Still... just that radium paint alone, you wouldn't want the teen next door to have something like that...
What if he had more dangerous toxins like those found in a can of insecticide or certain common petroleum products at his disposal? We wouldn't want that either would we.
Considering the fact that he has been apparently working with radioactive materials for at least a decade (arrested in 2007 for trying to steal smoke detectors for their Americium) without a single thought to safety, and considering he has turned down medical treatment for radiation exposure numerous times I'd say he died of complications resulting from exposure (and lack of treatment) to radioactive materials.
What you aren't considering is the very low actual risk numbers and a long history of medical evidence regarding exposure at even higher levels not resulting in significant statistical increases that a normal person would consider risk significant. If there was a 1 in 100,000 increase in the chance that this person would get cancer before he died, than in all likelihood your assumption is incorrect.
1000 times background measured directly over a source is really not that much. And the risks it presents is much lower than a huge majority of people seem to think. I know the number 1000 sounds like a lot, but 1000 times something very small can still be very small.
That brings up a point about cargo only autonomous vehicles. They should not require all the safety features that passenger vehicles have to protect passengers. They don't need entertainment systems or comfy interiors, etc. That could significantly cut cost and reduce manufacturing time, but hard to think as much as the overly optimistic statement of the subject article.
You can 'consider' it however you like but it doesn't change anything. People haven't been choosing to buy pre-installed on any scale and have rather been choosing to self install. So that's the default.
Average users shouldn't install OS themselves. There's already plenty of laptops with linux pre-installed for sale. Custom OS installs are only good for enthusiast early-adopters and skilled people with particular requirements.
The short list of people who would heed that advice are average users who would agree they are average users and who care what you think.
OTOH, if they try they may actually learn something and become above average users.
Peaking power gets ramped up and down to meet the peaks in demand, which result from varying load and these days the intermittance gaps from wind and solar.
I never said they are wrong, i said they are unproven and have gresr uncertainty. I don't need to provide any evidence. You are saying they are right, where is your evidence? Do you know of any single model of local climate that has been validated to properly reflect the impact of long term global warming? I bet you don't even know what models exist
Maybe they could consider creating an intermediate entity (company) within the municipality that purchases service then sublets service outside. Depending of course on how thoroughly the law addresses that kind of thing.
We know what weather patterns form deserts, and what produces those weather patterns. Are you saying that we can't take a good guess at what will happen if we simply pour more energy into the existing weather patterns? I suspect that's something we're fairly good at.
I am saying we can't predict what those weather patterns will be after a large shift in global temperatures. I don't know why you would suspect we are good at it, we can't predict rainfall or drought seasonally. There is no validated model that shows we can. You can assume we can, that's fine if you like.
Yes, we might. But probably not. We've already had the opportunity to observe significant global warming, so our ability to make declarative statements about it is improving over time, and you're pretending that it itsn't.
I never said we won't have warming over time. You must have read something I didn't say.
That's not the prediction. This is a prediction about one specific dry area. You know what's more suspicious than a prediction that a dry area will get dryer? Refusing to accept such a plausible prediction. They're making a quite believable claim (adding energy to a system will increase its extremes) and you are making the exceptional counterclaim. It is you with the responsibility of providing exceptional evidence.
I understand the prediction is one specific area. That is my point, We don't have that ability. I didn't refuse to accept it. I said we don't have any certainty or validation against a larger global warming shift. Your insistence that it must be correct is more telling. I don't insist it is wrong, I am just saying we don't have any certainly in these models. Obviously I can't present evidence that the models have uncertainty, as you can present evidence they are correct. I can say with certainty that the climate locally is part of a very complex model, and we've not shown any ability to accurately reflect that model in the short term, so there is little reason to believe it is accurate it the long term. But you can go ahead an just insist that it must be accurate if you like. I maintain a more critical view.
The 'scenario' is based on a simple yet unproven assumption that a warmer globe means a drier climate in specific localized regions. Yet there is no proof of this or a validated model for this. With our inability to understand the feedback mechanisms in a warmer world that we've not yet witnessed, we might find that precipitation actually increases in some of these regions.
We can be serious about addressing CO2 issues without assuming everything must get worse everywhere as a result. I call general bullshit on the predictions that always say dry areas get dryer, wet areas get wetter, stormy regions get stormier. Its too simple an assumption in a complex system.
Slashdot Mirror
Even ingested risks, albeit higher than external exposure, are much lower than most people imagine.
Still... just that radium paint alone, you wouldn't want the teen next door to have something like that...
What if he had more dangerous toxins like those found in a can of insecticide or certain common petroleum products at his disposal? We wouldn't want that either would we.
Considering the fact that he has been apparently working with radioactive materials for at least a decade (arrested in 2007 for trying to steal smoke detectors for their Americium) without a single thought to safety, and considering he has turned down medical treatment for radiation exposure numerous times I'd say he died of complications resulting from exposure (and lack of treatment) to radioactive materials.
