The first three digits shoud be easy to guess if we know roughly how old he is and what state he was born in. If we had that info, I'll bet we could cut x down to 3 or 4 possibilities.
Actually, the first 5 digits can be determined based upon how old he is, and which state he was born in (assuming typical issuance at birth). The first three indicate the state (though some states have multiple triplets, which are rotated.) However, the next 2 digits are not random; they are used up in a set pattern, so it is possible to learn exactly what the first 5 digits were for any SS# issued in a given state in a given date range. Using the Freedom of Informatio Act, you can ask the governement the highest group number issued at any date! (http://www.ssa.gov/employer/highgroup.txt) Nice of them, huh?
Unfortunately, the parent argument is flawed. I will not dispute that while small, there is a finite probability of an intelligent life form evolving. Thus, given an infinite universe and infinite time, intelligent life would occur. However, I believe that you have glossed over some assumptions:
a) The universe is infinite spacially... This is just wrong and not worth discussing. You may get varying opinions about the rate of expansion/contraction of the universe from astronomers, but the scientific community has a pretty good idea of the size of the universe.
b) The universe is infinite in time... The second law of thermodynamics seems to demand entropic death of the universe. I presume that the statistical probability of intelligent life evolving remains finite only so long as there remains sufficient free energy.
To overcome these objections, you would need to solve quantitatively, giving estimates of the lifetime and size of the universe and the probability of intelligent life evolving. Even then, you would only be able to state the probability of intelligent life evolving, but would not be able to claim that it would "have to happen."
However, there remains one glaring assumption that would remain unanswered, and would invalidate the whole on its own.
c) The universe exists... Here is where I personally find some of the best evidence for the existence of God, the philosophical first cause argument, as well as the beauty and symmettry of the universe. (While theoretically, life might be possible with a radically different balancing of the strong, electo-weak, and gravitational forces, it is difficult for me to imagine.) This does not mean that once God created the universe, evolution may not have been the mechanism by which man was created (neglecting the addition of the immortal soul, said question lying outside the realm of scientific inquiry). I have no objection to either micro or macro-evolution, but cannot avoid seeing the hand of God in the overall process of going from pre-Big Bang to man.
I take offense at the parent's summation of my beliefs about religion, particularly his putting words in my mouth claiming I believe "It [religion] doesn't need to make sense." Before you attack somebody this way, make sure you know what you're talking about.
Religion makes quite a bit of sense, and if Catholicism did not answer and agree with more of the facts I have observed about existence than any other explanation, I would not be a Catholic. You claim the basic beliefs of a Catholic are contradictory and absurd. (I assume you meant contradictory to science.) Well, let's examine the beliefs you stated:
the existence of an all-powerful/all-knowing being - Science says absolutely nothing against this, and the existence of miracles (many documented, many non-subjective, but not qualifying as scientific proof as we cannot command God to provide miracles on demand) provides ample evidence.
life after death/heaven and hell - Please tell me which scientist has died and reported back that there is nothing. Science implicitly cannot measure anything about what happens after death, as we cannot provide an observer. Strong argument in favor of religion is that science also cannot explain life itself (organic life yes, but not the concept of making choices). I have more evidence for my ability to make decisions (true decisions, not computations) than I have for even gravity. Pure science has not yet offered any explanation of how I as a purely material being could make a real choice. Therefore, there is more evidence for religion (albeit not a specific one) than for the theory of gravity.
creationism: If you had actually read my post which you were attacking, you would have seen that I am not a creationist (and neither is the Catholic Church). The Catholic Churh has no problem with evolution assuming you allow that God created man, through evolution.
Please at least understanding what you are attacking before you do so. I have applied all my scientific skill to my examination of my religion, and have never found a true contradiction. Religion, for the most part, addresses issues that are not measurable by science, such as what happens after death. For the rest, there is strong evidence for religion. I'm not ignoring the contradiction; I have searched and found there is none.
I must disagree with the parent's statement that religion and science are the antithesis of each other. I do wholeheartedly agree that religion and science are not the same, however, I do not believe that they are opposites, or must be opposed to each other. If they were, I'd have a major problem, because I am both a professional scientist, and a devout Catholic.
In order to observe how science and religion are not opposed to each other, let me rename science and religion. I will call science the search for the truth about the universe. I will call religion the search for truth about creation, and worship of the Creator. (I admit that the way I phrased my definition of religion does not include all religions, as it should to be a proper defintition, but I don't know how to phrase it to be inclusive yet still specific.) I suspect that most people will agree that these definitions, while not perfect, are reasonable descriptions of what science and religion should be. Looking at these definitions, we see that science is compatible with religion. The universe is part of creation, and hence science is one part of the quest for Truth. (It can, perhaps, be argued that science can exist independant of religion, from the above definitions, but clearly they need not be opposed to each other.)
Some may be inclined to counter this argument by expanding upon the parent's claim that "Religion demands adherence without proof," perhaps by providing examples. However, that still is not the true opposite of the statement that "Science demands adherence only with proof." For religion to be the true antithesis of the parent's definition of science, religion would demand adherence only with DISproof. You may be able to find religions that have tenets of their faith that have been disproved. I can also provide you evidence of improper science (cold fusion,...). This merely shows that there is nonideal religion and nonideal science.
Ideally, science and religion are not only compatible, but are both aspects of the search for Truth. While faith is an important part of religion, reason should be as well. Scientific inquiries will have a slightly different focus than religious inquiries, and should not accept certain sources (such as the bible or sacred Tradition) as proof. That is not a problem, as science is not religion. Nor, since religion is not science should it matter if religion has different standards for acceptance of a fact. As long as religion does not hold beliefs directly contrary to scientifically proven fact, the two remain compatible. For this reason, I can state, without compromising my integrity as a scientist or a Catholic, that I believe that God created evolution and man.
I've gotten fed up with people insulting undecided voters or voters who aren't clearly pro-Bush or pro-Kerry. I can understand how people can be undecided. What I cannot understand is why anyone would insult undecided voters or consider them idiots. This must be considered with the caveat that I am only referring to those voters who will actually vote, and are actually staying informed and comparing the candidates when I refer to undecided voters. I would have a great deal more difficulty defending those who do not participate in the electoral process.
First, let's apply the hypocrisy check to a pro-X person calling undecided voters idiots. (This post is completely non-partisan with respect to Democratic versus Republican. For that matter, my use of X and Y is not intended to represent a partisan viewpoint between males and females.) Logically, the undecided voter can be counted as 50% voting for X, 50% vote for Y. On the other hand those voting for candidate Y are 100% for Y. If you are radically pro-X, then an undecided voter is only half as bad as a pro-Y voter. Therefore, before you revile the undecided voters, you must revile doubly all the pro-Y voters. Given that each candidate has greater than 40% of the popular vote right now, if you consider voters for candidate Y complete idiots, than undecided voters must be better than 40% of the population, putting them at average intelligence.
But, "Wait," you say, "the candidates are clearly different, so anybody with any brains would be able to figure out whose positions align better with their own views. Therefore I'm justified in calling them idiots if they can't decide." The problem is that while the candidates views are well defined and different, the election is not based on just one issue. Let's assume that candidate X supports holds positions A, B, C, and D in a four issue election. Let's assume that party Y holds positions a, b, c, and d on those issues. Assuming that the nation is relatively divided on those issues (a reasonable assumption, as if the nation wasn't, the candidate would have been told by his pollsters to hold the strong majority position), and that the viewpoints on the issues are non-correlated (if they are correlated strongly, we should treat them as only one issue), then by statistics (permutations of voter beliefs left to the reader), the nation should be:
6.25% agree 100 % with candidate X 25% agree 75 % with candidate X 37.5% agree 50 % with candidate X and equally with candidate Y 25% agree 75 % with candidate Y 6.25% agree 100 % with candidate Y
So, assuming that we have four different non-correlated divisive issues about which every voter has strong viewpoints on all issues, and all four issues are equally important, 37.5% of the population should be undecided about who to vote for, as each candidate represents 50% of their views. Note, that the greatest number of voters who should be undecided occurs for a two issue election, with 50% undecided. The number undecided is lowest for a 1 issue election, (0 undecided), but assuming the number of issues is greater than 1, the number of undecided voters decreases with increasing number of issues. But, at the same time, the difference in how well candidate X represents their views compared to candidate Y correspondingly drops with increasing number of issues, such that while they should be able to decided, the decision is closer.
