The trouble is, we may in the future discover that the sequenced DNA does not suffice. Or that there's an error. If we don't have reference material, we can't fix any such errors, or even discover them in the first place.
This is kinda like deciding a project is no longer needed, so instead of archiving it, you compile one last binary, then destroy all the source code.
That's an interesting insight. I suppose the logic is that you don't want to plug it into the wall to prove it's a working device, because OMG that might utilize the higher current to set off a bomb. (I see no reason why internal batteries couldn't do the same job, with a lot more control at that, but, TSA logic.)
I wonder how they'd respond to my laptop, which is old enough that the battery is entirely dead, and it's not worth spending $150 to replace a battery in a laptop now worth about $50. It works fine when plugged into the wall, and not at all otherwise. (When I do drag it around, I also take an extension cord.)
Thanks to the plea bargain system, the conviction rate already hovers in the 96% range, at least for the jurisdictions I know about (Los Angeles County for one).
Dogs tend to home in on galvanic reactions and electronics even without training; I natter on about this somewhat above. This is why folks often learn to not leave their keyfob lying on the coffee table.
Now I'm wondering about that in light of the freedom of association. Isn't the gov't compelling membership in a prescribed gun club as a condition of exercising your 2nd Amendment rights?
And it would only take once for a bright dog to connect "scent of activated charcoal" with "target". They DO make that sort of association.
As to the various things hunters attempt to disguise their scent, I'm too lazy to look for it right now but I recall seeing a study on the effectiveness of scent-disguising potions and amulets, and the conclusion was that they accomplish about the same as any magical potion or amulet.
See also above where I talk about distinguishing one scent from many, as dogs do all the time anyway.
The fallacy is that the smell of dirty diapers will overwhelm and disguise the scent of the target. The truth is that dogs with good noses (which not all have) are quite capable of sorting out different scents from a multitude (in fact they do this every time they follow ANY scent, since almost everything in the world HAS a scent), and merely covering up the target scent is usually insufficient. Also, they can detect a mere handful of molecules, what any object might naturally ablate. Furthermore, experienced dogs learn that if you lose one scent, you follow an associated scent, in this case the foot track or bodyscent track of the person who hid the bagged target.
I used to live where some prior resident had thrown beer cans around the front yard, but across the years two feet of dirt had blown in over 'em (very fine dirt, very densely packed). I was mystified by the deep narrow holes my dogs were digging, til I realised the goal was an aluminum can, two feet down, which the dogs evidently scented and targeted. (Dogs tend to home in on galvanic reactions and electronics in general, even without training. This is why keyfobs are a fave chewtarget.)
And even if dogs could make explicit statements, dogs are like children in that they want to please -- and that includes telling you what you want to hear. If there's more reward for telling you "drugs and disks in that box" than for finding nothing, you betcha the dog will alert, every single time. Dogs can and do "lie".
[I am a pro dog trainer. That detection dogs commonly produce bogus results a la "Clever Hans" is pretty obvious to me... but evidently not to the people training detection dogs. But it does explain why perhaps the most sought-after detection training prospect is the retriever fieldtrial washout, who has already been extensively taught to take direction.]
Speaking as a professional dog trainer, this does not surprise me in the least. Nearly all "go achieve that goal for me" training is basically cue-taking, whether the object is to find drugs or to find a shot bird in the field. Drug detection is fundamentally the same as a very short range blind retrieve (a retrieve where the dog is directed to an unseen bird). If I "lie" to the dog and send him for a bird that doesn't exist, he'll still go hunt for it, and so long as he's at least occasionally rewarded for the hunt, he'll continue to perform it. Dogs are optimists.
Oklahoma is NOT a quake-free region in the first place.
Now if western North Dakota suddenly started having quakes (since per USGS records, ND has the lowest incidence of quakes of any U.S. state, and what quakes ND has are of the lowest average intensity of any state)....then I'd listen.
