And why should we trust a 4 yr engineer who at most probability has cheated in classes and no real world experiences.
On what do you base that ridiculous assertion of cheating and no experience as the absolute best we can expect of engineers?
And its too bad you dont like the statistics thats ONLY 10 examples as i stated and proved my point.
I'm the only one of us who has actually provided statistics, and I like them just fine. If you've got actual statistics that engineering faults are a much bigger threat than driver error, then bring it on. I'm beginning to think you don't actually understand what statistics is, if you think 10 examples of random, events qualify. (And none of them even relate to cars or auto-pilot systems!)
All you've done is present your gut feelings, wild unsupported accusations that engineers can't be trusted and probably cheat, and a handful of historical engineering disasters. A top 10 list of worst disasters says nothing about the frequency of engineering disasters, unlike the CDC mortality data I presented. Ignoring statistics in favor of anecdotes is the sort of failure that leads people to worry more about terrorism than their own dietary decisions, when the latter is a far more serious threat to their life.
Really, you've done nothing but say that you trust yourself as a driver and then trash anyone who might offer a safer alternative (e.g. engineers) with nothing but irrational fear-mongering and attacks, free of supporting facts. If that's all you've got, then your argument is simply invalid.
Trust is relative. You can't trust humans to drive perfectly nor to design & build perfectly.
The question is, which do you trust more? Personally, I trust licensed professionals with 4+ years of education and with their career on the line more than the public whose main qualification is being over 16 and completing a single, less than 1 hour, highly controlled test.
If you trust drivers more than engineers, you're simply a fool. The statistics trump your 10 anecdotes.
Engineering is done by humans as as the thousands of poorly engineered building,bridges, cars, planes,trains, consumer products killing thousands/millions have shown us is that engineering is no guarantee of safety.
Could you cite those statistics for death caused not by human error?
Because, according to the CDC, 35,000+ people died of auto accidents in 2010, compared to only just under 17,000 for all "other" non-transport, non-firearm, non-poisoning, non-fall, non-fire/smoke, non-drowning deaths. And that was a GOOD year for automotive deaths -- one of the lowest in decades. For all the national panic over September 11th, we lose well over 10x that number of people every year thanks to auto accidents. More people die every year from car accidents than from firearms, fire, and poison combined.
That's just the fatalities! Only about 8% of crashes result in fatalities thanks to nearly miraculous advances in modern medicine. There are about 6 million crashes per year and about 2.3 million people sent to the hospital as a result. That's about a $70 billion drain on the economy every year. 44% of people with spinal cord injuries obtained them from a car accident.
Getting in a car is the single most dangerous thing you do every day.
While engineering may be no guarantee of perfect safety, but it's practically a guarantee of lowered risks. Human error was the sole cause of 57% of all accidents and a contributing factor in over 90% Mechanical error alone was only 2.4%. The top three contributing factors to accidents are driver inattention, alcohol, and speed. A driverless system (that obeys traffic laws) eliminates all three.
To make the argument that driverless cars would be less safe than humans is a joke, especially when it's such a low bar to reach.
The notion was that traits like glyphosate resistance bear a certain cost which would be why they haven't arisen naturally and been preserved. This can be seen in antibiotic resistance in bacteria, though even there it takes many, many generations for this to sort itself out.
So, if genes cross into wild plants, the idea was that they'd cause the "contaminated" wild plants to be losers, which would self-limit the propagation of such genes in the wild. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the case: the genes that cause glyphosate resistance are actually a win-win for the plants receiving them, meaning that they'll have a competitive advantage even without glyphosate artificially putting selection pressure on them, which means the genes will actively spread in wild plants due to natural selection.
I personally wouldn't trust any auto driven care made by anyone. Its all about control baby and i want full control.
I trust other drivers far less than I trust engineering, and I find driving long distance to be a tedious chore.
So I can't wait until driverless cars are on the market. I just hope I'll be able to afford them when they are, and I hope they won't require any oversight from me by the time I'm old and gray, so I can happily nap at the wheel.
Two is really the biggest problem. Unless you've done something historically exceptional or somehow racked away money in some sort of structure that won't be immediately raided by your successors, then no one will be interested except maybe some curiosity seekers or people who just want to prove after all this time that it can be done (and is now available for sale to the general public).