How many real, uncorrelated issues do you think there really are in this country? Certainly, I think most people would agree that there is more than one issue on which people base their opinions, so we should have many people for whom candidates X and Y represent their viewpoints equally well, or almost as well. Therefore, assuming that people are considering all the issues, and are well aware of their own positions and the respective candidates' positions, much of this nation should be undecided or only weakly in favor of one candidate over the other.
To sum it up, no matter which party you support, you cannot
First, let me state that I believe in evolution, both macro and micro-evolution. However, I do not believe in Darwinism or Creationism. Second, let me state that I believe in the Big Bang. I also believe that God created the universe. I find no contradiction between any of these beliefs, nor do I find any contradiction between my life as a scientist (B.S. Chemistry, B.S. Physics, pursuing PhD), and my life as a Christian (Roman Catholic).
The key to being able to reconcile all these viewpoints is that as a Roman Catholic, I believe in the Bible as an inspired work, but read it in context. The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, nor as a book on geography, but as a guidebook for faith and morality. Using it as a scientific textbook is about at rational as using a freshman biology book as a latin grammar book. Certainly, there will be some latin in the biology book, and you might be able to figure out a few of the rules of latin, but how much? There may also be some mistakes in the latin, especially in interfacing latin words into english sentences. Does this mean that it is a bad biology textbook? No! It means that for some reason (perhaps the high cost of textbooks), you're trying to avoid getting yourself a proper latin textbook. The book of Tobit provides a good example of where the Bible clearly is not written as a geography textbook. Throughout the book the distance between two points that were several weeks walk apart in real life was referred to and treated as a couple days journey. That does not bother me in the least, because the Book of Tobit was not written to teach me about geography, but about God. If you wish to tell me that the book of Genesis is a good proof that the Bible is not an accurate physics or biology textbook, I'd be the first to agree. Where I draw the line, though, is when people try to claim that the Bible is a bad physics or biology textbook, since it is not a physics or biology textbook.
I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible... in teaching about God, about morality, etc, but would never use it as a physics textbook. I accept the teachings of Genesis, that God created man in his image... I have no problem with people who believe in evolution, micro or macro, as I do too. I do, however, have a problem with those who then attempt to use evolution as a proof against the existence of God. Why does evolution disprove the existence of God? I can accept that science can disprove strict creationism (world 6000 years old), but how does it disprove the existence of God? How does evolution disprove that God created man in his likeness? There remain plenty of ways to do this. First, even a few non-random changes of an apparently random event could alter the evolutionary path tremendously. Second, God created the universe, and the laws of the universe. Why not create evolution in such a way that it would head in the direction He intended? Finally, what does it mean to be in the image of God? If evolution results in humans gaining a set of wings, I wouldn't be forced to say that we are no longer in God's image. (I'd probably be to busy doing aerial acrobatics to be discussing it, but that's beside the point.) To be made in the image of God has to deal more with the fact that we are not creatures purely of the flesh, but also of the spirit... that we have an immortal soul, and make choices. Here, science actually supports the existence of something it cannot explain. Science, by definition, requires that given the same set of inputs you receive a given output (or probability distribution if you've learned quantum). There is no such thing as a choice, or free will. Yet, even without knowing you, I would be willing to bet that you believe that you make choices every day, in fact our whole society is based on the belief that people's actions are their own choices. While I do not know your moral code, I know you must have one. Yet, if our every action were predetermined based on internal chemistry, all actions must be morally neutral, there can be no right or wrong. So, since you
First off, I would like to state that I am a scientist. I hold degrees in chemistry and physics, and am currently pursuing a PhD. Even without this, I would be a scientist; I cannot help being a scientist, as that is the way my mind works. This does not prevent me, however, from being religious, both in the personal sense, and from belonging to a church, specifically the Catholic Church. Since I lack sufficient knowledge of other religions to speak for them, all my statements will be with regard to the Catholic Church. However, I am sure we can all agree that the Catholic Church is not insignificant in size.
First, lets address the statement that religion claims to have the truth. Yes, the Catholic Church professes to have the truth, but on what topics? The Catholic Church professes to be an expert on... religion, and matters related to spirituality, not physics, chemistry, or biology. The Catholic Church has no official opinion regarding quantum mechanics. Second, the Catholic Church clearly states that Natural Moral Law, God's Law, and the Truth cannot ever be in conflict with each other. This religion, at least, does not necessitate renouncing your beliefs to be scientific, but even says that if something is proven to be true, the Church must agree with it. However, beware that while science may prove things, it may sometimes choose to interpret results in ways that are incorrect. Even if science has proved that the Big Bang occurred, that does not mean science has proved there is no God, just that God has access to HIGH EXPLOSIVES!
But wait, now you're going to bring up Gallileo again. This is the tired old argument that everybody invokes, and I really wish people would get some new material, though it does make it easier for me to counter since I've seen the argument a million times. To begin with, the objection of the Catholic Church to Gallileo was not purely scientific, but more in that he kept trying to claim that his work proved the Church was wrong. If he had merely claimed "Look, I have a neat scientific result that explains matters that have nothing to do with religion," he would have had many fewer problems. Second, the Church is made up of men, and men make mistakes. Even the pope is fallible on matters of science, or more specifically matters outside religion. I expect Pope John Paul II has less understanding of quantum physics than I do, and I certainly would not ask him to look over my homework for me. The Catholic Church even issued an apology, saying it made a mistake with Gallileo (quite a while later). You also invoke the similarly tired argument of Darwinism versus Creationism. This argument is more relevant, as there are individuals who take the Bible literally, and therefore "know" that Darwin was wrong. I am going to somewhat sidestep this issue by pointing out that this is held by some individuals and some religions but not the Catholic Church. Catholics do not believe that everything in the bible should be read literally. The bible was not written to be a treatise on science, or a treatise on geography, or a treatise on history. It should not be read to gain an understanding of science or geography. For example, the book of Tobit gives some distances between towns that are clearly incorrect, but that does not trouble me in the least, because the point of the book was not to teach me about geography. The bible is intended to teach about religious matters. The point of the creation story is that God created the world, and created mankind. I have no trouble believing that God set off the Big Bang, and that evolution occurred. The only caveat that I have regarding evolution is that I believe some of the mutations were somewhat less random, that God had man in mind from the beginning. However, science does not and cannot ever disprove that. Again, the problem the Catholic Church has is with Darwinism, not evolution, where Darwinism claims not just that evolution occurred, but that evolution occurred proving God did not create man.
So far, I've countered all your examples, sh
Mass Casualty Situations only, not normal practice
on
Would You Bid for a Job?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I recognize that most of the thread is about normal ER operation, however, the system of colors which the parent comment was referring to is the system used by EMT's in mass casualty settings. EMT's only really triage when we are in a mass casualty setting (triage being by defintion prioritizing patients, and if we have only one patient, there is no need to prioritize.) I probably could have made it slightly clearer in my post that my comment was a response to the parent, and only relevant in mass casualty settings, but the following line indicated I was not referring to a normal setting:
Here is the big difference in treatment between a triage (mass casualty, number of patients overwhelming the system) and a normal setting.
since everywhere else I was clearly referring to triage, and here I indicated that triage was not the normal setting.