As someone jocularly points out, that should be more or less "east of the Continental Divide" (rather than "east coast") -- because the eastern half of the continent doesn't have big quakes often enough to remind them to build for quakes. They've long since forgotten the massive New Madrid quakes of the 19th century.
And Oklahoma is not a seismic-free zone in the first place. Here's a handy seismic zones chart -- you may notice OK in fact has a region of routine moderate earthquake activity:
I peeled the quote out of a book many years ago, and it still amuses me no end.
As to folk who might take it more seriously... yeah, it's superstition if you take it literally, but it's really a way of assigning or relieving guilt.
And I've learned that when I find myself thinking in terms of "predicting will make it happen", I had best back up and proceed with care, because my subconscious has spotted something I'm not yet overtly aware of. For that purpose, it is very, very accurate.
As to prevention, I live 1/4 mile from the tracks those fuselages pass along, and MRL is out here doing maintenance and rebuilding once or twice a month, and I see the truck with sensing equipment go by at least once a month as well. Our MT climate heaves the ground and there is no keeping tracks (or roads) in perfect condition, but they do work at it. Places that lack our weekly freeze-thaw cycles have no clue how much damage that does.
I think it should be all right to publish something with the caveat, "This is what we found, but we couldn't reliably reproduce it. Let's have someone with new eyes take a look and see if we're on to something or full of shit."
Because it's just as useful to know what *doesn't* reliably work, and you can't know about it unless it's documented.
But publishing one-offs as reliable research precedents is, not to put too fine a gloss on it, lying.
I live next to the track that carries these fuselages through Montana. There's a siding here so it's a slow-speed area, thus subject to less than average stress. Even so MT Rail Link is out here once or twice a month repairing track, because our climate heaves it around pretty good no matter how well it's built. So yeah, there are going to be derailments once in a while.
I like someone's notion of salvaging a couple of 'em into the mother of all houseboats.:)
One way to tell who is the "alpha" in an animal population, is that they're the one who NEVER has to "prove themselves". They just do their thing and expect the world to go well. They don't bully or beg, or solicit followers. Followers happen because the alpha provides security without risk. Alphas have initiative. They do things in life without seeking glory. They never worry about the pecking order. No one challenges their natural authority. They get along other alphas, too. They're sometimes mistaken for being "picked on" because they will graciously share their toys and food with underlings. But when they say jump, *everybody* jumps.
"Betas" have this need to constantly prove themselves. They tend to reject authority unless coerced. Since they're not true leaders, when they do find themselves in charge, they bully underlings (especially lower-level betas). They fight among themselves (but never with an alpha) and sometimes pick on the "nobodies". There's a spectrum from "Me tough, you dead" to the sort that constantly poke the lion from behind the safety of the fence. They cause the most trouble and they take the most risks. They don't share and may hoard resources. In a fight between two betas, the higher-status beta *always* wins. They are frequently mistaken for 'alphas' because of their aggression.
"Nobodies" are like alphas, but without the initiative. They have no clue socially. When there's a goal or a fight they're the ones who stand around going "Wha'happened?" and sometimes they make easy targets because they won't defend themselves. But they're easy to get along with, because they don't have an excessive need to perform for themselves or anyone else.
These types are inherited, not made or learned. And I've noted that my 'rules' apply pretty well across social predator species, including humans.
[I'm a pro dog trainer with 45 years experience, whence these observations.]
Repeating the AC's excellent post to make it more visible: ======== Quote: Orr had argued that the legislature gives a non-criminal penalty for refusing to take a breathalyzer test, so it would make no sense to turn refusal to take a field sobriety test into a more severe criminal offense. The three-judge panel concluded there was no case law supporting this position and upheld Orr's conviction.
AC: In this case, if the facts as described are correct, the three judge panel violated their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights: the ruling is illegal and actions taken pursuant to that ruling are illegal (and possibly criminal).
