I totally agree, but you missed my premise... you didn't actively choose to move closer to the guy in front of you _because_ you noticed someone behind you not paying attention. That's a different scenario.
I'm replying to this... and in the process undoing a bunch of mods I just did, because it appears nobody else is going to say it...
Defensive driving is not as cool as you think it is! I'll give you two examples:
1) I had a buddy who owned a Comp/TA. It's a fairly rare car, and his was pristine. He was approaching an intersection on a highway, about 50 mph, when he saw flashing lights approaching from the side. He stopped to allow the cop to cross traffic against the light, but looked up at his rear view mirror and saw that the truck behind him wasn't going to stop in time, as evidenced by the skidding and fishtailing. He lit it up it despite the cop almost being in the intersection, and pulled over on the opposite side. The truck slid into then through the space my friend had previously been occupying. The cop made a left (causing him to drive past my friend) and gave him a look like "not recommended, but ok", and continued on to whatever emergency he was headed to.
2) I had a girlfriend driving in stop-and-go traffic on a rural street, light turns green, but the second we cleared the intersection traffic slowed again, and the driver behind us didn't notice. She crept forward close to the service truck in front of us to try to give a little more space, but to no avail, the driver behind us hit us anyways, and pushed us into the truck. The driver who hit us paid for our damage, but my girlfriend was at fault for hitting the truck... "Why" you ask??? Because the space in front of you is the safety buffer to prevent multiple car accidents when there doesn't need to be.
My personal experience is that story #1 is the ONLY INSTANCE I HAVE EVER HEARD of defensive driving successfully preventing a major accident, while the second story is so common as to be the flavor I hear nearly every time. It's quite rare to hear a story like yours where moving forward 1/2 car length was enough to save the day. The problem is this: you are gambling that by moving forward a tiny bit that you buy the idiot behind you enough time to realize what is going on and react. But the cost you incur is the loss of your buffer if they don't notice, and thus involving one more poor schmo in the accident. In other words, you actively chose to bring another party into the accident by your decision, and therefore you are at fault.
I'm sure that defensive driving techniques can be incorporated into self driving cars for situations like story #1, but you'll probably see that in Mercedes before you see it in Fiat.
All insurance schemes are designed to amortize the risk... in this case, amortize the cost of a failure over the previous, and subsequent successes... and the middleman skims a little off the top. So I look at this and think buying insurance is actually just a waste of money.
To anyone who would disagree: If the only insurance you've ever bought is for your car... you probably don't know shit about insurance.
Clearly you haven't ever dabbled in Bayesian probability... broader and narrower is simple to implement as a measure of deviance from whatever baseline your algorithm has established.
I think Google needs a slider bar that sets how "loosey goosey" it gets with your terms... so when I'm not getting what I want, I can go broader, or narrower. I'll even let 'em have the name... loosey goosey.
This is one of the worst cases of armchair rocket science I've ever seen. You obviously failed economics. Space launches are not in infinite supply. So cost would rise with demand. Also, as others have already pointed out, you discuss only the cost of fuel, and as our good friend Elon Musk has pointed out on multiple occasions, fuel is the cheapest part of space travel. Your cost analysis is lacking.... both in the cost, and in the analysis. Try summing up the cost of non-reusable vehicles, supplies, destination habitat, launch support and logistics, and see where that takes us.
Furthermore, lets talk about your 400 million people for a second... how many launches is that? Assuming you could somehow pack 100 people and all required supplies into one launch (a ridiculous assumption at the outset) it would still take 4 million launches to move all those people. You'd have to launch 100 people 100 times a day for 110 years straight to move those people... in which time you'd have 3 or 4 new generations of people wanting to go. Of course, that's just my back-of-the-napkin estimate.
Respectfully, I call complete and total bullshit on this.
Even if mankind had the capability to warp off to some other star system capable of supporting life, how many humans would make the journey? Hundreds? Thousands? Consider the energy requirements to lift a significant portion of humanity out of earths gravity well. How many rockets are required to lift just the people into low earth orbit? The reduced headcount of those people who would leave earth would do NOTHING to curb the current population growth! So the remainder of humanity on this planet would still suffer the same fate you predicted if we didn't find another planet. And while we're going through this mental exercise, here's another one for you: What type of person is going to be capable of chartering a flight off this rock? The wealthy, that's who. So in a way, earth will be renamed to "Detroit" where the rich can afford to move away and leave a rotting infrastructure for those unable to escape. Meanwhile New Earth will be populated only by the families and friends of the ultra wealthy, with no reason to look back. Ironically, for all the religious hate that goes on around/. religion has a better chance of saving all of humanity than science does... at least if we're talking about leaving this planet for a better place.