I am an EMT, and I have to correct the parent's explanation of the triage system. He is correct that there are four different triage categories, green, yellow, red, and black. However, he is incorrect regarding the disposition of patients between the categories and how patients within the various categories are treated.
Triage begins by pointing, and asking all people who can walk to go over to where we are pointing. This will correspond to the area we've decided to establish as the green triage area. Any patient who can follow directions and walk to a location we indicated is presumably relatively okay, and treatment of them can wait till last. Therefore, anybody who walks over there is automatically classified as green, or "walking wounded." This step is critical, as it saves a lot of assessment time, often clearing out 90% of potential patients, and allowing us to locate and evaluate the 10% of patients who need care urgently much faster.
Next, a triage crew goes around evaluating all remaining patients, classifying them as either black, red, or yellow.
This determination begins by checking if they have a pulse and are breathing. If they are not breathing, we will reposition the head once to open the airway, hoping that restarts their breathing. Here is the big difference in treatment between a triage (mass casualty, number of patients overwhelming the system) and a normal setting. Normally, if a patient is not breathing, we would attempt to resuscitate them using CPR, etc. However, in a triage situation, CPR is not viable, as devoting several EMT's to extended treatment of one individual who most likely will not survive will almost definitely result in the death of several other patients. So, in a triage situation, patients are declared dead and ignored who we would normally attempt to save. However, a key difference from what the parent claimed is that we would black tag these individuals, officially declaring them dead/unsalveagable.
Red is used exclusively for those patients who are most critical, such as altered mental status, difficulty breathing (but breathing), etc., that will die without immediate medical care. The odds of survival of a patient who is not breathing are too low to justify spending time treating them, because for every one that you could save, you'd most likely lose several additional red tagged individuals on average. If you remember, I mentioned we try repositioning the airway once for all individuals who aren't breathing before we black tag them as dead. Repositioning the airway takes neglible time, and if doing so restores their breathing, then they are red tagged, because their odds of survival are sufficient to justify spending time on them. Red tagged patients are the only patients treated until there are no more red tagged patients. We do have to make tough choices (following protocol... We don't make decisions about who lives or dies, we follow protocol of how to choose who to treat to save the most lives.). Nor do we conceal that we are doing so, we clearly label as dead (black tag) individuals who we have negligible hope of saving when the attempt would cost others their lives.
If you are breathing (and hence not black tagged), but will live if you do no receive immediate treatment, then you are tagged yellow, or "delayed", as the only remaining option. (Remember, "walking wounded" or green, have already been cleared out, so the only options are black, red, or yellow.)
I've also ridden one at a nuclear power plant, and had difficulty maintaining power output. However, if I recall, the difficulty was due to lack of optimisation of the bicycle. First, the riding position (seat height, frame size) was not very adjustable, forcing me to ride in an awkward position. More importantly, however, the bike was the equivalent of a single speed bicycle... no ability to switch gears. Therefore, to obtain a high power output, it was necessary to have a very high cadence (peddle very quickly), which most likely switched the excercise from aerobic to anaerobic. If they would make a 10-speed model, I expect that a good bicyclist could maintain a decent power output relatively easily.
I sometimes prefer gift cards to cash, and some gift cards are worth at least as much as cash to me. Let's say that I am going to purchase $20 of camping equipment I want but don't really need, whether or not I have a gift card. If I purchase it using a gift card I received, I don't feel guilty about not spending my money more wisely, since I couldn't spend that money on anything else. So, in that sense a gift card could be more valuable to me, if it allows me to purchase something guilt free.
Similarly, while I am not married, assume that a husband receives either a $100 gift card to Best Buy or $100 cash, and that his wife has been getting tired of his spending all their money on tech toys. If he received the cash, he will be asking for trouble if he runs out to Best Buy, but with the gift certificate his wife will have no complaint. Therefore, the gift certificate might be more valuable to the husband.
Rubber gloves aren't sufficient for at least two reasons.
First, in order to treat a patient, the EMT often has to enter the car, lean over it, lean on it, etc. Therefore, they end up touching the car with their hands, their knees, arms, side, etc. We have enough fun just avoiding broken glass, sharp surfaces, etc, especially when you consider that broken glass, etc, can be touched without injuring you as long as you are careful. With live electricity, any contact is sufficient.
Second, it isn't a simple pair of latex gloves. The gloves referred to here are THICK rubber gloves, designed to serve as electrical insulators. Those might be fine for firefighters, but not for EMT's. Compare the typical firefighter's protective gear to an EMT's. Firefighting equipment is designed to be used by people in heavy protective gear. Unfortunately, EMTs work on people, and we can't easily redesign people to be easier to work on in heavy protective gear. It would be very difficult to take a pulse, palpate for injuries, or start an IV (feeling for the veins) in thick gloves. In fact, even the usual latex gloves are often annoying, though necessary.
I can't speak for the other fields in this list, but I am an EMT (volunteer), and have ridden in many ambulances. Based on this, I disagree with your using ambulances as an example of a safe combination of driving and talking on a radio/cell phone. The truth is that the driver of the ambulance very rarely uses the radio. Jobs on an ambulance are divided up. Minimal crew is two people, so on the way to the call, the driver has one job, driving, while the second medic is responsible for radio traffic, navigation, reading maps, etc. Similarly, on the way to the hospital with a patient, the driver does very little with the radio. Typically, all the driver does with the radio is signal that the ambulance is enroute to the hospital, and then signal that it is at the hospital. Most ambulances that I have ridden on have automated this task so that the driver can push a single button for each. Additionally, the driver could easily radio these in just before starting driving (for the enroute call) and just after parking (for the at hospital call). Communication to the hospital covering the patient condition, expected arrival time, etc. is usually covered by the medic in the back, not the driver. There may also be communication asking your location, but that is usually when not on a call/on the way to a call, again not handled by the driver. If it is on the way to the hospital, it is a short answer, not a conversation, and even then the driver may choose not to respond until he's on a clear stretch of road. So, there are cases where the driver would be on the radio, but not in the majority of calls, and even then it uses a different speech style than a cell phone conversation. While I do not have personal experience on a fire truck, I assume that similar division of driver/radio operator would apply there.
So, what the use of radios on ambulances establishes is that it is safe for a PASSENGER in a vehicle to be on a cell phone.
If any search combination containing XFree86 as a term should be blocked for returning too high of a percentage of porn links that would be the one. After all, this search should clearly increase the proportion of porn related sites. However, that search works fine.
I must admit, however, that the search did not return XFree86.org as the first result. Instead, the first result (and the fourth) were both Slashdot, which some people might argue, while not porn, does provide numerous goatse.cx and associated links.
The absentee voter system already opens the door to bribery. I am not a resident of California, but I believe that you can register to be a permanent absentee voter in CA, for no grounds beyond you feel like it. So, if I were a CA resident and wanted to sell my vote, I would register to be a permanent absentee voter. Then, I would fill out the absentee ballot, show it to the person buying my vote, and then drop it in the mail while they watch. They get one confirmed bought vote, and I get my cash...
Therefore, bribery is equally possible under the current system. I don't even need the California law I cited, it just makes it easier to sell my vote election after election instead of having to obtain absentee voter status for each election.
Don't mention that to Darl McBride. Next we'll see a press release from SCO stating that Open Source antivirus software had virus definitions for mydoom up first, and the "obvious" (to SCO) explanation. Clearly, this proves the virus was written by the Open Source community, who included it into their antivirus engine when they released it. What else could explain Clamav having the definitions before the commercial antivirus companies?
In reality, professors are going to catch plagiarism only if the student happens to copy from a source that the professor is very familiar with.
