have weapons.. and even I know how that stance would fly.
Cheaper Hardware / Expensive software argument is odd. When I got to these linuxfests, Mac-book Pros are by far the most common. Kind of hypocritical there. Apple does not represent anything free and open.
Nothing changes, I went to one in the late '90s and it was VAIOs all over the place.
This story will now be flooded by the "I am so retro-cool because I own a Nokia 1100 with a 1-incg monochrome LCD and it does all I ever need it to do" crowd.
Nah.. I'm so retro that I own a Razr.. and that my typical yearly bill is about $200 max.
Given that I sit in front of multiple computers for most of the day I see no need to carry the internet in my pocket.
While I can't prove it either way (and don't have time for a deeper look), a quick google shows that there are a lot of educated people in the criminal law field who agree with me that the death penalty is not a deterrent. In fairness there are also educated people who believe that it does.
But I would argue that criminals don't sit back and have a leisurely debate about the pros and cons of committing a crime that would engender capital punishment, prior to carrying it out. If anything such crimes are committed on a more emotional/spontaneous basis.
Back in the day I did a lot of c++, but nowadays I prefer things like c# (partly because I don't have to deal with header files any more). But I still keep tabs on C++ through reading questions on stack overflow. And what really amazes me is the number of "language lawyer" questions arguing over the precise definition of some point in a C++ standard - and that scares me into believing that no sane person could ever write well formed c++.
We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive.
And carrying out a death penalty also has it's costs. Take a read of costs death penalty. (I may be cherry picking a bit here but) From that article it was estimated that California could save $170 million a year by commuting al death sentences to life in prison.
Given that the death penalty was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment was no deterrent. So if the death penalty is not a deterrent, why again does the US have it? It can't be to protect the victims, and I've seen figures that suggest locking someone up for life is actually cheaper to do (given all the appeals, special wings etc). The only conclusion I can realistically see is pure revenge by the rest of society.
He shot someone and watched as his two friends buried her ALIVE. 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heartattack vs. breathing dirt. You decide...
Slashdot Mirror
For example an US Gallon of petrol is about 6.6USD right now
Petrol in the US is very cheap compared to other western nations, so it is not a very good indications of prices. You are better off looking at the The Big Mac Index to do comparisons.
So how in the word is it possible that in the US 15/hour is barely a living wage? How wasteful a life are you living there seriously?
In a word .. extremely. With 2400 sq foot homes being normal, and 3000 sq foot home not unusual, and the car being the basis of personal transport what do you expect?
Then you have bunch of the best doing the jobs and everyone who is not feasible to hire for that $15/hr is simply put onto government support.
Australia has a minimum wage of about $15 right now. And the unemployment rate is less than 6%.
That much Perl?
Yeah I'm surprised that they were 20 lines short.
The submitter may have an excuse or two. Editors, on the othe hand, have no good excuses.
A space bar is the easiest button to find.
What's an Editor? I haven't seen any around here.
^^What he said
Closed loop control with continual re-homing is standard for any position critical industrial automation system.
Shit I even do that with cranes that lift cargo containers off ships - so the scale of the end process is irrelevant!
Bad analogy. Noone would market a car as a "flying car" is the only flight it could do is lift up enough to make it easier to change the oil.
Why is it a bad analogy? All these doctors are doing is chilling people down in order to perform a brief surgery, so I can understand why they are trying to stay away from a moniker of "SUSPENDED ANIMATION!!!!!"
The point I was making with my analogy is that a flying car company wouldn't do it either.
Nothing wrong with calling it Suspended Animation if that's EXACTLY what it is.
I think that the problem they are trying to avoid is that most people have a preconceived ideas as to what "Suspended Animation" should be. These people are trying as much as possible to stay away from those preconceived ideas, and hence avoid being ridiculed for not living up to a hundred years of sic-fi hype.
As an analogy, what would happen to a company that after years of design and testing released A FLYING CAR!!!! But play down the fact that this car could only perform vertical flight limited to 6 feet high whilst in your own driveway, solely to facilitate under car maintenance? Sure it flies, and it is useful, but it don't quite meet all those expectations.
It kind of reminds me when futurists used to imagine robots as humanoid devices, pulling levers and turning knobs--with it never occurring to them that it would be much more efficient to actually REPLACE the old levers and knobs altogether and let the machine be operated directly by computer.
Well if the robots have to co-exist with us, do we change our environment to suite them, or do we build them to suite our environment?
For example, why are all the self driving cars actually cars? Surely there is a better form factor for schlepping around people and goods. But getting to that form factor would mean tearing down our current infrastructure. Its only after we replace all the manually driven cars that we can go to the next step and build an entirely new infrastructure to replace roads.
