Mercury on its own won't do much, because it won't react with the sapphire dust that covers all exposed aluminium. But add some gallium and a tiny bit of lye, and the story is different.
"Emergency medical personnel used to be expected to put themselves in harm's way to protect people." You've clearly been watching way too much Hollywood.
No, I grew up in a different country where people weren't risk-averse chickens, but did what the situation would require, even if it meant risking their own life for someone else.
Yeah, a drone popping a bag of flour over a packed sports stadium could easily cause hundreds of deaths.
The best way to prevent terrorism is to not piss of people so much that they become terrorists. For each preventative measure that can be put in place, two new approaches to killing people can be found. That is simply not a war that can be won.
You fly into my territory with your $200 million a pop super jets and you'll fly into a swarm of cheap-ass drones, use up your bullets and then it's easy pick'ins - and body bags going home.
Rinse and repeat.
Guess who's gonna win in the long run. The F-22 and F-35 are already obsolete.
Jet fighters and fighter/bombers fly at a quite different altitude and speed than drones do. Blocking jet planes with drones is as effective as blocking drones with Czech hedgehogs.
As any copy will tell you, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
You miss the point. Better for whom?
We didn't get a police force to better protect the police. If that's what they're good at, we're better off paying protection money to private thugs, who at least has an interest in not cutting off their income.
Based on my experience with people professional pyro, I'd say that a 6kg weapon using a simple explosive like black powder would be a dangerous item to have laying around the house, but not particularly effective as a military weapon.
2 kg of C4 and 1 kg of non-explosives like radioactive materials, mercury or anthrax could be very effective, depending on what the target and strategic goals were. And remember the V bombs used against Britain. The major object was to instil fear; if they blew up something of strategic value, that was just a bonus.
It seems like better defences against drones might be prudent.
Firemen and emergency medical personnel seem to still do that.
Firemen, at least, yes. And people like Medicines Sans Frontiers. And I am proud of them. They willingly put their lives on the line so all of us can have better lives.
I'm sure there still are policemen who would do that too, and not just look out for #1. But they seem to be few and far between these days.
I have no respect for police anymore. None. I have fear. That is not the way it should be, and it is not my fault.
They are trained to be quick with the trigger because if they aren't, they may be the ones dead.
And that would not be a worse outcome than a dead innocent non-police.
Police, firemen and emergency medical personnel used to be expected to put themselves in harm's way to protect people. Protecting themselves was secondary to protecting innocents. They took oaths on doing so, and people were proud of them for it. When did this change?
So, according to you, the guy who actually pumped bullets into an unarmed man is in no way responsible for killing him?
I hate binary thinking like this. It's not an either/or. Adding blame to one side does not remove an iota of blame from the other side. Culpability and guilt are not finite resources that must be assigned to one or the other.
The caller did his crimes. The 911 operators did their crimes. The cops did their crimes. Let all of them be judged for what they did, not what someone else did, and without attempting to assign "the" blame. There's enough for all of them.
Speaking of being rather dismissive, the term was "Even the Best Police occasionally make mistakes" which is to say
Which is to say that since the majority of the police cannot logically be "The Best", mistakes must be far more common than just occasional.
If the police poses a threat to innocent people, something needs to be done. I am never more in fear of my life than when I see a police officer, and that should not be the case.
As said, a few bad apples spoils the barrel, and the barrel is not in a healthy state. The whole barrel needs to go.
open thunderird write now email ---dictate to address ---dictate message send email
works fine for me
That "works fine for me" is the problem. What works for one person won't work for another. You're technically savvy, with a mind working well enough to remember those specific commands. Those who would benefit the most from such a system might not be.
Some won't remember the exact statements, or their order. Some won't have a clear enough voice, or one that works in the specific frequency and amplitude range the machine needs[*]. Some can't put on a headset properly. Some can't see the screen well enough to know whether the computer understood. Some won't have the patience to go through so many steps. Some will say other things in-between which throws the voice recognition off.
All those "somes" add up, and it won't work for a large portion of those who would be the most helped if it worked.
