It takes time to move thousands of tons of rock, even with the best equipment. Especially if you're interested in not causing further cave-in. I mean, we could nuke the mine, and get down to the miners no problem. But their odds of survival would be considerably lower using this strategy.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restless 1: lacking or denying rest : uneasy 2: continuously moving : unquiet 3: characterized by or manifesting unrest especially of mind ; also : changeful, discontented
There's a point to having your data served faster if you can have multiple people access it concurrently. IE, provide access to your latest home movie project to hundreds of people, without necessarily having to go as public as youtube.
I assume google is going to offer you higher speed access to your data than what you (or the typical person) could afford to buy at home (ie more than 1 megabit / second upstream).
I'd also place good odds on google offering indexing and web publishing services eventually, if not right out of the gate.
The law provides guidance for those who may not be capable of reasoning the right path for themselves. Driving drunk clearly imperils others, yet many people don't realize just how little drinking it takes to become impaired enough to greatly increase your likelyhood of killing someone. So we have laws, because people aren't capable of figuring it out for themselves. We make the penalties harsh, so that people will plan (while they are sober) not to get themselves into the situation that will lead to those penalties being applied to them.
Drunk driving law enforcement works. The harsher the DUI penalties, the lower the drunk accident rates drop.
As to the biker, I think you have a very poor understanding of insurance. Insurance payments max out very quickly for extensive hospital stays, and bikers who suffer head trauma almost inevitably wind up costing the public when their insurance stops paying for their hospital bills. Then we (the public) pick up the slack, because the doctors don't stop working on those patients! So we pay, through higher taxes and higher health care premiums.
Making bikers wear a helmet makes the world less costly for the rest of us. It's either that, or we all pay the 'don't make bikers wear helmets tax', or we have hospitals refuse service to bikers. Which would you choose: make other people wear helmets, pay a tax, or let bikers die if they get in an accident?
Finally, DUI laws don't penalize those who make good decisions. If you make the good decisions, you won't be in violation of the DUI laws, because you weren't driving under the influence. The worst 'penalty' I can imagine in this situation is the one where you pay a little extra for cab service? Is that what you're talking about? That's just part of the real cost of drinking safely in public. Claiming otherwise is just ignoring the hidden costs.
That's just untrue. Monetary costs for hospitalization regularly exceed the maximum insurance coverage most people carry. When the hospital takes those losses, they raise bills for the rest of us.
The other half of the problem is old-fashioned sobriety tests are left to the judgement of the cop. He couldn't walk straight, honest, judge! A breathalyzer keeps an at least slightly harder to tamper with record.
The question is, if they're good, quality people, why aren't they planning ahead while they're sober? It's not hard to guarantee while you're sober that you'll never wind up in a situation where you wind up drinking and driving because you got drunk and couldn't think straight.
Make the device cheap, and start holding the bartenders responsible for accidents caused by the people they served. You'll fix the problem instantly. No one will serve anyone over the limit, and they'll have video proof that they didn't.
I'm fairly sure that wearing a helmet would reduce your field of vision, so that would make things less safe for others. We make motorcyclists wear helmets because the average cost of fixing them up after an accident without a helmet greatly exceeds the average cost of the damage they do when they have accidents because of something they didn't see.
For alcohol, there's going to be a bal level below which floor effects mean that any decrease in driving ability is not measurable. We should simply require your bal to be below the level for which this is true for the average person (since we cannot afford to measure this on a person by person basis). I have no idea if.08 is above or below this floor number, but I suspect it is above.
I replied to a couple of others, and to myself, but since your post came in so late I'll give you the courtesy of a reply too: I omitted the <severe sarcasm> tags around my post.:-)
I think that's intended to be a tease for the subscriber feature... you know those subscribers are already in that article, editing comments like mad, killing your dudes, etc.
Bad form to reply to myself, but in case it isn't clear, I'm fully intending the above to be highly sarcastic. I believe risk averaging is a good idea, and the ideas proposed in this article to be on a pretty steep slippery slope to being sufficiently obviously evil for anyone to recognize it as such.
I'm sorry the sarcasm didn't come across sufficiently in my post. I'm in total agreement with you, and I think the proposition that we should start charging certain people more based on their risk levels is almost preposterously evil.
I'm sorry about your mother. In case it wasn't clear my post was intended to be extremely sarcastic. I think insurance is the right way to go, and we shouldn't back away from it and allow crap like charging overweight people extra.
Maybe you're using the wrong BMI formula. Mine is 26 and I'm in excellent shape. BMI is well known for being grossly off in predicting disease for tall or muscular people, and if you're both, that's the worst. I used http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm which gives me the same BMI number as every other calculator I've seen.
Could we also charge him once per instance on those he has encouraged to take up smoking? I'm pretty sure we could pay down our huge public debt on that.
Slashdot Mirror
If you didn't have at least a million Lego blocks to play with, you didn't really have a childhood.
The wierd physics of the alien spacecraft made anyone who got too close melt ala ROTLA.
It takes time to move thousands of tons of rock, even with the best equipment. Especially if you're interested in not causing further cave-in. I mean, we could nuke the mine, and get down to the miners no problem. But their odds of survival would be considerably lower using this strategy.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restful
s
1 : marked by, affording, or suggesting rest and repose
2 : being at rest : quiet
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restles
1: lacking or denying rest : uneasy
2: continuously moving : unquiet
3: characterized by or manifesting unrest especially of mind ; also : changeful, discontented
There's a point to having your data served faster if you can have multiple people access it concurrently. IE, provide access to your latest home movie project to hundreds of people, without necessarily having to go as public as youtube.