This is a valid point, no professor will be familiar with all the works out there, and hence will be unable to look at a student work and state that he's seen it before. However, this is not the only way to catch plagiarism.
One flaw in plagiarism is that each person has an individual writing style. Therefore, as long as a class requires multiple essays over the course of the semester, a professor should be able to spot plagiarism, as they should be able to look at the second paper of the semester by John Doe and see that it looks as if a different person wrote it than wrote the first paper. (Of course, this supposes that the professor is only required to teach a reasonable number of students each semester, few enough that he can be familiar with them and their writing style.) I can guarantee you that if I tried to pass off one of your essays as one of mine to a professor who I've had before, they'd spot that the plagiarized essay has a different feel, different words that the author has an affinity for, etc.
Another argument that people might raise against this method is that students may plagiarize all the essays in the course, hence the professor would not be familiar with their personal writing style, but the writing style of their plagiarized source. However, in order for the student to get away with this, the student would need the writing style of all his plagiarized essays to be the same. This would be very difficult to do, unless the essay topics are very generic. If the esay topics are somewhat specific, than it would be difficult to find one author/source that can appropriately answer all the essays. Additionally, if this is a major concern, I would just require ONE of the essays to be in class. That essay would provide a standard for determining each student's writing style.
Additionally, people might point out that in today's litigious world, a professor might be able to spot plagiarism using this method, but not to prove it. However, once a professor spots an essay using this method, then he can begin searching for the source using Google, etc.
Which books will be left out?
Just making a guess, but I expect one of the ones that will be left out is The Horse and His Boy. This particular book in the series seems the least tied in. For reference, the 7 books are (may be out of order):
1 The Magician's Nephew
2 The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
3 The Horse and His Boy
4 Prince Caspian
5 The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
6 The Silver Chair
7 The Last Battle
In my opinion, the following books absolutely must be included: 1,2,5,7. The Magician's Nephew tells about the creation of Narnia by Aslan. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe obviously is included. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is very important to the series, as it from my recollection is one of the most clearly allegorical. The Last Battle must be included; it is the end of the series, and provides a good last movie.
The absentee voter system already opens the door to bribery. I am not a resident of California, but I believe that you can register to be a permanent absentee voter in CA, for no grounds beyond you feel like it. So, if I were a CA resident and wanted to sell my vote, I would register to be a permanent absentee voter. Then, I would fill out the absentee ballot, show it to the person buying my vote, and then drop it in the mail while they watch. They get one confirmed bought vote, and I get my cash...
Therefore, bribery is equally possible under the current system. I don't even need the California law I cited, it just makes it easier to sell my vote election after election instead of having to obtain absentee voter status for each election.
Actually, I've read about that research at Cornell... The radioactive decay used is beta decay, which causes an electron to be shot out of the radioactive material, which therefore becomes positive. This is then capture by a spring arm, which then is negatively charged. As the charge difference between the radioactive mass and the spring arm increases, the two are drawn together with increasing force, causing the spring arm to move. If the spring arm is hooked up to a rachet, this can operate as a motor. If instead the spring arm is hooked up to a piezoelectric device, this can be used to generate an electrical current.
I make no claim that this is intentional on Microsoft's part, but this is what just happened on my computer (dual-boot Debian Linux/WinXP), but I found it interesting.
I just installed WinXP to replace Win 98 (too many crashes when I boot to Winblows to play games). Afterwards, I was trying to install OpenOffice. I tried to download OpenOffice several times from several of the different mirrors, and was unable to. It would download 99% of the way and then stop. Finally, I decided to download Mozilla (which would have been my next step anyway), and after I installed it, I used it to download OpenOffice, without any problems.
While I have no indication that this is intentional on Microsoft's part, I find it spooky that I was unable to use IE to download OpenOffice, a potential major competitor to one of MS's most profitable programs. Though I doubt this was intentional now, I can easily envision a future where MS will refuse to certify or allow any competing or especially !Open Source! programs to run on their DRM computers.
I also am afraid that we will be forced into DRM. Microsoft will continue in its tradition of embrace and extend, by making DRM enabled computers able to receive files from both DRM and non-DRM computers, but unable to send files to DRM computers.
One concern I personally have regarding passwords is the need to either use the same password at numerous different locations or to remember numerous different passwords and where each was used. With the number of different internet sites requiring passwords today, the second option often isn't feasible. Yet, on the other hand I hate reusing passwords because I am never sure of the security of the password database on the other end. If one database is compromised, that password is compromised for all the sites I have used it at.
What I wonder is if the traditional password system can be replaced using a model based upon the public/private key encryption model. (This idea is somewhat beyond my technical knowledge/capabilities, so please excuse any mistakes.) I know that using my private encryption key, I can digitally sign something such that it can be identified as coming from me using my public key. Could there be a similar setup in which I have both a private and public half to my password? The public half would reside on the other ends database, but if it were compromised, it would not compromise my password at all other web sites.
(Stripping it down to a simple enough form that I can handle it...) My password for site www.abcd.com is www.abcd.com, and this schema is followed for all websites. Each website is given a copy of my public encryption key. However, if somebody tries to log in using my password, (www.abcd.com), the website rejects them because it only accepts the password if it is digitally signed using my private encryption key. My private encryption key is never given by me to any website! Therefore, if any cracker gains access to a website's password list, the information is useless for attacking any other websites, because there is no secure information in it. He can have my public encryption key if he wants, and I expect he already knows the name of the website he cracked. He does not, however, have my private encryption key, which is essential for logging in on any website as me. Because each website has a different URL that must be encrypted using my private key, he also cannot simply log the encrypted password as sent to him at the cracked website and send it to another website to log in as me.
Can anybody tell me what weaknesses or technical problems there are with my idea? One that I can see is that anybody gaining my private key can gain access to all websites, but that could be remedied by having several different private keys, but still private keys than you would need secure passwords for otherwise. Another problem would be that the private key would need to be transported around by the individual, because it would be much longer than the typical individual would care to remember. (1024 or 2048 bit would seem appropriate, if I remember how public/private bit strength compares to symmetric)
The simplest solution would be to only partially implement product liability for software, only to the price paid for the software. In the case of commerical software, this would provide a significant incentive for quality control. It would not impede free software development, as their liability, equal to the moneys earned from sale of their product, would be nothing.
This would be a simple, fair mechanism that would be equitable to both commercial and open source software.
Maybe we should require everybody to sing the Star Spangled Banner before eating at restaurants and Pledge Allegiance to the Flag before buying groceries. If we had everybody sign "Loyalty Oaths" and refused to deal with anybody who didn't, that would make everybody patriotic and get rid of all terrorists, right!? And anybody who refuses to participate or questions the validity is obviously unAmerican.
I have not bothered flying a flag, despite the fact that I consider myself patriotic, because it almost seems to me that a third of the people flying them are flying them because it is currently the thing to do, and another third are businesses using patriotism as a sales pitch! (Though I must admit that they are being solidly American in doing that.) There are better ways to show patriotism, like voting and taking an interest in pending legislation and expressing that interest to representatives. (which I have done)
Also, how will the media react when they learn that the next terrorist to act was a very "patriotic" person, who had flags plastered on his car, flew a flag from his apartment, etc. If there is another terrorist attack anytime soon, any intelligent person knows that this will be the case. Any average intelligence terrorist would fly a flag from his car, because then everybody around would know he was a good, patriotic person, and would ignore the fact that he was asking where he could by 1 ton of fertilizer and attending flight school.
The fundamental laws of thermodynamics do not prevent converting heat into sound into electricity. They only prevent you from gaining more than a certain amount of energy (the Carnot Cycle limit) in the process, which is dependant upon the ratio in temperature of the Cold temperature bath to the heat source.