WE are the invading insectoid aliens who have depleted all of the resources of our planet and are invading other planets... there's a reason science fiction has written those kinds of invaders as the villain... because they're assholes.
This is a moronic statement. Lots of guns are manufactured without a safety. But with guns and cars both, it is unwise to load it, point it at another person and "hit go" assuming the safety will prevent an accident. This may or may not have been a failure of the vehicle, but it most certainly was a failure of the driver.
NASA has been doing this for a while... I remember when they announced it as "yesterday's coffee is now today's coffee"... everybody thought it was witty and cool. I guess Californians don't make good astronauts.
Nearly all labs have an online LTD (Laboratory Test Directory), so it should be trivial to look it up, however without knowing which facility the testing was done at (often not the same as the facility where the samples were taken) it's impossible to say exactly what those test codes are.
The CPT codes are much more revealing, but it should be noted that many different tests could fall under the same CPT billing code, and it is also possible to bill multiple CPTs for a single test (depending on the utility of that test). It appears as if that's the case because looking those CPT codes up in the 2015 list yields: 87481 = CANDIDA DNA AMP PROBE, 87491 = CHYLMD TRACH DNA AMP PROBE, 87798 = DETECT AGENT NOS DNA AMP. All three of those tests could be performed from a single swab. To me it sounds like the NY Times writer is just being lazy and not doing any research... it also sounds like she likes to party.
What I'm hearing when I read this, is that cell phone technology has some kind of weakness so severe, that just a whiff of the exploit will set experts on the obvious path to uncovering it... thus to leak any information at all will provide security researchers with everything they need to figure it out and fix it. Once that is done, the value of stingray devices will be moot. Or in other words... c'mon security researchers, you're so damn close the government can taste it!
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree, but you missed my premise... you didn't actively choose to move closer to the guy in front of you _because_ you noticed someone behind you not paying attention. That's a different scenario.
I'm replying to this... and in the process undoing a bunch of mods I just did, because it appears nobody else is going to say it...
Defensive driving is not as cool as you think it is! I'll give you two examples:
1) I had a buddy who owned a Comp/TA. It's a fairly rare car, and his was pristine. He was approaching an intersection on a highway, about 50 mph, when he saw flashing lights approaching from the side. He stopped to allow the cop to cross traffic against the light, but looked up at his rear view mirror and saw that the truck behind him wasn't going to stop in time, as evidenced by the skidding and fishtailing. He lit it up it despite the cop almost being in the intersection, and pulled over on the opposite side. The truck slid into then through the space my friend had previously been occupying. The cop made a left (causing him to drive past my friend) and gave him a look like "not recommended, but ok", and continued on to whatever emergency he was headed to.
2) I had a girlfriend driving in stop-and-go traffic on a rural street, light turns green, but the second we cleared the intersection traffic slowed again, and the driver behind us didn't notice. She crept forward close to the service truck in front of us to try to give a little more space, but to no avail, the driver behind us hit us anyways, and pushed us into the truck. The driver who hit us paid for our damage, but my girlfriend was at fault for hitting the truck... "Why" you ask??? Because the space in front of you is the safety buffer to prevent multiple car accidents when there doesn't need to be.
My personal experience is that story #1 is the ONLY INSTANCE I HAVE EVER HEARD of defensive driving successfully preventing a major accident, while the second story is so common as to be the flavor I hear nearly every time. It's quite rare to hear a story like yours where moving forward 1/2 car length was enough to save the day. The problem is this: you are gambling that by moving forward a tiny bit that you buy the idiot behind you enough time to realize what is going on and react. But the cost you incur is the loss of your buffer if they don't notice, and thus involving one more poor schmo in the accident. In other words, you actively chose to bring another party into the accident by your decision, and therefore you are at fault.
I'm sure that defensive driving techniques can be incorporated into self driving cars for situations like story #1, but you'll probably see that in Mercedes before you see it in Fiat.
I haven't been obsessed with The Cure since the 90's when grunge took over.
All insurance schemes are designed to amortize the risk... in this case, amortize the cost of a failure over the previous, and subsequent successes... and the middleman skims a little off the top. So I look at this and think buying insurance is actually just a waste of money.
To anyone who would disagree: If the only insurance you've ever bought is for your car... you probably don't know shit about insurance.
I came here to say exactly this... if SpaceX has to buy a policy, you don't think they're going to pass that cost through to NASA anyways? Pft!
So... your plan is to stand out by being as milk-toast average as possible?
I use "[password redacted]" for my password for this very reason!