I assume google is going to offer you higher speed access to your data than what you (or the typical person) could afford to buy at home (ie more than 1 megabit / second upstream).
I'd also place good odds on google offering indexing and web publishing services eventually, if not right out of the gate.
Please, go do more research on the topic.o torcycle/kentuky-la03/LawChgKy.html#Anchor-FATALIT IE-53804o torcycle/kentuky-la03/LawChgLa.html#Anchor-FATALIT IE-17701
http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-helmets.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/pedbimot/m
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/pedbimot/m
The law provides guidance for those who may not be capable of reasoning the right path for themselves. Driving drunk clearly imperils others, yet many people don't realize just how little drinking it takes to become impaired enough to greatly increase your likelyhood of killing someone. So we have laws, because people aren't capable of figuring it out for themselves. We make the penalties harsh, so that people will plan (while they are sober) not to get themselves into the situation that will lead to those penalties being applied to them.
Drunk driving law enforcement works. The harsher the DUI penalties, the lower the drunk accident rates drop.
As to the biker, I think you have a very poor understanding of insurance. Insurance payments max out very quickly for extensive hospital stays, and bikers who suffer head trauma almost inevitably wind up costing the public when their insurance stops paying for their hospital bills. Then we (the public) pick up the slack, because the doctors don't stop working on those patients! So we pay, through higher taxes and higher health care premiums.
Making bikers wear a helmet makes the world less costly for the rest of us. It's either that, or we all pay the 'don't make bikers wear helmets tax', or we have hospitals refuse service to bikers. Which would you choose: make other people wear helmets, pay a tax, or let bikers die if they get in an accident?
Finally, DUI laws don't penalize those who make good decisions. If you make the good decisions, you won't be in violation of the DUI laws, because you weren't driving under the influence. The worst 'penalty' I can imagine in this situation is the one where you pay a little extra for cab service? Is that what you're talking about? That's just part of the real cost of drinking safely in public. Claiming otherwise is just ignoring the hidden costs.
That's just untrue. Monetary costs for hospitalization regularly exceed the maximum insurance coverage most people carry. When the hospital takes those losses, they raise bills for the rest of us.
The other half of the problem is old-fashioned sobriety tests are left to the judgement of the cop. He couldn't walk straight, honest, judge!
A breathalyzer keeps an at least slightly harder to tamper with record.
The question is, if they're good, quality people, why aren't they planning ahead while they're sober? It's not hard to guarantee while you're sober that you'll never wind up in a situation where you wind up drinking and driving because you got drunk and couldn't think straight.
Make the device cheap, and start holding the bartenders responsible for accidents caused by the people they served. You'll fix the problem instantly. No one will serve anyone over the limit, and they'll have video proof that they didn't.
I'm fairly sure that wearing a helmet would reduce your field of vision, so that would make things less safe for others.
.08 is above or below this floor number, but I suspect it is above.
We make motorcyclists wear helmets because the average cost of fixing them up after an accident without a helmet greatly exceeds the average cost of the damage they do when they have accidents because of something they didn't see.
For alcohol, there's going to be a bal level below which floor effects mean that any decrease in driving ability is not measurable. We should simply require your bal to be below the level for which this is true for the average person (since we cannot afford to measure this on a person by person basis). I have no idea if
One of the moderators also replied, noting he had moderated insightful based on recognizing the sarcasm, so that made me feel better. :-)
I replied to a couple of others, and to myself, but since your post came in so late I'll give you the courtesy of a reply too: :-)
I omitted the <severe sarcasm> tags around my post.
I see those lazy bums riding the plow with their head down on the steering fork, obviously asleep, all the time.
I think that's intended to be a tease for the subscriber feature ... you know those subscribers are already in that article, editing comments like mad, killing your dudes, etc.
Whoosh!
(The joke being: java is slow).
I'm fondly hopeful that those moderators recognized the sarcasm. We're on the same side my friend.
Bad form to reply to myself, but in case it isn't clear, I'm fully intending the above to be highly sarcastic. I believe risk averaging is a good idea, and the ideas proposed in this article to be on a pretty steep slippery slope to being sufficiently obviously evil for anyone to recognize it as such.
I'm sorry the sarcasm didn't come across sufficiently in my post. I'm in total agreement with you, and I think the proposition that we should start charging certain people more based on their risk levels is almost preposterously evil.
I'm sorry about your mother. In case it wasn't clear my post was intended to be extremely sarcastic. I think insurance is the right way to go, and we shouldn't back away from it and allow crap like charging overweight people extra.
That's exactly the same thing. Just turn the minuses to plusses and reverse the baseline.
Maybe you're using the wrong BMI formula. Mine is 26 and I'm in excellent shape.
BMI is well known for being grossly off in predicting disease for tall or muscular people, and if you're both, that's the worst.
I used
http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm
which gives me the same BMI number as every other calculator I've seen.
Could we also charge him once per instance on those he has encouraged to take up smoking? I'm pretty sure we could pay down our huge public debt on that.