Acting according to reasonable expectations regarding the law is a right retained by the people under the 9th Amendment: failure to recognize this is not merely an accidental or minor technical violation of the judge's oaths to uphold the law, but unethical practice of law.
After all, if one can not act according to reasonable expectations regarding the law, that fact by itself automatically increases the demand for the services of legal professionals to "protect" one from one's own legal system. It is the equivalent of organized crime tactics of scaring people to get "protection" money.
Unfortunately, considerable evidence suggests expecting the average legal professional in the USA to understand ethics is like expecting a 19th century slave owner to understand morality. =========
Slashdot Mirror
The trouble is, we may in the future discover that the sequenced DNA does not suffice. Or that there's an error. If we don't have reference material, we can't fix any such errors, or even discover them in the first place.
This is kinda like deciding a project is no longer needed, so instead of archiving it, you compile one last binary, then destroy all the source code.
I wonder if any of the milder diseases we see are actually attenuated or mutated smallpox, still in the wild.
Well, I've got my smallpox vax scar... nowadays that's how you ID an old fogie!
Considering all the other stuff Dubai has built, how does this mall rate more than a passing mention?
Perhaps more to the point,
http://apps.microsoft.com/wind...
tells us to "Get Windows 8.1 to run this app"
That's an interesting insight. I suppose the logic is that you don't want to plug it into the wall to prove it's a working device, because OMG that might utilize the higher current to set off a bomb. (I see no reason why internal batteries couldn't do the same job, with a lot more control at that, but, TSA logic.)
I wonder how they'd respond to my laptop, which is old enough that the battery is entirely dead, and it's not worth spending $150 to replace a battery in a laptop now worth about $50. It works fine when plugged into the wall, and not at all otherwise. (When I do drag it around, I also take an extension cord.)
Thanks to the plea bargain system, the conviction rate already hovers in the 96% range, at least for the jurisdictions I know about (Los Angeles County for one).
That's an excellent idea! What happens to people who snoop above their clearance, hmmmm?
[Please, ghod, don't just give them a higher security clearance.]
Dogs tend to home in on galvanic reactions and electronics even without training; I natter on about this somewhat above. This is why folks often learn to not leave their keyfob lying on the coffee table.
Now I'm wondering about that in light of the freedom of association. Isn't the gov't compelling membership in a prescribed gun club as a condition of exercising your 2nd Amendment rights?
Remembering that in the era cited, a "woman" was "a girl who had reached menarche", ie. around age 13.
[I don't recall if Jewish law has anything to say about age]
And it would only take once for a bright dog to connect "scent of activated charcoal" with "target". They DO make that sort of association.
As to the various things hunters attempt to disguise their scent, I'm too lazy to look for it right now but I recall seeing a study on the effectiveness of scent-disguising potions and amulets, and the conclusion was that they accomplish about the same as any magical potion or amulet.
See also above where I talk about distinguishing one scent from many, as dogs do all the time anyway.
The fallacy is that the smell of dirty diapers will overwhelm and disguise the scent of the target. The truth is that dogs with good noses (which not all have) are quite capable of sorting out different scents from a multitude (in fact they do this every time they follow ANY scent, since almost everything in the world HAS a scent), and merely covering up the target scent is usually insufficient. Also, they can detect a mere handful of molecules, what any object might naturally ablate. Furthermore, experienced dogs learn that if you lose one scent, you follow an associated scent, in this case the foot track or bodyscent track of the person who hid the bagged target.
I used to live where some prior resident had thrown beer cans around the front yard, but across the years two feet of dirt had blown in over 'em (very fine dirt, very densely packed). I was mystified by the deep narrow holes my dogs were digging, til I realised the goal was an aluminum can, two feet down, which the dogs evidently scented and targeted. (Dogs tend to home in on galvanic reactions and electronics in general, even without training. This is why keyfobs are a fave chewtarget.)
