I didn't have extensive burns, just the back of my left hand and wrist, from boiling oil, but I noticed the same thing. Oxycodone (the Percocet variety) did a great job of letting me ignore my hand -- when it wasn't itching like crazy -- but it didn't work for my headaches either. Marijuana definitely worked for both, although I think the effect is something to do with dissociation, at least for me. Instead of the pain being an all-consuming sensation it becomes.. well I'm not sure of the words. After marijuana I can put the pain aside; it's still there, but I become able to ignore it by making an effort.
Opiates and opioids work on several subtypes of opioid receptors, which are present in locations besides the brain. The mu-opioid receptions in the brain are responsible for the sense of euphoria the drugs produce, but those receptors, along with kappa- and delta- variants, modulate nociception (pain sense). If opioids didn't actually work directly on pain then intrathecal morphine wouldn't work as well as it does.
Tobacco plants pull some very nasty minerals out of soil, such as Strontium-90 and Cadmium. There have been studies done to see whether that effect can be exploited as a means of remediation for contaminated soil. Regardless of those results, the plants themselves are high in heavy metals; the kind of stuff that is no good in your lungs.
To clarify, you mean municipalities building their own, community-owned networks, correct? I think the solution to this is for the towns to take a step back; the people of the community should create a co-op to build and maintain the infrastructure, and the towns should back the bonds.
They shouldn't be allowed to "red-line", but serving only part of a town definitely is legal. Only the original, incumbent provider is barred from doing that, under Universal Access provisions. That's their obligation in exchange for having the limited monopoly, and the dirty pool Comcast has been playing is nothing more than proof they don't care about the customer as much as profit (as if there was a doubt).
The positive aspect would be that cops, assuming their cameras stream to a computer doing facial recognition in real-time, could be alerted when they walk past someone with outstanding warrants. Cops in cities already make an effort to watch out for the most-wanted individuals -- if there is a warrant for your arrest you don't have a right to evade arrest, it just happens that cops are human and can't remember every mug shot they've been shown in briefings. This wouldn't be much different than hiring cops with eidetic memory, so I don't think you can argue it'd be a reduction of any rights.
Cops have the authority and discretion to issue verbal or written warnings instead of citations for moving violations, so video recording won't change that. For the rest, it would be quite expensive to have auditors watch over all the footage from each officer's shift; screening would either be random, or the video records could be kept unwatched unless a complaint or other legal matter requires the tape to be reviewed. Your arguments sound more like excuses not to do it than legitimate reasons. It might make getting away with minor crimes more difficult, but crime has a negative impact on society, whereas video documentation of policing has social value.
And any use of force without a camera should be subject to civilian laws (i.e. no qualified immunity), which impose a MUCH stricter standard on what constitutes "self-defense". As other areas of government have been forced into openness and transparency we somehow let police departments escape from the most vital part -- scrutiny of the actual "policing", audit trails of each interaction with civilians.
Power, water, garbage collection -- the price you pay is based on their variable costs, which are tied to tangible goods you are consuming (fuel, space in truck for trash collection). Internet service has high fixed costs for the providers, but the variable costs aren't proportionally as high. Leaving that debate aside, though.. those services are all either regulated, semi-regulated, or based on competitive bidding at fixed intervals. That's not how the cable monopolies are structured, though.
Actually I think the goal is to use the innermost tracks on the disk. The linear read speed is slower, you're correct that the outer tracks are faster, but the inner tracks have lower seek times.
I'm reasonably certain the reason for carrying such a large array in an RV is the lack of avery high speed Internet connection via cellular or satellite, unless you pay a fortune in bandwidth costs. Verizon offers something like that, with dongles that attach directly to broadcast TV cameras, allowing 1080p streaming back to the station edit suite, but that's an enterprise-level service.
They particularly don't like having to explain to their superiors that the budget is down £180k because they failed to follow compulsory data privacy protection regulations, and that the fines will continue to recur until they implement appropriate security.