[*]: I give up on most voice controlled phone and car systems. My voice is very deep and very soft, and what little makes it past the high-pass filter is frequently misunderstood. It gets really frustrating when the systems have an option to say "human" to speak to a human, but the systems can't even understand that you say "human". Especially if it then tries to throw up a simplified yes/no guessing game, but can't even understand when you say "yes" or "no".
In short, expert systems in general and voice recognition in particular is today a "works for most" that creates an even bigger divide between conformant majorities and minorities that actually need more help.
If you block people from being elected (or people from voting) who have committed crimes, you allow unjust laws to ferment unchallenged, and you encourage politicians to pass laws that disproportionately affect their opponents.
Very true. Unfortunately, the US has not taken the full steps needed to avoid this, due to disenfranchisement of felons. In a two-party system, this invites those in charge to make and enact laws that hit the other side harder than theirs. Most democracies have safeguards to prevent this, most notably by making voting an inalienable right. You then can't silence opponents by creating unfair laws, and then take away people's right to vote when they break them.
Who is he? What is his goal? Where is he doing this stuff? Why is he so pissed-off? When did he learn of the offense? How is he intending to achieve his goals?
He's scum. But compared to Gawker, he's cream. What I want to know is whether he has a donation site where I can donate to the good cause of getting rid of the site that makes 4chan look good and reddit outright saintly.
When we have lots of AVs with V2V then we will be able to do platooning, and then you will be able to put more vehicles on the road even if they are going slower because they will be closer together.
Yes, and that will be useful for freight, but not people, because as I said, you can't put a person in two cars to make him go faster.
The biggest advantage of autonomous cars is that road carrying capacity goes way way up... which not only increases overall transportation efficiency
No, that does not follow. If the average speed per vehicle goes down, transportation efficiency goes down, not up, no matter how many cars you can pack on the road. You can't put one person in two cars to make him go twice as fast.
All indications so far is that the average speed goes down for automatic cars; not only the driving speed, but the amount of stops. Which delays other cars too.
No, no, I don't. Being able to cancel the phone plan was one of the best things that has happened to me. As the saying goes, one phone is a necessity, two is practical, three is luxury, and no phones is heaven.
E.g. the word for "ticket" is "billetto". The english "bill" comes to mind, and in german we have the word "Billet", which is not in wide spread use, but we adopted it via French.
It's "bileto", actually, only a single letter away from Spanish "boleto". And yes, it's a very good example you came up with. The whole "-eto" construction is common in Spanish and Italian, and almost never found in non-Romance languages. If a common stem word was what was wanted, there was no need to add -eto, and especially not the -o. The only plausible reason I can see for it being bileto and not, say, bilet or bille is to increase the similarity to Spanish and Italian.
Now that is just twisted. How are we to know what our representatives voted for and against, if the bill has nothing to do with the bill?
If a congresscritter shows as having voted NAY for "allow offshore oil drilling", and AYE on "increase NASA Earth Science funding", he might have voted for warrantless surveillance and against the right of immigrants to have abortion?
It would have been better if you had posted the link to the right roll. The one you posted is about rapid DNA analysis, not the counter individual network act. Try http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... And weep.
Meanwhile, those who do have nefarious plans have access to unbreakable encryption, and aren't going to stop using it just because congress passes a law.
Hell, even from a conservative point of view it should be obvious that businesses outside the US are still going to use it, and win an advantage over law-abiding US businesses who won't.
Esperanto is VERY different to Spanish. Just because it begins with "Esp" don't assume it is a derivative language. I know a little bit of both languages and they are very different.
It, like so many things, depends on your point of view. From a non-Romance speaking point of view, I'd claim it is more similar to Romance languages than anything else. The vocabulary is largely Romance based and has more in common with Spanish and Catalan than any other languages, the pronunciation is based on Italian, it lacks dative/genitive/oblique which most non-Romance languages have, treats double negations as emphasizing instead of cancelling, and other features that increases the distance from many other language families.
Slashdot Mirror
Mercury on its own won't do much, because it won't react with the sapphire dust that covers all exposed aluminium.
But add some gallium and a tiny bit of lye, and the story is different.
So surrender to their demands instead then?
Things are not black and white. It's not either/or.
Taking off our own blinders and engaging in dialogue is a good start.