Efficiency1-T(cold)/T(hot)
This means that you can only use heat to generate sound to generate electricity as long as you have a temperature differential, which you certainly do in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the first 5 digits can be determined based upon how old he is, and which state he was born in (assuming typical issuance at birth). The first three indicate the state (though some states have multiple triplets, which are rotated.) However, the next 2 digits are not random; they are used up in a set pattern, so it is possible to learn exactly what the first 5 digits were for any SS# issued in a given state in a given date range. Using the Freedom of Informatio Act, you can ask the governement the highest group number issued at any date! (http://www.ssa.gov/employer/highgroup.txt) Nice of them, huh?
Unfortunately, the parent argument is flawed. I will not dispute that while small, there is a finite probability of an intelligent life form evolving. Thus, given an infinite universe and infinite time, intelligent life would occur. However, I believe that you have glossed over some assumptions:
a) The universe is infinite spacially...
This is just wrong and not worth discussing. You may get varying opinions about the rate of expansion/contraction of the universe from astronomers, but the scientific community has a pretty good idea of the size of the universe.
b) The universe is infinite in time...
The second law of thermodynamics seems to demand entropic death of the universe. I presume that the statistical probability of intelligent life evolving remains finite only so long as there remains sufficient free energy.
To overcome these objections, you would need to solve quantitatively, giving estimates of the lifetime and size of the universe and the probability of intelligent life evolving. Even then, you would only be able to state the probability of intelligent life evolving, but would not be able to claim that it would "have to happen."
However, there remains one glaring assumption that would remain unanswered, and would invalidate the whole on its own.
c) The universe exists...
Here is where I personally find some of the best evidence for the existence of God, the philosophical first cause argument, as well as the beauty and symmettry of the universe. (While theoretically, life might be possible with a radically different balancing of the strong, electo-weak, and gravitational forces, it is difficult for me to imagine.) This does not mean that once God created the universe, evolution may not have been the mechanism by which man was created (neglecting the addition of the immortal soul, said question lying outside the realm of scientific inquiry). I have no objection to either micro or macro-evolution, but cannot avoid seeing the hand of God in the overall process of going from pre-Big Bang to man.
I take offense at the parent's summation of my beliefs about religion, particularly his putting words in my mouth claiming I believe "It [religion] doesn't need to make sense." Before you attack somebody this way, make sure you know what you're talking about.
Religion makes quite a bit of sense, and if Catholicism did not answer and agree with more of the facts I have observed about existence than any other explanation, I would not be a Catholic. You claim the basic beliefs of a Catholic are contradictory and absurd. (I assume you meant contradictory to science.) Well, let's examine the beliefs you stated:
the existence of an all-powerful/all-knowing being - Science says absolutely nothing against this, and the existence of miracles (many documented, many non-subjective, but not qualifying as scientific proof as we cannot command God to provide miracles on demand) provides ample evidence.
life after death/heaven and hell - Please tell me which scientist has died and reported back that there is nothing. Science implicitly cannot measure anything about what happens after death, as we cannot provide an observer. Strong argument in favor of religion is that science also cannot explain life itself (organic life yes, but not the concept of making choices). I have more evidence for my ability to make decisions (true decisions, not computations) than I have for even gravity. Pure science has not yet offered any explanation of how I as a purely material being could make a real choice. Therefore, there is more evidence for religion (albeit not a specific one) than for the theory of gravity.
creationism: If you had actually read my post which you were attacking, you would have seen that I am not a creationist (and neither is the Catholic Church). The Catholic Churh has no problem with evolution assuming you allow that God created man, through evolution.
Please at least understanding what you are attacking before you do so. I have applied all my scientific skill to my examination of my religion, and have never found a true contradiction. Religion, for the most part, addresses issues that are not measurable by science, such as what happens after death. For the rest, there is strong evidence for religion. I'm not ignoring the contradiction; I have searched and found there is none.
I must disagree with the parent's statement that religion and science are the antithesis of each other. I do wholeheartedly agree that religion and science are not the same, however, I do not believe that they are opposites, or must be opposed to each other. If they were, I'd have a major problem, because I am both a professional scientist, and a devout Catholic.
...). This merely shows that there is nonideal religion and nonideal science.
In order to observe how science and religion are not opposed to each other, let me rename science and religion. I will call science the search for the truth about the universe. I will call religion the search for truth about creation, and worship of the Creator. (I admit that the way I phrased my definition of religion does not include all religions, as it should to be a proper defintition, but I don't know how to phrase it to be inclusive yet still specific.) I suspect that most people will agree that these definitions, while not perfect, are reasonable descriptions of what science and religion should be. Looking at these definitions, we see that science is compatible with religion. The universe is part of creation, and hence science is one part of the quest for Truth. (It can, perhaps, be argued that science can exist independant of religion, from the above definitions, but clearly they need not be opposed to each other.)
Some may be inclined to counter this argument by expanding upon the parent's claim that "Religion demands adherence without proof," perhaps by providing examples. However, that still is not the true opposite of the statement that "Science demands adherence only with proof." For religion to be the true antithesis of the parent's definition of science, religion would demand adherence only with DISproof. You may be able to find religions that have tenets of their faith that have been disproved. I can also provide you evidence of improper science (cold fusion,
Ideally, science and religion are not only compatible, but are both aspects of the search for Truth. While faith is an important part of religion, reason should be as well. Scientific inquiries will have a slightly different focus than religious inquiries, and should not accept certain sources (such as the bible or sacred Tradition) as proof. That is not a problem, as science is not religion. Nor, since religion is not science should it matter if religion has different standards for acceptance of a fact. As long as religion does not hold beliefs directly contrary to scientifically proven fact, the two remain compatible. For this reason, I can state, without compromising my integrity as a scientist or a Catholic, that I believe that God created evolution and man.
I've gotten fed up with people insulting undecided voters or voters who aren't clearly pro-Bush or pro-Kerry. I can understand how people can be undecided. What I cannot understand is why anyone would insult undecided voters or consider them idiots. This must be considered with the caveat that I am only referring to those voters who will actually vote, and are actually staying informed and comparing the candidates when I refer to undecided voters. I would have a great deal more difficulty defending those who do not participate in the electoral process.
First, let's apply the hypocrisy check to a pro-X person calling undecided voters idiots. (This post is completely non-partisan with respect to Democratic versus Republican. For that matter, my use of X and Y is not intended to represent a partisan viewpoint between males and females.) Logically, the undecided voter can be counted as 50% voting for X, 50% vote for Y. On the other hand those voting for candidate Y are 100% for Y. If you are radically pro-X, then an undecided voter is only half as bad as a pro-Y voter. Therefore, before you revile the undecided voters, you must revile doubly all the pro-Y voters. Given that each candidate has greater than 40% of the popular vote right now, if you consider voters for candidate Y complete idiots, than undecided voters must be better than 40% of the population, putting them at average intelligence.
But, "Wait," you say, "the candidates are clearly different, so anybody with any brains would be able to figure out whose positions align better with their own views. Therefore I'm justified in calling them idiots if they can't decide." The problem is that while the candidates views are well defined and different, the election is not based on just one issue. Let's assume that candidate X supports holds positions A, B, C, and D in a four issue election. Let's assume that party Y holds positions a, b, c, and d on those issues. Assuming that the nation is relatively divided on those issues (a reasonable assumption, as if the nation wasn't, the candidate would have been told by his pollsters to hold the strong majority position), and that the viewpoints on the issues are non-correlated (if they are correlated strongly, we should treat them as only one issue), then by statistics (permutations of voter beliefs left to the reader), the nation should be:
6.25% agree 100 % with candidate X
25% agree 75 % with candidate X
37.5% agree 50 % with candidate X and equally with candidate Y
25% agree 75 % with candidate Y
6.25% agree 100 % with candidate Y
So, assuming that we have four different non-correlated divisive issues about which every voter has strong viewpoints on all issues, and all four issues are equally important, 37.5% of the population should be undecided about who to vote for, as each candidate represents 50% of their views. Note, that the greatest number of voters who should be undecided occurs for a two issue election, with 50% undecided. The number undecided is lowest for a 1 issue election, (0 undecided), but assuming the number of issues is greater than 1, the number of undecided voters decreases with increasing number of issues. But, at the same time, the difference in how well candidate X represents their views compared to candidate Y correspondingly drops with increasing number of issues, such that while they should be able to decided, the decision is closer.