OK, that was a bad example, I didn't really mean to use an example where the car literally causes the death.. but what about emergencies where a collision IS imminent? A computer can react faster than a human, so if a collision is absolutely unavoidable wouldn't you want the car(s) involved to employ some strategy which seeks to minimize injury by using whatever degree of control remains? As for liability, a collision-mitigation system manufacturer would be no more liable for injuries sustained than an airbag manufacturer. The car company would have a duty to fix software bugs, but so long as the autonomous-car industry comes up with best-practices they wouldn't have strict liability -- that would cover injuries resulting from a defect; if a crash is unavoidable, and the car uses software to change the angle of the collision to mitigate injuries as much as possible but does not guarantee it will prevent injury then the car company is not culpable.
That's literally an entirely illogical argument. If the bus driver was human (and in my scenario it's NOT) then the autonomous car wouldn't be able to do anything cooperatively in an emergency anyway, so it'd be a game of chance basically, with the car trying to predict what the bus driver will do fast enough to avoid a collision.
In the scenario I was proposing ALL vehicles are autonomous. In the event of an emergency (unanticipated ice, tire blowout, whatever) all the vehicles concerned would ideally be able to coordinate their responses to maximize the chance of preventing a collision altogether. Cars could make room for the car that's losing steering control, oncoming traffic could move out of the way if the car ends up crossing the median, etc. But there will always be the chance for a situation where, despite lightning-quick reflexes, a collision is unavoidable even for a computer. That would cause a race condition that gets a lot of people hurt/killed if every car is programmed to give absolute priority to its own occupants and thus refuses to cooperate in harm mitigation. Having determined that a collision is unavoidable, the cars involved could assume a strategy which minimizes the injury to the occupants, so long as we DON'T do what you suggest. Most of the time the cars will have more than one possible way to crash, so the trick is going to be deciding how the collision-handling makes decisions.
Cable internet doesn't require every modem in a town to share the same limited spectrum. Similar to the way DSLAMs would be put into each neighborhood to terminate DSL, cable companies use CMTS (cable modem termination systems). The cable company deploys HFC (hybrid fiber-coaxial) boxes which each contain a CMTS; each of these can serve several thousand cable modems, depending mostly on the amount of available channels (read: not used for TV) for use on the coax and the amount of bandwidth being allotted to each modem. This system still requires *some* fiber, but far less than FTTH. This configuration also allows for each HFC to have multiple CMTS units inside it -- so as bandwidth requirements per household rise the cable company can add more CMTSs and further subdivide the networks.
Comcast will, in that hypothetical case, pressure Netflix into paying for their traffic to be exempt. Sounds a heck of a lot like a clever way to get around any potential "net neutrality" legislation.
Comcast wants to do what AT&T does -- pressure 3rd party service providers, such as Netflix, to pay a "fee" in exchange for their traffic being exempted from monthly usage limits.
We need to start pushing for formal regulations with regard to what the cars will do when a collision between vehicles is inevitable. Should your car drive off a bridge, killing you, if it means saving a school bus full of kids? Probably. But I'd like to know how such failure modes are defined.
Problem is, it doesn't make for great cinema. What works great in literature doesn't always turn out very good on film. A healthy American knows this, and consumes all 3 media regularly - film, TV, book.
Isaac Asimov liked to write about the ways robots could improve life, he didn't see them as the threat that Hollywood likes to dress them up as. Of course, when you're making a movie and need to save as much money as possible for the SFX budget you don't bother getting a good writer. The Autobots are "good", right? And in the (heavily bastardized) I, Robot film "Sonny" was good, too.
The system being implemented in the US isn't traditional chip&pin -- it's just "chip". The card will need to remain in the reader while the transaction is processed, but there will be no PIN requirement.