What you aren't considering is the very low actual risk numbers and a long history of medical evidence regarding exposure at even higher levels not resulting in significant statistical increases that a normal person would consider risk significant. If there was a 1 in 100,000 increase in the chance that this person would get cancer before he died, than in all likelihood your assumption is incorrect.
1000 times background measured directly over a source is really not that much. And the risks it presents is much lower than a huge majority of people seem to think. I know the number 1000 sounds like a lot, but 1000 times something very small can still be very small.
The only reason this was ever a story is public ignorance and tremendously skewed risk perception of radioactive exposure at these levels.
This is not a solution in search of a problem, its a solution that creates many.
If the black hole was wearing pants, then this would be really interesting.
Its all good till some hacker turns the drones on the crowd.
Might as well skip this and just go straight to VR. Then the options are unlimited.
That brings up a point about cargo only autonomous vehicles. They should not require all the safety features that passenger vehicles have to protect passengers. They don't need entertainment systems or comfy interiors, etc. That could significantly cut cost and reduce manufacturing time, but hard to think as much as the overly optimistic statement of the subject article.
And as I've shown, that's all it is.
I'd like to see a study reproducing the results performed by someone who is not out looking for racism.
Still no backup I see.
You can 'consider' it however you like but it doesn't change anything. People haven't been choosing to buy pre-installed on any scale and have rather been choosing to self install. So that's the default.
Average users shouldn't install OS themselves. There's already plenty of laptops with linux pre-installed for sale. Custom OS installs are only good for enthusiast early-adopters and skilled people with particular requirements.
The short list of people who would heed that advice are average users who would agree they are average users and who care what you think.
OTOH, if they try they may actually learn something and become above average users.
You keep saying the same stupid, pointless things. Where you draw them on a chart doesn't matter.
Not charging at anything, just presenting facts and backing them up.
Peaking power gets ramped up and down to meet the peaks in demand, which result from varying load and these days the intermittance gaps from wind and solar.
Your sophomoric response is telling.
I never said they are wrong, i said they are unproven and have gresr uncertainty. I don't need to provide any evidence. You are saying they are right, where is your evidence? Do you know of any single model of local climate that has been validated to properly reflect the impact of long term global warming? I bet you don't even know what models exist
See folks. No meat on DBIIIs bone.
Maybe they could consider creating an intermediate entity (company) within the municipality that purchases service then sublets service outside. Depending of course on how thoroughly the law addresses that kind of thing.
Had Sanders been the candidate, he would have been running 15 points ahead of Trump right now
And Rubio would be crushing Clinton had he won. It doesn't matter at this point.
We know what weather patterns form deserts, and what produces those weather patterns. Are you saying that we can't take a good guess at what will happen if we simply pour more energy into the existing weather patterns? I suspect that's something we're fairly good at.
I am saying we can't predict what those weather patterns will be after a large shift in global temperatures. I don't know why you would suspect we are good at it, we can't predict rainfall or drought seasonally. There is no validated model that shows we can. You can assume we can, that's fine if you like.
Yes, we might. But probably not. We've already had the opportunity to observe significant global warming, so our ability to make declarative statements about it is improving over time, and you're pretending that it itsn't.
I never said we won't have warming over time. You must have read something I didn't say.
That's not the prediction. This is a prediction about one specific dry area. You know what's more suspicious than a prediction that a dry area will get dryer? Refusing to accept such a plausible prediction. They're making a quite believable claim (adding energy to a system will increase its extremes) and you are making the exceptional counterclaim. It is you with the responsibility of providing exceptional evidence.
I understand the prediction is one specific area. That is my point, We don't have that ability. I didn't refuse to accept it. I said we don't have any certainty or validation against a larger global warming shift. Your insistence that it must be correct is more telling. I don't insist it is wrong, I am just saying we don't have any certainly in these models. Obviously I can't present evidence that the models have uncertainty, as you can present evidence they are correct. I can say with certainty that the climate locally is part of a very complex model, and we've not shown any ability to accurately reflect that model in the short term, so there is little reason to believe it is accurate it the long term. But you can go ahead an just insist that it must be accurate if you like. I maintain a more critical view.
The 'scenario' is based on a simple yet unproven assumption that a warmer globe means a drier climate in specific localized regions. Yet there is no proof of this or a validated model for this. With our inability to understand the feedback mechanisms in a warmer world that we've not yet witnessed, we might find that precipitation actually increases in some of these regions.
We can be serious about addressing CO2 issues without assuming everything must get worse everywhere as a result. I call general bullshit on the predictions that always say dry areas get dryer, wet areas get wetter, stormy regions get stormier. Its too simple an assumption in a complex system.