How many real, uncorrelated issues do you think there really are in this country? Certainly, I think most people would agree that there is more than one issue on which people base their opinions, so we should have many people for whom candidates X and Y represent their viewpoints equally well, or almost as well. Therefore, assuming that people are considering all the issues, and are well aware of their own positions and the respective candidates' positions, much of this nation should be undecided or only weakly in favor of one candidate over the other.
To sum it up, no matter which party you support, you cannot
First, let me state that I believe in evolution, both macro and micro-evolution. However, I do not believe in Darwinism or Creationism. Second, let me state that I believe in the Big Bang. I also believe that God created the universe. I find no contradiction between any of these beliefs, nor do I find any contradiction between my life as a scientist (B.S. Chemistry, B.S. Physics, pursuing PhD), and my life as a Christian (Roman Catholic).
The key to being able to reconcile all these viewpoints is that as a Roman Catholic, I believe in the Bible as an inspired work, but read it in context. The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, nor as a book on geography, but as a guidebook for faith and morality. Using it as a scientific textbook is about at rational as using a freshman biology book as a latin grammar book. Certainly, there will be some latin in the biology book, and you might be able to figure out a few of the rules of latin, but how much? There may also be some mistakes in the latin, especially in interfacing latin words into english sentences. Does this mean that it is a bad biology textbook? No! It means that for some reason (perhaps the high cost of textbooks), you're trying to avoid getting yourself a proper latin textbook. The book of Tobit provides a good example of where the Bible clearly is not written as a geography textbook. Throughout the book the distance between two points that were several weeks walk apart in real life was referred to and treated as a couple days journey. That does not bother me in the least, because the Book of Tobit was not written to teach me about geography, but about God. If you wish to tell me that the book of Genesis is a good proof that the Bible is not an accurate physics or biology textbook, I'd be the first to agree. Where I draw the line, though, is when people try to claim that the Bible is a bad physics or biology textbook, since it is not a physics or biology textbook.
I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible... in teaching about God, about morality, etc, but would never use it as a physics textbook. I accept the teachings of Genesis, that God created man in his image... I have no problem with people who believe in evolution, micro or macro, as I do too. I do, however, have a problem with those who then attempt to use evolution as a proof against the existence of God. Why does evolution disprove the existence of God? I can accept that science can disprove strict creationism (world 6000 years old), but how does it disprove the existence of God? How does evolution disprove that God created man in his likeness? There remain plenty of ways to do this. First, even a few non-random changes of an apparently random event could alter the evolutionary path tremendously. Second, God created the universe, and the laws of the universe. Why not create evolution in such a way that it would head in the direction He intended? Finally, what does it mean to be in the image of God? If evolution results in humans gaining a set of wings, I wouldn't be forced to say that we are no longer in God's image. (I'd probably be to busy doing aerial acrobatics to be discussing it, but that's beside the point.) To be made in the image of God has to deal more with the fact that we are not creatures purely of the flesh, but also of the spirit... that we have an immortal soul, and make choices. Here, science actually supports the existence of something it cannot explain. Science, by definition, requires that given the same set of inputs you receive a given output (or probability distribution if you've learned quantum). There is no such thing as a choice, or free will. Yet, even without knowing you, I would be willing to bet that you believe that you make choices every day, in fact our whole society is based on the belief that people's actions are their own choices. While I do not know your moral code, I know you must have one. Yet, if our every action were predetermined based on internal chemistry, all actions must be morally neutral, there can be no right or wrong. So, since you
First off, I would like to state that I am a scientist. I hold degrees in chemistry and physics, and am currently pursuing a PhD. Even without this, I would be a scientist; I cannot help being a scientist, as that is the way my mind works. This does not prevent me, however, from being religious, both in the personal sense, and from belonging to a church, specifically the Catholic Church. Since I lack sufficient knowledge of other religions to speak for them, all my statements will be with regard to the Catholic Church. However, I am sure we can all agree that the Catholic Church is not insignificant in size.
First, lets address the statement that religion claims to have the truth. Yes, the Catholic Church professes to have the truth, but on what topics? The Catholic Church professes to be an expert on... religion, and matters related to spirituality, not physics, chemistry, or biology. The Catholic Church has no official opinion regarding quantum mechanics. Second, the Catholic Church clearly states that Natural Moral Law, God's Law, and the Truth cannot ever be in conflict with each other. This religion, at least, does not necessitate renouncing your beliefs to be scientific, but even says that if something is proven to be true, the Church must agree with it. However, beware that while science may prove things, it may sometimes choose to interpret results in ways that are incorrect. Even if science has proved that the Big Bang occurred, that does not mean science has proved there is no God, just that God has access to HIGH EXPLOSIVES!
But wait, now you're going to bring up Gallileo again. This is the tired old argument that everybody invokes, and I really wish people would get some new material, though it does make it easier for me to counter since I've seen the argument a million times. To begin with, the objection of the Catholic Church to Gallileo was not purely scientific, but more in that he kept trying to claim that his work proved the Church was wrong. If he had merely claimed "Look, I have a neat scientific result that explains matters that have nothing to do with religion," he would have had many fewer problems. Second, the Church is made up of men, and men make mistakes. Even the pope is fallible on matters of science, or more specifically matters outside religion. I expect Pope John Paul II has less understanding of quantum physics than I do, and I certainly would not ask him to look over my homework for me. The Catholic Church even issued an apology, saying it made a mistake with Gallileo (quite a while later). You also invoke the similarly tired argument of Darwinism versus Creationism. This argument is more relevant, as there are individuals who take the Bible literally, and therefore "know" that Darwin was wrong. I am going to somewhat sidestep this issue by pointing out that this is held by some individuals and some religions but not the Catholic Church. Catholics do not believe that everything in the bible should be read literally. The bible was not written to be a treatise on science, or a treatise on geography, or a treatise on history. It should not be read to gain an understanding of science or geography. For example, the book of Tobit gives some distances between towns that are clearly incorrect, but that does not trouble me in the least, because the point of the book was not to teach me about geography. The bible is intended to teach about religious matters. The point of the creation story is that God created the world, and created mankind. I have no trouble believing that God set off the Big Bang, and that evolution occurred. The only caveat that I have regarding evolution is that I believe some of the mutations were somewhat less random, that God had man in mind from the beginning. However, science does not and cannot ever disprove that. Again, the problem the Catholic Church has is with Darwinism, not evolution, where Darwinism claims not just that evolution occurred, but that evolution occurred proving God did not create man.
So far, I've countered all your examples, sh
I recognize that most of the thread is about normal ER operation, however, the system of colors which the parent comment was referring to is the system used by EMT's in mass casualty settings. EMT's only really triage when we are in a mass casualty setting (triage being by defintion prioritizing patients, and if we have only one patient, there is no need to prioritize.) I probably could have made it slightly clearer in my post that my comment was a response to the parent, and only relevant in mass casualty settings, but the following line indicated I was not referring to a normal setting:
Here is the big difference in treatment between a triage (mass casualty, number of patients overwhelming the system) and a normal setting.
since everywhere else I was clearly referring to triage, and here I indicated that triage was not the normal setting.