Are you using the term "nucleus" to include the valence electrons? Muons would have a charge of -1, same as that of the electron. You couldn't replace protons with muons, since the charge would be opposite and, more importantly, muons do not interact with the strong force.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't have extensive burns, just the back of my left hand and wrist, from boiling oil, but I noticed the same thing. Oxycodone (the Percocet variety) did a great job of letting me ignore my hand -- when it wasn't itching like crazy -- but it didn't work for my headaches either. Marijuana definitely worked for both, although I think the effect is something to do with dissociation, at least for me. Instead of the pain being an all-consuming sensation it becomes.. well I'm not sure of the words. After marijuana I can put the pain aside; it's still there, but I become able to ignore it by making an effort.
Opiates and opioids work on several subtypes of opioid receptors, which are present in locations besides the brain. The mu-opioid receptions in the brain are responsible for the sense of euphoria the drugs produce, but those receptors, along with kappa- and delta- variants, modulate nociception (pain sense). If opioids didn't actually work directly on pain then intrathecal morphine wouldn't work as well as it does.
Tobacco plants pull some very nasty minerals out of soil, such as Strontium-90 and Cadmium. There have been studies done to see whether that effect can be exploited as a means of remediation for contaminated soil. Regardless of those results, the plants themselves are high in heavy metals; the kind of stuff that is no good in your lungs.
God will protect the faithful.
To clarify, you mean municipalities building their own, community-owned networks, correct? I think the solution to this is for the towns to take a step back; the people of the community should create a co-op to build and maintain the infrastructure, and the towns should back the bonds.
They shouldn't be allowed to "red-line", but serving only part of a town definitely is legal. Only the original, incumbent provider is barred from doing that, under Universal Access provisions. That's their obligation in exchange for having the limited monopoly, and the dirty pool Comcast has been playing is nothing more than proof they don't care about the customer as much as profit (as if there was a doubt).
The positive aspect would be that cops, assuming their cameras stream to a computer doing facial recognition in real-time, could be alerted when they walk past someone with outstanding warrants. Cops in cities already make an effort to watch out for the most-wanted individuals -- if there is a warrant for your arrest you don't have a right to evade arrest, it just happens that cops are human and can't remember every mug shot they've been shown in briefings. This wouldn't be much different than hiring cops with eidetic memory, so I don't think you can argue it'd be a reduction of any rights.
Cops have the authority and discretion to issue verbal or written warnings instead of citations for moving violations, so video recording won't change that. For the rest, it would be quite expensive to have auditors watch over all the footage from each officer's shift; screening would either be random, or the video records could be kept unwatched unless a complaint or other legal matter requires the tape to be reviewed. Your arguments sound more like excuses not to do it than legitimate reasons. It might make getting away with minor crimes more difficult, but crime has a negative impact on society, whereas video documentation of policing has social value.
It is not a subversion of the Constitution, since the 16th Amendment explicitly authorizes it.
And any use of force without a camera should be subject to civilian laws (i.e. no qualified immunity), which impose a MUCH stricter standard on what constitutes "self-defense". As other areas of government have been forced into openness and transparency we somehow let police departments escape from the most vital part -- scrutiny of the actual "policing", audit trails of each interaction with civilians.
Power, water, garbage collection -- the price you pay is based on their variable costs, which are tied to tangible goods you are consuming (fuel, space in truck for trash collection). Internet service has high fixed costs for the providers, but the variable costs aren't proportionally as high. Leaving that debate aside, though.. those services are all either regulated, semi-regulated, or based on competitive bidding at fixed intervals. That's not how the cable monopolies are structured, though.
Actually I think the goal is to use the innermost tracks on the disk. The linear read speed is slower, you're correct that the outer tracks are faster, but the inner tracks have lower seek times.
I'm reasonably certain the reason for carrying such a large array in an RV is the lack of avery high speed Internet connection via cellular or satellite, unless you pay a fortune in bandwidth costs. Verizon offers something like that, with dongles that attach directly to broadcast TV cameras, allowing 1080p streaming back to the station edit suite, but that's an enterprise-level service.
They particularly don't like having to explain to their superiors that the budget is down £180k because they failed to follow compulsory data privacy protection regulations, and that the fines will continue to recur until they implement appropriate security.