"Emergency medical personnel used to be expected to put themselves in harm's way to protect people." You've clearly been watching way too much Hollywood.
No, I grew up in a different country where people weren't risk-averse chickens, but did what the situation would require, even if it meant risking their own life for someone else.
Yeah, a drone popping a bag of flour over a packed sports stadium could easily cause hundreds of deaths.
The best way to prevent terrorism is to not piss of people so much that they become terrorists. For each preventative measure that can be put in place, two new approaches to killing people can be found. That is simply not a war that can be won.
You fly into my territory with your $200 million a pop super jets and you'll fly into a swarm of cheap-ass drones, use up your bullets and then it's easy pick'ins - and body bags going home.
Rinse and repeat.
Guess who's gonna win in the long run. The F-22 and F-35 are already obsolete.
Jet fighters and fighter/bombers fly at a quite different altitude and speed than drones do. Blocking jet planes with drones is as effective as blocking drones with Czech hedgehogs.
As any copy will tell you, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
You miss the point. Better for whom?
We didn't get a police force to better protect the police. If that's what they're good at, we're better off paying protection money to private thugs, who at least has an interest in not cutting off their income.
Based on my experience with people professional pyro, I'd say that a 6kg weapon using a simple explosive like black powder would be a dangerous item to have laying around the house, but not particularly effective as a military weapon.
2 kg of C4 and 1 kg of non-explosives like radioactive materials, mercury or anthrax could be very effective, depending on what the target and strategic goals were.
And remember the V bombs used against Britain. The major object was to instil fear; if they blew up something of strategic value, that was just a bonus.
It seems like better defences against drones might be prudent.
Firemen and emergency medical personnel seem to still do that.
Firemen, at least, yes. And people like Medicines Sans Frontiers.
And I am proud of them. They willingly put their lives on the line so all of us can have better lives.
I'm sure there still are policemen who would do that too, and not just look out for #1. But they seem to be few and far between these days.
I have no respect for police anymore. None. I have fear.
That is not the way it should be, and it is not my fault.
They are trained to be quick with the trigger because if they aren't, they may be the ones dead.
And that would not be a worse outcome than a dead innocent non-police.
Police, firemen and emergency medical personnel used to be expected to put themselves in harm's way to protect people. Protecting themselves was secondary to protecting innocents. They took oaths on doing so, and people were proud of them for it.
When did this change?
So, according to you, the guy who actually pumped bullets into an unarmed man is in no way responsible for killing him?
I hate binary thinking like this. It's not an either/or. Adding blame to one side does not remove an iota of blame from the other side. Culpability and guilt are not finite resources that must be assigned to one or the other.
The caller did his crimes.
The 911 operators did their crimes.
The cops did their crimes.
Let all of them be judged for what they did, not what someone else did, and without attempting to assign "the" blame. There's enough for all of them.
Speaking of being rather dismissive, the term was "Even the Best Police occasionally make mistakes" which is to say
Which is to say that since the majority of the police cannot logically be "The Best", mistakes must be far more common than just occasional.
If the police poses a threat to innocent people, something needs to be done.
I am never more in fear of my life than when I see a police officer, and that should not be the case.
As said, a few bad apples spoils the barrel, and the barrel is not in a healthy state. The whole barrel needs to go.
open thunderird
write now email
---dictate to address
---dictate message
send email
works fine for me
That "works fine for me" is the problem. What works for one person won't work for another. You're technically savvy, with a mind working well enough to remember those specific commands. Those who would benefit the most from such a system might not be.
Some won't remember the exact statements, or their order.
Some won't have a clear enough voice, or one that works in the specific frequency and amplitude range the machine needs[*].
Some can't put on a headset properly.
Some can't see the screen well enough to know whether the computer understood.
Some won't have the patience to go through so many steps.
Some will say other things in-between which throws the voice recognition off.
All those "somes" add up, and it won't work for a large portion of those who would be the most helped if it worked.
[*]: I give up on most voice controlled phone and car systems. My voice is very deep and very soft, and what little makes it past the high-pass filter is frequently misunderstood. It gets really frustrating when the systems have an option to say "human" to speak to a human, but the systems can't even understand that you say "human". Especially if it then tries to throw up a simplified yes/no guessing game, but can't even understand when you say "yes" or "no".