I am an EMT, and I have to correct the parent's explanation of the triage system. He is correct that there are four different triage categories, green, yellow, red, and black. However, he is incorrect regarding the disposition of patients between the categories and how patients within the various categories are treated.
Triage begins by pointing, and asking all people who can walk to go over to where we are pointing. This will correspond to the area we've decided to establish as the green triage area. Any patient who can follow directions and walk to a location we indicated is presumably relatively okay, and treatment of them can wait till last. Therefore, anybody who walks over there is automatically classified as green, or "walking wounded." This step is critical, as it saves a lot of assessment time, often clearing out 90% of potential patients, and allowing us to locate and evaluate the 10% of patients who need care urgently much faster.
Next, a triage crew goes around evaluating all remaining patients, classifying them as either black, red, or yellow.
This determination begins by checking if they have a pulse and are breathing. If they are not breathing, we will reposition the head once to open the airway, hoping that restarts their breathing. Here is the big difference in treatment between a triage (mass casualty, number of patients overwhelming the system) and a normal setting. Normally, if a patient is not breathing, we would attempt to resuscitate them using CPR, etc. However, in a triage situation, CPR is not viable, as devoting several EMT's to extended treatment of one individual who most likely will not survive will almost definitely result in the death of several other patients. So, in a triage situation, patients are declared dead and ignored who we would normally attempt to save. However, a key difference from what the parent claimed is that we would black tag these individuals, officially declaring them dead/unsalveagable.
Red is used exclusively for those patients who are most critical, such as altered mental status, difficulty breathing (but breathing), etc., that will die without immediate medical care. The odds of survival of a patient who is not breathing are too low to justify spending time treating them, because for every one that you could save, you'd most likely lose several additional red tagged individuals on average. If you remember, I mentioned we try repositioning the airway once for all individuals who aren't breathing before we black tag them as dead. Repositioning the airway takes neglible time, and if doing so restores their breathing, then they are red tagged, because their odds of survival are sufficient to justify spending time on them. Red tagged patients are the only patients treated until there are no more red tagged patients. We do have to make tough choices (following protocol... We don't make decisions about who lives or dies, we follow protocol of how to choose who to treat to save the most lives.). Nor do we conceal that we are doing so, we clearly label as dead (black tag) individuals who we have negligible hope of saving when the attempt would cost others their lives.
If you are breathing (and hence not black tagged), but will live if you do no receive immediate treatment, then you are tagged yellow, or "delayed", as the only remaining option. (Remember, "walking wounded" or green, have already been cleared out, so the only options are black, red, or yellow.)
I've also ridden one at a nuclear power plant, and had difficulty maintaining power output. However, if I recall, the difficulty was due to lack of optimisation of the bicycle. First, the riding position (seat height, frame size) was not very adjustable, forcing me to ride in an awkward position. More importantly, however, the bike was the equivalent of a single speed bicycle... no ability to switch gears. Therefore, to obtain a high power output, it was necessary to have a very high cadence (peddle very quickly), which most likely switched the excercise from aerobic to anaerobic. If they would make a 10-speed model, I expect that a good bicyclist could maintain a decent power output relatively easily.
I sometimes prefer gift cards to cash, and some gift cards are worth at least as much as cash to me. Let's say that I am going to purchase $20 of camping equipment I want but don't really need, whether or not I have a gift card. If I purchase it using a gift card I received, I don't feel guilty about not spending my money more wisely, since I couldn't spend that money on anything else. So, in that sense a gift card could be more valuable to me, if it allows me to purchase something guilt free.
Similarly, while I am not married, assume that a husband receives either a $100 gift card to Best Buy or $100 cash, and that his wife has been getting tired of his spending all their money on tech toys. If he received the cash, he will be asking for trouble if he runs out to Best Buy, but with the gift certificate his wife will have no complaint. Therefore, the gift certificate might be more valuable to the husband.
Rubber gloves aren't sufficient for at least two reasons.
First, in order to treat a patient, the EMT often has to enter the car, lean over it, lean on it, etc. Therefore, they end up touching the car with their hands, their knees, arms, side, etc. We have enough fun just avoiding broken glass, sharp surfaces, etc, especially when you consider that broken glass, etc, can be touched without injuring you as long as you are careful. With live electricity, any contact is sufficient.
Second, it isn't a simple pair of latex gloves. The gloves referred to here are THICK rubber gloves, designed to serve as electrical insulators. Those might be fine for firefighters, but not for EMT's. Compare the typical firefighter's protective gear to an EMT's. Firefighting equipment is designed to be used by people in heavy protective gear. Unfortunately, EMTs work on people, and we can't easily redesign people to be easier to work on in heavy protective gear. It would be very difficult to take a pulse, palpate for injuries, or start an IV (feeling for the veins) in thick gloves. In fact, even the usual latex gloves are often annoying, though necessary.
I can't speak for the other fields in this list, but I am an EMT (volunteer), and have ridden in many ambulances. Based on this, I disagree with your using ambulances as an example of a safe combination of driving and talking on a radio/cell phone. The truth is that the driver of the ambulance very rarely uses the radio. Jobs on an ambulance are divided up. Minimal crew is two people, so on the way to the call, the driver has one job, driving, while the second medic is responsible for radio traffic, navigation, reading maps, etc. Similarly, on the way to the hospital with a patient, the driver does very little with the radio. Typically, all the driver does with the radio is signal that the ambulance is enroute to the hospital, and then signal that it is at the hospital. Most ambulances that I have ridden on have automated this task so that the driver can push a single button for each. Additionally, the driver could easily radio these in just before starting driving (for the enroute call) and just after parking (for the at hospital call). Communication to the hospital covering the patient condition, expected arrival time, etc. is usually covered by the medic in the back, not the driver. There may also be communication asking your location, but that is usually when not on a call/on the way to a call, again not handled by the driver. If it is on the way to the hospital, it is a short answer, not a conversation, and even then the driver may choose not to respond until he's on a clear stretch of road. So, there are cases where the driver would be on the radio, but not in the majority of calls, and even then it uses a different speech style than a cell phone conversation. While I do not have personal experience on a fire truck, I assume that similar division of driver/radio operator would apply there.
So, what the use of radios on ambulances establishes is that it is safe for a PASSENGER in a vehicle to be on a cell phone.
I used these two terms: XFree86 porn
If any search combination containing XFree86 as a term should be blocked for returning too high of a percentage of porn links that would be the one. After all, this search should clearly increase the proportion of porn related sites. However, that search works fine.
I must admit, however, that the search did not return XFree86.org as the first result. Instead, the first result (and the fourth) were both Slashdot, which some people might argue, while not porn, does provide numerous goatse.cx and associated links.
The absentee voter system already opens the door to bribery. I am not a resident of California, but I believe that you can register to be a permanent absentee voter in CA, for no grounds beyond you feel like it. So, if I were a CA resident and wanted to sell my vote, I would register to be a permanent absentee voter. Then, I would fill out the absentee ballot, show it to the person buying my vote, and then drop it in the mail while they watch. They get one confirmed bought vote, and I get my cash...
Therefore, bribery is equally possible under the current system. I don't even need the California law I cited, it just makes it easier to sell my vote election after election instead of having to obtain absentee voter status for each election.
Don't mention that to Darl McBride. Next we'll see a press release from SCO stating that Open Source antivirus software had virus definitions for mydoom up first, and the "obvious" (to SCO) explanation. Clearly, this proves the virus was written by the Open Source community, who included it into their antivirus engine when they released it. What else could explain Clamav having the definitions before the commercial antivirus companies?
In reality, professors are going to catch plagiarism only if the student happens to copy from a source that the professor is very familiar with.
This is a valid point, no professor will be familiar with all the works out there, and hence will be unable to look at a student work and state that he's seen it before. However, this is not the only way to catch plagiarism.