As for three, I would eagerly embrace the chance to see a new world with new advances in science and the arts. It would also be fascinating to see how culture has changed and how my own time period and the years after are viewed through the lens of history.
Plus, I've relocated across the country before, and finding new people to care about isn't all that hard if you have any social graces, and people we love and care about die or move away all throughout life. You just lose a few more at once when it's your time to go.
Also, it's not immortality if they freeze you after you die. Immortality means not to die at all.
Define death.
It used to be that you died when your heart or breathing stopped. But now we can restart both. We even stop them regularly to repair the organs in question. Even brain death is problematic, when some drugs or conditions like hypoxia can temporarily shut down electrical activity. This is one reason that most hospitals require multiple checks a few hours or even a full day apart before declaring legal death. We are constantly pushing against the boundaries of what death is.
So, if your body fails, your brain is frozen, and you are repaired at a later date into a functional, conscious state, then did you ever really die?
He told protesters he first noticed he was being spied on when his internet speed slowed by '20 to 30 milliseconds'. 'As a gamer, I noticed,' he said.
Yeah, I think that's about as credible as the old meme, "This looks shopped / I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time."
Just because you were right doesn't make you not a paranoid loon if that's the first assumption you came up with.
The free market could work in health care just as it does in other areas, but that won't happen until people are paying their own bill out of their own pocket and making their own decisions about what's worth paying for and what's not.
The problem is that people aren't totally qualified to know what's worth paying for and what's not. The best they can't do is find out who offers a particular service for cheaper, but that won't tell them whether or not they really need that cat scan to find the problem or whether an alternative method would be just as effective.
A free market only works when the consumer is able to make rational, informed decisions. People with no medical training and who are in a vulnerable, time-pressed position due to illness will never rise to that standard.
They are not 'making something nice for you' out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing a JOB to get PAID.
You're one of those people who bitches out waitresses when the kitchen staff screws up, aren't you? Just because you are paying someone money doesn't give you the right to be a jerk to them for things that aren't their fault.
Exorbitant taxes? Nope. Most people pay something like 30%. While this is more than most pay in USA, when you add tuitions and health insurance it turns out we pay less.
Don't you also pay a 25% VAT on most goods and services? And even the lower rate for food is 12%? According to the Wikipedia, roughly 45-50% of your GDP goes into taxes and output government services. Total effective tax rates in the US are under 30%, even with our utterly ridiculous levels of military spending. We pay a *lot* less than you do.
Personally, I'd rather have the Swedish model due to the quality of the services rendered (except for your insane stance that each person's tax records must be a matter of public record).
You show me a bubble growing by 5-8-10% a year and I'll show you a mass of government involvement; subsidies, tax breaks, guaranteed debt, etc.
Alright. Explain the Rhodium bubble of 2008, the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929, Australia's Poseidon bubble of 1970, the Florida Land Boom of the 1920s, and the.Com Bubble of 2000 as "all government policy and government money."
I'd also strongly dispute that the healthcare crisis is all government's fault. Even a 100% private healthcare system is not a free market due to the lack of voluntary participation in the system and general lack of price-competition. (No one chooses the "cheapest" over the "best" unless they are simply priced out of the best.)
Gaming industry deserves all the abuse it gets. Extreme cases of abuse aside, all criticism is they get is deserved.
No one deserves amount of naked, unbridled hatred and venom that the internet can generate, least of all people who are trying their best to make something nice for you.
Besides, all the nonsense you complain about is management level decisions. It's the creative types who are feeling the venom, and it's much harder to be creative and make something fun when you're being told how worthless you are and how you should just die than it is to make soulless marketing decisions.
In other words, your nerd rage does nothing but weed out the people who might make things better and leave only the ones who just don't care.
Why rabbits? These aren't the first people to do this. Another group modified rabbits to produce human C1 inhibitor, but they only get 120 mL of milk per day. Is this economical from a perspective of input feed to output milk?
Eh, I'm not so sure I'd be that dramatic, but it and NERVA were solid proofs that open, solid-core nuclear engine technology suffers serious issues with ablation of the material. I think there's still good possibilities in nuclear rockets, but not in any open-core designs. (Yet some people still discuss them -- even open-core gas designs. Utter madness!)