OK, that was a bad example, I didn't really mean to use an example where the car literally causes the death.. but what about emergencies where a collision IS imminent? A computer can react faster than a human, so if a collision is absolutely unavoidable wouldn't you want the car(s) involved to employ some strategy which seeks to minimize injury by using whatever degree of control remains? As for liability, a collision-mitigation system manufacturer would be no more liable for injuries sustained than an airbag manufacturer. The car company would have a duty to fix software bugs, but so long as the autonomous-car industry comes up with best-practices they wouldn't have strict liability -- that would cover injuries resulting from a defect; if a crash is unavoidable, and the car uses software to change the angle of the collision to mitigate injuries as much as possible but does not guarantee it will prevent injury then the car company is not culpable.
That's literally an entirely illogical argument. If the bus driver was human (and in my scenario it's NOT) then the autonomous car wouldn't be able to do anything cooperatively in an emergency anyway, so it'd be a game of chance basically, with the car trying to predict what the bus driver will do fast enough to avoid a collision. In the scenario I was proposing ALL vehicles are autonomous. In the event of an emergency (unanticipated ice, tire blowout, whatever) all the vehicles concerned would ideally be able to coordinate their responses to maximize the chance of preventing a collision altogether. Cars could make room for the car that's losing steering control, oncoming traffic could move out of the way if the car ends up crossing the median, etc. But there will always be the chance for a situation where, despite lightning-quick reflexes, a collision is unavoidable even for a computer. That would cause a race condition that gets a lot of people hurt/killed if every car is programmed to give absolute priority to its own occupants and thus refuses to cooperate in harm mitigation. Having determined that a collision is unavoidable, the cars involved could assume a strategy which minimizes the injury to the occupants, so long as we DON'T do what you suggest. Most of the time the cars will have more than one possible way to crash, so the trick is going to be deciding how the collision-handling makes decisions.
Cable internet doesn't require every modem in a town to share the same limited spectrum. Similar to the way DSLAMs would be put into each neighborhood to terminate DSL, cable companies use CMTS (cable modem termination systems). The cable company deploys HFC (hybrid fiber-coaxial) boxes which each contain a CMTS; each of these can serve several thousand cable modems, depending mostly on the amount of available channels (read: not used for TV) for use on the coax and the amount of bandwidth being allotted to each modem. This system still requires *some* fiber, but far less than FTTH. This configuration also allows for each HFC to have multiple CMTS units inside it -- so as bandwidth requirements per household rise the cable company can add more CMTSs and further subdivide the networks.
Comcast will, in that hypothetical case, pressure Netflix into paying for their traffic to be exempt. Sounds a heck of a lot like a clever way to get around any potential "net neutrality" legislation.
Comcast wants to do what AT&T does -- pressure 3rd party service providers, such as Netflix, to pay a "fee" in exchange for their traffic being exempted from monthly usage limits.
We need to start pushing for formal regulations with regard to what the cars will do when a collision between vehicles is inevitable. Should your car drive off a bridge, killing you, if it means saving a school bus full of kids? Probably. But I'd like to know how such failure modes are defined.
Problem is, it doesn't make for great cinema. What works great in literature doesn't always turn out very good on film. A healthy American knows this, and consumes all 3 media regularly - film, TV, book.
Isaac Asimov liked to write about the ways robots could improve life, he didn't see them as the threat that Hollywood likes to dress them up as. Of course, when you're making a movie and need to save as much money as possible for the SFX budget you don't bother getting a good writer. The Autobots are "good", right? And in the (heavily bastardized) I, Robot film "Sonny" was good, too.
The system being implemented in the US isn't traditional chip&pin -- it's just "chip". The card will need to remain in the reader while the transaction is processed, but there will be no PIN requirement.
The employee would also be liable for any injuries to other employees which occur as a result of his intervention, correct?
Are you using the term "nucleus" to include the valence electrons? Muons would have a charge of -1, same as that of the electron. You couldn't replace protons with muons, since the charge would be opposite and, more importantly, muons do not interact with the strong force.