News at 5:15, 5:45, 6:10, 6:40, 7:15, 7:45, 8:30, 9:10, 9:45, 10:20, 11:30 (I watch too much CNN)
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barded steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mew'd up,
About a prophecy, which says that 'G'
Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul: here
Clarence comes.
The journal didn't publish the paper because the referee said it was an unsalvageable piece of crap, which is precisely how peer review is supposed to work.
Obviously the referee is a part of the AGM movement and was doing his part to make sure the truth isn't published /sarcasm*
* Sadly I expect this to be used as a genuine counter argument.
Its as if I heard the sound of hundreds, nay thousands of *whooshes* all at once.
Well played sir.
So if the dumb fucks who don't/won't secure their weapons, how else do you protect the innocents aside from making sure that the dumb fuck's guns are secured for them?
You put the "dumb fucks" in jail when they screw up and/or remove the children from their custody.
The problem is that when the Dumb fucks screw, someone is already dead.
Gun enthusiasts have no interest in this technology. Who wants something that will reduce reliability and increase price?
The only people pushing for it are those who dislike the idea of civilian firearm ownership.
That's more than enough to make me suspicious.
LK
It pains me to do this, but I'm going to have to bring forth the "Think of the children" argument.
Its well known that if you have a gun in the home that you are more likely to die a violent death. At that also includes family members who also reside in your home. Now you could say a responsible gun owner would make their weapon safe (and I know there are plenty of responsible gun owners) - but that smacks of a true scotsman argument as its the irresponsible ones who are leading this death charge. And as with all populations that can be described with a bell curve, more gun ownership means more idiots owning guns, which means more innocent people dying.
So if the dumb fucks who don't/won't secure their weapons, how else do you protect the innocents aside from making sure that the dumb fuck's guns are secured for them?
Education obviously hasn't worked as the dumb fucks are still leaving unsecured weapons lying around. The only other solution is to ensure that the dumb fucks don't have weapons .. and even I know how that stance would fly.
Cheaper Hardware / Expensive software argument is odd. When I got to these linuxfests, Mac-book Pros are by far the most common. Kind of hypocritical there. Apple does not represent anything free and open.
Nothing changes, I went to one in the late '90s and it was VAIOs all over the place.
This story will now be flooded by the "I am so retro-cool because I own a Nokia 1100 with a 1-incg monochrome LCD and it does all I ever need it to do" crowd.
Nah .. I'm so retro that I own a Razr .. and that my typical yearly bill is about $200 max.
Given that I sit in front of multiple computers for most of the day I see no need to carry the internet in my pocket.
Has any storm chaser captured video when deliberately flying a drone INTO a tornado? Now that would be a sight t see!
your logic is flawed
While I can't prove it either way (and don't have time for a deeper look), a quick google shows that there are a lot of educated people in the criminal law field who agree with me that the death penalty is not a deterrent. In fairness there are also educated people who believe that it does.
But I would argue that criminals don't sit back and have a leisurely debate about the pros and cons of committing a crime that would engender capital punishment, prior to carrying it out. If anything such crimes are committed on a more emotional/spontaneous basis.
Back in the day I did a lot of c++, but nowadays I prefer things like c# (partly because I don't have to deal with header files any more). But I still keep tabs on C++ through reading questions on stack overflow. And what really amazes me is the number of "language lawyer" questions arguing over the precise definition of some point in a C++ standard - and that scares me into believing that no sane person could ever write well formed c++.
It would also I suspect be a bitch to clean.
Nah, the cleaning bit is easy. The drop is actually straight into the grave. No mess, no fuss. /sarcasm
Or beating people up because they are different Five Hasidic Jews Arrested for Williamsburg Attack on Gay Man
Or because they don't follow your rules Ultra-Orthodox Israeli couple sparks riot after telling woman to move to the back of a public bus
We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive.
And carrying out a death penalty also has it's costs. Take a read of costs death penalty. (I may be cherry picking a bit here but) From that article it was estimated that California could save $170 million a year by commuting al death sentences to life in prison.
So do you want to pay more or less taxes?
Because of people like this.
Given that the death penalty was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment was no deterrent. So if the death penalty is not a deterrent, why again does the US have it? It can't be to protect the victims, and I've seen figures that suggest locking someone up for life is actually cheaper to do (given all the appeals, special wings etc). The only conclusion I can realistically see is pure revenge by the rest of society.
He shot someone and watched as his two friends buried her ALIVE. 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heartattack vs. breathing dirt. You decide...
So you condone torture?
I mean the idea of nontraditional companies making shows.
Last century the embodiment of that idea became "Soap Operas".