That is not even slightly true; John Huntsman was way more moderate than Romney was. In fact, I believe Huntsman would have been capable of attracting enough liberal votes to win the general election (which was, of course, exactly why he was incapable of winning the primary).
Oh, man. How could I forget Huntsman? You are right, and I am deeply embarrassed to have made that error.
Huntsman was a pretty solid moderate, and I think I would have had a much harder time voting for Obama if he'd been up for the general election. That said, I think he had a snowball's chance in hell because of his moderation. Romney was cynical enough to play to the base; Huntsman considered some of his more moderate positions on immigration and welfare to be a matter of his religious values and was unlikely to flex on them as easily.
I honestly liked Huntsman a good bit. I feel like crap for forgetting him.
The choice offered us by the political machine was between an obvious sellout, and an obvious sellout who's also a raving misogynistic looney that's utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living.
I think that's a bit unfair to Romney. Now, I voted for Obama or, as you more accurately put it, against Romney, but he wasn't a "raving misogynistic looney." (He was pretty out of touch, though.) Romney was the most moderate candidate the Republicans fielded in that primary, and the only reason he managed to win it was because every other candidate self-destructed as an actual looney or otherwise unsuited to lead.
No, the real comparison, is that we had the choice of voting for two moderate Republicans, one of whom pandered to the Tea Party and other of which pandered to the Democratic Party.
Seriously. Rewind the clock about 20-30 years and see if you don't think Obama could have won a Republican primary. Romney and Obama (if we ignore his race and ran purely on policy) would have stood an equal chance against someone like Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush.
Cave Johnson was a parody, and any parody has to have a basis in the thing it's making fun of. The Cold War was filled with junk science and grandiose, delusional "engineering" projects to try to one up stuff that we imagined the commies were up to (and vice versa). Cold War threat assessment by both sides essentially ran on games of telephone and urban legends, and by god we would not have a mine shaft gap!
Me? There's almost nothing you could say that the US or the Soviets experimented with during the Cold War or thought about doing that I would immediately disbelieve.
Did the article originally cite that bullet trains are a Liberal wet-dream, but are highly inefficient and use way too much energy; and then compare these to show if they're more or less efficient than bullet trains and other methods of transportation?
Um, not that what you said had anything to do with what I did, but high-speed rail is actually considerably more efficient in high population areas. It's simply a matter of generator efficiency. (e.g. San Francisco and Los Angeles.) It only fails when ridership is low, and you're pushing too much vehicle per passenger.
Vacuum tube trains have an entirely different set of problems with efficiency, but Musk's solution is to simply use lower pressure to lower drag instead of chasing the ever-rising energy costs of achieving true vacuum. I guess the question will be at those speeds whether or not they achieve greater energy efficiency than airplanes -- which is kind of a low bar, I guess, but it's not like you can travel 760 mph by car, so comparing it to cars is apples and oranges.
Did somebody do something to embarrass the American government?
Umm, Snowden?
Also, Russia has been taking steps since Putin returned to the Presidency to define itself by seeking an identity that opposes the West in an attempt to assert their own relevance and independence from the West. You can see this in their recent cozying up to the Eastern Orthodox Church in recent years with their strengthening anti-gay stance and prosecuting members of Pussy Riot for blasphemy.
Putin is a former part of the Cold War machine who seems interested in restarting it. He also does not get along well with Obama, thanks to them both being somewhat cold, introverted types. The Daily Show had fun at both their expenses over this.
Slashdot Mirror
And why should we trust a 4 yr engineer who at most probability has cheated in classes and no real world experiences.
On what do you base that ridiculous assertion of cheating and no experience as the absolute best we can expect of engineers?
And its too bad you dont like the statistics thats ONLY 10 examples as i stated and proved my point.
I'm the only one of us who has actually provided statistics, and I like them just fine. If you've got actual statistics that engineering faults are a much bigger threat than driver error, then bring it on. I'm beginning to think you don't actually understand what statistics is, if you think 10 examples of random, events qualify. (And none of them even relate to cars or auto-pilot systems!)