RAID 5 here... do you even RAID bro?
You assume a single probability statement.
If you could find the poachers, to turn them into middle-men, then couldn't you also find the poachers and turn them into... jailbirds?
Clearly you haven't ever dabbled in Bayesian probability... broader and narrower is simple to implement as a measure of deviance from whatever baseline your algorithm has established.
I think Google needs a slider bar that sets how "loosey goosey" it gets with your terms... so when I'm not getting what I want, I can go broader, or narrower. I'll even let 'em have the name... loosey goosey.
I wish I had mod points today... I'd mod this up.
This is one of the worst cases of armchair rocket science I've ever seen. You obviously failed economics. Space launches are not in infinite supply. So cost would rise with demand. Also, as others have already pointed out, you discuss only the cost of fuel, and as our good friend Elon Musk has pointed out on multiple occasions, fuel is the cheapest part of space travel. Your cost analysis is lacking.... both in the cost, and in the analysis. Try summing up the cost of non-reusable vehicles, supplies, destination habitat, launch support and logistics, and see where that takes us.
Furthermore, lets talk about your 400 million people for a second... how many launches is that? Assuming you could somehow pack 100 people and all required supplies into one launch (a ridiculous assumption at the outset) it would still take 4 million launches to move all those people. You'd have to launch 100 people 100 times a day for 110 years straight to move those people... in which time you'd have 3 or 4 new generations of people wanting to go. Of course, that's just my back-of-the-napkin estimate.
Respectfully, I call complete and total bullshit on this.
Even if mankind had the capability to warp off to some other star system capable of supporting life, how many humans would make the journey? Hundreds? Thousands? Consider the energy requirements to lift a significant portion of humanity out of earths gravity well. How many rockets are required to lift just the people into low earth orbit? The reduced headcount of those people who would leave earth would do NOTHING to curb the current population growth! So the remainder of humanity on this planet would still suffer the same fate you predicted if we didn't find another planet. And while we're going through this mental exercise, here's another one for you: What type of person is going to be capable of chartering a flight off this rock? The wealthy, that's who. So in a way, earth will be renamed to "Detroit" where the rich can afford to move away and leave a rotting infrastructure for those unable to escape. Meanwhile New Earth will be populated only by the families and friends of the ultra wealthy, with no reason to look back. Ironically, for all the religious hate that goes on around /. religion has a better chance of saving all of humanity than science does... at least if we're talking about leaving this planet for a better place.
WE are the invading insectoid aliens who have depleted all of the resources of our planet and are invading other planets... there's a reason science fiction has written those kinds of invaders as the villain... because they're assholes.
This is the future that your scenario brings.
Sounds like the fight about currents has been rectified then?
This is a moronic statement. Lots of guns are manufactured without a safety. But with guns and cars both, it is unwise to load it, point it at another person and "hit go" assuming the safety will prevent an accident. This may or may not have been a failure of the vehicle, but it most certainly was a failure of the driver.
Spelling "foul"... spelling is for the birds.
NASA has been doing this for a while... I remember when they announced it as "yesterday's coffee is now today's coffee"... everybody thought it was witty and cool. I guess Californians don't make good astronauts.
An icy core with a napalm mantle... disguised under an unassuming flaky pastry crust.
Nearly all labs have an online LTD (Laboratory Test Directory), so it should be trivial to look it up, however without knowing which facility the testing was done at (often not the same as the facility where the samples were taken) it's impossible to say exactly what those test codes are.
The CPT codes are much more revealing, but it should be noted that many different tests could fall under the same CPT billing code, and it is also possible to bill multiple CPTs for a single test (depending on the utility of that test). It appears as if that's the case because looking those CPT codes up in the 2015 list yields: 87481 = CANDIDA DNA AMP PROBE, 87491 = CHYLMD TRACH DNA AMP PROBE, 87798 = DETECT AGENT NOS DNA AMP. All three of those tests could be performed from a single swab. To me it sounds like the NY Times writer is just being lazy and not doing any research... it also sounds like she likes to party.
"Are you older than 49 or younger".
There really is no wrong answer here...
Yessss... muhah ha haha... and once we've dealt with the Christians, we can move on to the Zen Buddhists!
Examine your heart when you say things like this.
What I'm hearing when I read this, is that cell phone technology has some kind of weakness so severe, that just a whiff of the exploit will set experts on the obvious path to uncovering it... thus to leak any information at all will provide security researchers with everything they need to figure it out and fix it. Once that is done, the value of stingray devices will be moot. Or in other words... c'mon security researchers, you're so damn close the government can taste it!
I like this one better...
http://xkcd.com/641/