One flaw in plagiarism is that each person has an individual writing style. Therefore, as long as a class requires multiple essays over the course of the semester, a professor should be able to spot plagiarism, as they should be able to look at the second paper of the semester by John Doe and see that it looks as if a different person wrote it than wrote the first paper. (Of course, this supposes that the professor is only required to teach a reasonable number of students each semester, few enough that he can be familiar with them and their writing style.) I can guarantee you that if I tried to pass off one of your essays as one of mine to a professor who I've had before, they'd spot that the plagiarized essay has a different feel, different words that the author has an affinity for, etc.
Another argument that people might raise against this method is that students may plagiarize all the essays in the course, hence the professor would not be familiar with their personal writing style, but the writing style of their plagiarized source. However, in order for the student to get away with this, the student would need the writing style of all his plagiarized essays to be the same. This would be very difficult to do, unless the essay topics are very generic. If the esay topics are somewhat specific, than it would be difficult to find one author/source that can appropriately answer all the essays. Additionally, if this is a major concern, I would just require ONE of the essays to be in class. That essay would provide a standard for determining each student's writing style.
Additionally, people might point out that in today's litigious world, a professor might be able to spot plagiarism using this method, but not to prove it. However, once a professor spots an essay using this method, then he can begin searching for the source using Google, etc.
Which books will be left out? Just making a guess, but I expect one of the ones that will be left out is The Horse and His Boy. This particular book in the series seems the least tied in. For reference, the 7 books are (may be out of order):
1 The Magician's Nephew
2 The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
3 The Horse and His Boy
4 Prince Caspian
5 The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
6 The Silver Chair
7 The Last Battle
In my opinion, the following books absolutely must be included: 1,2,5,7. The Magician's Nephew tells about the creation of Narnia by Aslan. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe obviously is included. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is very important to the series, as it from my recollection is one of the most clearly allegorical. The Last Battle must be included; it is the end of the series, and provides a good last movie.
The absentee voter system already opens the door to bribery. I am not a resident of California, but I believe that you can register to be a permanent absentee voter in CA, for no grounds beyond you feel like it. So, if I were a CA resident and wanted to sell my vote, I would register to be a permanent absentee voter. Then, I would fill out the absentee ballot, show it to the person buying my vote, and then drop it in the mail while they watch. They get one confirmed bought vote, and I get my cash...
Therefore, bribery is equally possible under the current system. I don't even need the California law I cited, it just makes it easier to sell my vote election after election instead of having to obtain absentee voter status for each election.
Actually, I've read about that research at Cornell... The radioactive decay used is beta decay, which causes an electron to be shot out of the radioactive material, which therefore becomes positive. This is then capture by a spring arm, which then is negatively charged. As the charge difference between the radioactive mass and the spring arm increases, the two are drawn together with increasing force, causing the spring arm to move. If the spring arm is hooked up to a rachet, this can operate as a motor. If instead the spring arm is hooked up to a piezoelectric device, this can be used to generate an electrical current.
I make no claim that this is intentional on Microsoft's part, but this is what just happened on my computer (dual-boot Debian Linux/WinXP), but I found it interesting.
I just installed WinXP to replace Win 98 (too many crashes when I boot to Winblows to play games). Afterwards, I was trying to install OpenOffice. I tried to download OpenOffice several times from several of the different mirrors, and was unable to. It would download 99% of the way and then stop. Finally, I decided to download Mozilla (which would have been my next step anyway), and after I installed it, I used it to download OpenOffice, without any problems.
While I have no indication that this is intentional on Microsoft's part, I find it spooky that I was unable to use IE to download OpenOffice, a potential major competitor to one of MS's most profitable programs. Though I doubt this was intentional now, I can easily envision a future where MS will refuse to certify or allow any competing or especially !Open Source! programs to run on their DRM computers.
I also am afraid that we will be forced into DRM. Microsoft will continue in its tradition of embrace and extend, by making DRM enabled computers able to receive files from both DRM and non-DRM computers, but unable to send files to DRM computers.
One concern I personally have regarding passwords is the need to either use the same password at numerous different locations or to remember numerous different passwords and where each was used. With the number of different internet sites requiring passwords today, the second option often isn't feasible. Yet, on the other hand I hate reusing passwords because I am never sure of the security of the password database on the other end. If one database is compromised, that password is compromised for all the sites I have used it at.
What I wonder is if the traditional password system can be replaced using a model based upon the public/private key encryption model. (This idea is somewhat beyond my technical knowledge/capabilities, so please excuse any mistakes.) I know that using my private encryption key, I can digitally sign something such that it can be identified as coming from me using my public key. Could there be a similar setup in which I have both a private and public half to my password? The public half would reside on the other ends database, but if it were compromised, it would not compromise my password at all other web sites.
(Stripping it down to a simple enough form that I can handle it...) My password for site www.abcd.com is www.abcd.com, and this schema is followed for all websites. Each website is given a copy of my public encryption key. However, if somebody tries to log in using my password, (www.abcd.com), the website rejects them because it only accepts the password if it is digitally signed using my private encryption key. My private encryption key is never given by me to any website! Therefore, if any cracker gains access to a website's password list, the information is useless for attacking any other websites, because there is no secure information in it. He can have my public encryption key if he wants, and I expect he already knows the name of the website he cracked. He does not, however, have my private encryption key, which is essential for logging in on any website as me. Because each website has a different URL that must be encrypted using my private key, he also cannot simply log the encrypted password as sent to him at the cracked website and send it to another website to log in as me.
Can anybody tell me what weaknesses or technical problems there are with my idea? One that I can see is that anybody gaining my private key can gain access to all websites, but that could be remedied by having several different private keys, but still private keys than you would need secure passwords for otherwise. Another problem would be that the private key would need to be transported around by the individual, because it would be much longer than the typical individual would care to remember. (1024 or 2048 bit would seem appropriate, if I remember how public/private bit strength compares to symmetric)
The simplest solution would be to only partially implement product liability for software, only to the price paid for the software. In the case of commerical software, this would provide a significant incentive for quality control. It would not impede free software development, as their liability, equal to the moneys earned from sale of their product, would be nothing.
This would be a simple, fair mechanism that would be equitable to both commercial and open source software.
Maybe we should require everybody to sing the Star Spangled Banner before eating at restaurants and Pledge Allegiance to the Flag before buying groceries. If we had everybody sign "Loyalty Oaths" and refused to deal with anybody who didn't, that would make everybody patriotic and get rid of all terrorists, right!? And anybody who refuses to participate or questions the validity is obviously unAmerican.
I have not bothered flying a flag, despite the fact that I consider myself patriotic, because it almost seems to me that a third of the people flying them are flying them because it is currently the thing to do, and another third are businesses using patriotism as a sales pitch! (Though I must admit that they are being solidly American in doing that.) There are better ways to show patriotism, like voting and taking an interest in pending legislation and expressing that interest to representatives. (which I have done)
Also, how will the media react when they learn that the next terrorist to act was a very "patriotic" person, who had flags plastered on his car, flew a flag from his apartment, etc. If there is another terrorist attack anytime soon, any intelligent person knows that this will be the case. Any average intelligence terrorist would fly a flag from his car, because then everybody around would know he was a good, patriotic person, and would ignore the fact that he was asking where he could by 1 ton of fertilizer and attending flight school.
The fundamental laws of thermodynamics do not prevent converting heat into sound into electricity. They only prevent you from gaining more than a certain amount of energy (the Carnot Cycle limit) in the process, which is dependant upon the ratio in temperature of the Cold temperature bath to the heat source.
Efficiency1-T(cold)/T(hot)
This means that you can only use heat to generate sound to generate electricity as long as you have a temperature differential, which you certainly do in this case.