All you've done is present your gut feelings, wild unsupported accusations that engineers can't be trusted and probably cheat, and a handful of historical engineering disasters. A top 10 list of worst disasters says nothing about the frequency of engineering disasters, unlike the CDC mortality data I presented. Ignoring statistics in favor of anecdotes is the sort of failure that leads people to worry more about terrorism than their own dietary decisions, when the latter is a far more serious threat to their life.
Really, you've done nothing but say that you trust yourself as a driver and then trash anyone who might offer a safer alternative (e.g. engineers) with nothing but irrational fear-mongering and attacks, free of supporting facts. If that's all you've got, then your argument is simply invalid.
Trust is relative. You can't trust humans to drive perfectly nor to design & build perfectly.
The question is, which do you trust more? Personally, I trust licensed professionals with 4+ years of education and with their career on the line more than the public whose main qualification is being over 16 and completing a single, less than 1 hour, highly controlled test.
If you trust drivers more than engineers, you're simply a fool. The statistics trump your 10 anecdotes.
Engineering is done by humans as as the thousands of poorly engineered building,bridges, cars, planes,trains, consumer products killing thousands/millions have shown us is that engineering is no guarantee of safety.
Could you cite those statistics for death caused not by human error?
Because, according to the CDC, 35,000+ people died of auto accidents in 2010, compared to only just under 17,000 for all "other" non-transport, non-firearm, non-poisoning, non-fall, non-fire/smoke, non-drowning deaths. And that was a GOOD year for automotive deaths -- one of the lowest in decades. For all the national panic over September 11th, we lose well over 10x that number of people every year thanks to auto accidents. More people die every year from car accidents than from firearms, fire, and poison combined.
That's just the fatalities! Only about 8% of crashes result in fatalities thanks to nearly miraculous advances in modern medicine. There are about 6 million crashes per year and about 2.3 million people sent to the hospital as a result. That's about a $70 billion drain on the economy every year. 44% of people with spinal cord injuries obtained them from a car accident.
Getting in a car is the single most dangerous thing you do every day.
While engineering may be no guarantee of perfect safety, but it's practically a guarantee of lowered risks. Human error was the sole cause of 57% of all accidents and a contributing factor in over 90% Mechanical error alone was only 2.4%. The top three contributing factors to accidents are driver inattention, alcohol, and speed. A driverless system (that obeys traffic laws) eliminates all three.
To make the argument that driverless cars would be less safe than humans is a joke, especially when it's such a low bar to reach.
The notion was that traits like glyphosate resistance bear a certain cost which would be why they haven't arisen naturally and been preserved. This can be seen in antibiotic resistance in bacteria, though even there it takes many, many generations for this to sort itself out.
So, if genes cross into wild plants, the idea was that they'd cause the "contaminated" wild plants to be losers, which would self-limit the propagation of such genes in the wild. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the case: the genes that cause glyphosate resistance are actually a win-win for the plants receiving them, meaning that they'll have a competitive advantage even without glyphosate artificially putting selection pressure on them, which means the genes will actively spread in wild plants due to natural selection.
I personally wouldn't trust any auto driven care made by anyone. Its all about control baby and i want full control.
I trust other drivers far less than I trust engineering, and I find driving long distance to be a tedious chore.
So I can't wait until driverless cars are on the market. I just hope I'll be able to afford them when they are, and I hope they won't require any oversight from me by the time I'm old and gray, so I can happily nap at the wheel.
Two is really the biggest problem. Unless you've done something historically exceptional or somehow racked away money in some sort of structure that won't be immediately raided by your successors, then no one will be interested except maybe some curiosity seekers or people who just want to prove after all this time that it can be done (and is now available for sale to the general public).
As for three, I would eagerly embrace the chance to see a new world with new advances in science and the arts. It would also be fascinating to see how culture has changed and how my own time period and the years after are viewed through the lens of history.
Plus, I've relocated across the country before, and finding new people to care about isn't all that hard if you have any social graces, and people we love and care about die or move away all throughout life. You just lose a few more at once when it's your time to go.
If they really believe in their technology, they should have no problem with a payment plan that starts when you wake up...
Pray that never happens.