In short, expert systems in general and voice recognition in particular is today a "works for most" that creates an even bigger divide between conformant majorities and minorities that actually need more help.
If you block people from being elected (or people from voting) who have committed crimes, you allow unjust laws to ferment unchallenged, and you encourage politicians to pass laws that disproportionately affect their opponents.
Very true. Unfortunately, the US has not taken the full steps needed to avoid this, due to disenfranchisement of felons. In a two-party system, this invites those in charge to make and enact laws that hit the other side harder than theirs.
Most democracies have safeguards to prevent this, most notably by making voting an inalienable right. You then can't silence opponents by creating unfair laws, and then take away people's right to vote when they break them.
Who is he? What is his goal? Where is he doing this stuff? Why is he so pissed-off? When did he learn of the offense? How is he intending to achieve his goals?
He's scum. But compared to Gawker, he's cream.
What I want to know is whether he has a donation site where I can donate to the good cause of getting rid of the site that makes 4chan look good and reddit outright saintly.
When we have lots of AVs with V2V then we will be able to do platooning, and then you will be able to put more vehicles on the road even if they are going slower because they will be closer together.
Yes, and that will be useful for freight, but not people, because as I said, you can't put a person in two cars to make him go faster.
The biggest advantage of autonomous cars is that road carrying capacity goes way way up... which not only increases overall transportation efficiency
No, that does not follow.
If the average speed per vehicle goes down, transportation efficiency goes down, not up, no matter how many cars you can pack on the road. You can't put one person in two cars to make him go twice as fast.
All indications so far is that the average speed goes down for automatic cars; not only the driving speed, but the amount of stops. Which delays other cars too.
Do you carry a cell phone?
No, no, I don't.
Being able to cancel the phone plan was one of the best things that has happened to me.
As the saying goes, one phone is a necessity, two is practical, three is luxury, and no phones is heaven.
Turns out, apes can't drive cars.
Evidence to the contrary, there are more than a billion car driving apes in the world.
You say your concerns are safety then you list economic concerns.
What he wrote was "My main concern is not safety."
Notice that word between "is" and "safety"?
E.g. the word for "ticket" is "billetto". The english "bill" comes to mind, and in german we have the word "Billet", which is not in wide spread use, but we adopted it via French.
It's "bileto", actually, only a single letter away from Spanish "boleto". And yes, it's a very good example you came up with. The whole "-eto" construction is common in Spanish and Italian, and almost never found in non-Romance languages.
If a common stem word was what was wanted, there was no need to add -eto, and especially not the -o. The only plausible reason I can see for it being bileto and not, say, bilet or bille is to increase the similarity to Spanish and Italian.
Now that is just twisted. How are we to know what our representatives voted for and against, if the bill has nothing to do with the bill?
If a congresscritter shows as having voted NAY for "allow offshore oil drilling", and AYE on "increase NASA Earth Science funding", he might have voted for warrantless surveillance and against the right of immigrants to have abortion?
It would have been better if you had posted the link to the right roll. The one you posted is about rapid DNA analysis, not the counter individual network act. Try http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
And weep.
We're aware of the story. But we need credible sources to corroborate the claims before we run it here.
*Blink*
I welcome this new policy. I really do.
Will it be accompanied by pink ponies?
Meanwhile, those who do have nefarious plans have access to unbreakable encryption, and aren't going to stop using it just because congress passes a law.
Hell, even from a conservative point of view it should be obvious that businesses outside the US are still going to use it, and win an advantage over law-abiding US businesses who won't.
Esperanto is VERY different to Spanish. Just because it begins with "Esp" don't assume it is a derivative language. I know a little bit of both languages and they are very different.
It, like so many things, depends on your point of view.
From a non-Romance speaking point of view, I'd claim it is more similar to Romance languages than anything else.
The vocabulary is largely Romance based and has more in common with Spanish and Catalan than any other languages, the pronunciation is based on Italian, it lacks dative/genitive/oblique which most non-Romance languages have, treats double negations as emphasizing instead of cancelling, and other features that increases the distance from many other language families.