Welcome to Life: the singularity, ruined by lawyers
Also, it's not immortality if they freeze you after you die.
Immortality means not to die at all.
Define death.
It used to be that you died when your heart or breathing stopped. But now we can restart both. We even stop them regularly to repair the organs in question. Even brain death is problematic, when some drugs or conditions like hypoxia can temporarily shut down electrical activity. This is one reason that most hospitals require multiple checks a few hours or even a full day apart before declaring legal death. We are constantly pushing against the boundaries of what death is.
So, if your body fails, your brain is frozen, and you are repaired at a later date into a functional, conscious state, then did you ever really die?
He told protesters he first noticed he was being spied on when his internet speed slowed by '20 to 30 milliseconds'. 'As a gamer, I noticed,' he said.
Yeah, I think that's about as credible as the old meme, "This looks shopped / I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time."
Just because you were right doesn't make you not a paranoid loon if that's the first assumption you came up with.
The free market could work in health care just as it does in other areas, but that won't happen until people are paying their own bill out of their own pocket and making their own decisions about what's worth paying for and what's not.
The problem is that people aren't totally qualified to know what's worth paying for and what's not. The best they can't do is find out who offers a particular service for cheaper, but that won't tell them whether or not they really need that cat scan to find the problem or whether an alternative method would be just as effective.
A free market only works when the consumer is able to make rational, informed decisions. People with no medical training and who are in a vulnerable, time-pressed position due to illness will never rise to that standard.
They are not 'making something nice for you' out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing a JOB to get PAID.
You're one of those people who bitches out waitresses when the kitchen staff screws up, aren't you? Just because you are paying someone money doesn't give you the right to be a jerk to them for things that aren't their fault.
Sorry, here's that article on cumulenes.
(Stupid Slashdot posting delay... *grumble grumble*)
Sadly, I don't remember enough organic chemistry to know what the double/double would be called.
Here's an article on cumulenes, but I don't know what a the proper name of a long chain of it would be.
Because it's an alkyne of pure carbon. At least, the single/triple alternating version is.
The double/double form could be named carbene except that that name is already taken. Then again, that didn't seem to stop them here either. The better name for this material is linear acetylenic carbon. Sadly, I don't remember enough organic chemistry to know what the double/double would be called.
I even cleaned red wine on a shirt with 25% vinegar, 25% alcohol and 50% cool water, it just all went away and I wore it without washing it further.
Everyone in the office must have loved you.
Exorbitant taxes? Nope. Most people pay something like 30%. While this is more than most pay in USA, when you add tuitions and health insurance it turns out we pay less.
Don't you also pay a 25% VAT on most goods and services? And even the lower rate for food is 12%? According to the Wikipedia, roughly 45-50% of your GDP goes into taxes and output government services. Total effective tax rates in the US are under 30%, even with our utterly ridiculous levels of military spending. We pay a *lot* less than you do.
Personally, I'd rather have the Swedish model due to the quality of the services rendered (except for your insane stance that each person's tax records must be a matter of public record).
You show me a bubble growing by 5-8-10% a year and I'll show you a mass of government involvement; subsidies, tax breaks, guaranteed debt, etc.
Alright. Explain the Rhodium bubble of 2008, the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929, Australia's Poseidon bubble of 1970, the Florida Land Boom of the 1920s, and the .Com Bubble of 2000 as "all government policy and government money."
I'd also strongly dispute that the healthcare crisis is all government's fault. Even a 100% private healthcare system is not a free market due to the lack of voluntary participation in the system and general lack of price-competition. (No one chooses the "cheapest" over the "best" unless they are simply priced out of the best.)
Gaming industry deserves all the abuse it gets. Extreme cases of abuse aside, all criticism is they get is deserved.
No one deserves amount of naked, unbridled hatred and venom that the internet can generate, least of all people who are trying their best to make something nice for you.
Besides, all the nonsense you complain about is management level decisions. It's the creative types who are feeling the venom, and it's much harder to be creative and make something fun when you're being told how worthless you are and how you should just die than it is to make soulless marketing decisions.
In other words, your nerd rage does nothing but weed out the people who might make things better and leave only the ones who just don't care.
Why rabbits? These aren't the first people to do this. Another group modified rabbits to produce human C1 inhibitor, but they only get 120 mL of milk per day. Is this economical from a perspective of input feed to output milk?
Eh, I'm not so sure I'd be that dramatic, but it and NERVA were solid proofs that open, solid-core nuclear engine technology suffers serious issues with ablation of the material. I think there's still good possibilities in nuclear rockets, but not in any open-core designs. (Yet some people still discuss them -- even open-core gas designs. Utter madness!)
That is not even slightly true; John Huntsman was way more moderate than Romney was. In fact, I believe Huntsman would have been capable of attracting enough liberal votes to win the general election (which was, of course, exactly why he was incapable of winning the primary).
Oh, man. How could I forget Huntsman? You are right, and I am deeply embarrassed to have made that error.
Huntsman was a pretty solid moderate, and I think I would have had a much harder time voting for Obama if he'd been up for the general election. That said, I think he had a snowball's chance in hell because of his moderation. Romney was cynical enough to play to the base; Huntsman considered some of his more moderate positions on immigration and welfare to be a matter of his religious values and was unlikely to flex on them as easily.
I honestly liked Huntsman a good bit. I feel like crap for forgetting him.
The choice offered us by the political machine was between an obvious sellout, and an obvious sellout who's also a raving misogynistic looney that's utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living.
I think that's a bit unfair to Romney. Now, I voted for Obama or, as you more accurately put it, against Romney, but he wasn't a "raving misogynistic looney." (He was pretty out of touch, though.) Romney was the most moderate candidate the Republicans fielded in that primary, and the only reason he managed to win it was because every other candidate self-destructed as an actual looney or otherwise unsuited to lead.
No, the real comparison, is that we had the choice of voting for two moderate Republicans, one of whom pandered to the Tea Party and other of which pandered to the Democratic Party.
Seriously. Rewind the clock about 20-30 years and see if you don't think Obama could have won a Republican primary. Romney and Obama (if we ignore his race and ran purely on policy) would have stood an equal chance against someone like Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush.
Cave Johnson was a parody, and any parody has to have a basis in the thing it's making fun of. The Cold War was filled with junk science and grandiose, delusional "engineering" projects to try to one up stuff that we imagined the commies were up to (and vice versa). Cold War threat assessment by both sides essentially ran on games of telephone and urban legends, and by god we would not have a mine shaft gap!
Try these links on for size, this article surprised you:
Nuke the Moon: 5 Certifiably Insane Cold War Projects
10 Ridiculous Cold War Government Projects
10 Creative Military Plans to Use Animals as Weapons (half of which are Cold War era).
Me? There's almost nothing you could say that the US or the Soviets experimented with during the Cold War or thought about doing that I would immediately disbelieve.
Did the article originally cite that bullet trains are a Liberal wet-dream, but are highly inefficient and use way too much energy; and then compare these to show if they're more or less efficient than bullet trains and other methods of transportation?
Um, not that what you said had anything to do with what I did, but high-speed rail is actually considerably more efficient in high population areas. It's simply a matter of generator efficiency. (e.g. San Francisco and Los Angeles.) It only fails when ridership is low, and you're pushing too much vehicle per passenger.
Vacuum tube trains have an entirely different set of problems with efficiency, but Musk's solution is to simply use lower pressure to lower drag instead of chasing the ever-rising energy costs of achieving true vacuum. I guess the question will be at those speeds whether or not they achieve greater energy efficiency than airplanes -- which is kind of a low bar, I guess, but it's not like you can travel 760 mph by car, so comparing it to cars is apples and oranges.
Did somebody do something to embarrass the American government?
Umm, Snowden?
Also, Russia has been taking steps since Putin returned to the Presidency to define itself by seeking an identity that opposes the West in an attempt to assert their own relevance and independence from the West. You can see this in their recent cozying up to the Eastern Orthodox Church in recent years with their strengthening anti-gay stance and prosecuting members of Pussy Riot for blasphemy.
Putin is a former part of the Cold War machine who seems interested in restarting it. He also does not get along well with Obama, thanks to them both being somewhat cold, introverted types. The Daily Show had fun at both their expenses over this.