[Pro dog trainer here]
And even if dogs could make explicit statements, dogs are like children in that they want to please -- and that includes telling you what you want to hear. If there's more reward for telling you "drugs and disks in that box" than for finding nothing, you betcha the dog will alert, every single time. Dogs can and do "lie".
[I am a pro dog trainer. That detection dogs commonly produce bogus results a la "Clever Hans" is pretty obvious to me... but evidently not to the people training detection dogs. But it does explain why perhaps the most sought-after detection training prospect is the retriever fieldtrial washout, who has already been extensively taught to take direction.]
Speaking as a professional dog trainer, this does not surprise me in the least. Nearly all "go achieve that goal for me" training is basically cue-taking, whether the object is to find drugs or to find a shot bird in the field. Drug detection is fundamentally the same as a very short range blind retrieve (a retrieve where the dog is directed to an unseen bird). If I "lie" to the dog and send him for a bird that doesn't exist, he'll still go hunt for it, and so long as he's at least occasionally rewarded for the hunt, he'll continue to perform it. Dogs are optimists.
Who? a guy who canned a lot of fruits and vegetables. Or so it would appear, even if no relation.
http://www.ivi-intl.com/pdfs/I...
Oklahoma is NOT a quake-free region in the first place.
Now if western North Dakota suddenly started having quakes (since per USGS records, ND has the lowest incidence of quakes of any U.S. state, and what quakes ND has are of the lowest average intensity of any state) ....then I'd listen.
As someone jocularly points out, that should be more or less "east of the Continental Divide" (rather than "east coast") -- because the eastern half of the continent doesn't have big quakes often enough to remind them to build for quakes. They've long since forgotten the massive New Madrid quakes of the 19th century.
And Oklahoma is not a seismic-free zone in the first place. Here's a handy seismic zones chart -- you may notice OK in fact has a region of routine moderate earthquake activity:
http://www.ivi-intl.com/pdfs/I...
(And speaking as a long-time red-zone resident... y'all's wussies! :)
I peeled the quote out of a book many years ago, and it still amuses me no end.
As to folk who might take it more seriously... yeah, it's superstition if you take it literally, but it's really a way of assigning or relieving guilt.
And I've learned that when I find myself thinking in terms of "predicting will make it happen", I had best back up and proceed with care, because my subconscious has spotted something I'm not yet overtly aware of. For that purpose, it is very, very accurate.
As to prevention, I live 1/4 mile from the tracks those fuselages pass along, and MRL is out here doing maintenance and rebuilding once or twice a month, and I see the truck with sensing equipment go by at least once a month as well. Our MT climate heaves the ground and there is no keeping tracks (or roads) in perfect condition, but they do work at it. Places that lack our weekly freeze-thaw cycles have no clue how much damage that does.
I think it should be all right to publish something with the caveat, "This is what we found, but we couldn't reliably reproduce it. Let's have someone with new eyes take a look and see if we're on to something or full of shit."
Because it's just as useful to know what *doesn't* reliably work, and you can't know about it unless it's documented.
But publishing one-offs as reliable research precedents is, not to put too fine a gloss on it, lying.
I live next to the track that carries these fuselages through Montana. There's a siding here so it's a slow-speed area, thus subject to less than average stress. Even so MT Rail Link is out here once or twice a month repairing track, because our climate heaves it around pretty good no matter how well it's built. So yeah, there are going to be derailments once in a while.
I like someone's notion of salvaging a couple of 'em into the mother of all houseboats. :)
They pass about 1/4 mile from where I live all the time. I'd wondered about that green coating, and what kind of damage they might incur enroute...
Predicting made it happen, I didn't mean to do it!!
One way to tell who is the "alpha" in an animal population, is that they're the one who NEVER has to "prove themselves". They just do their thing and expect the world to go well. They don't bully or beg, or solicit followers. Followers happen because the alpha provides security without risk. Alphas have initiative. They do things in life without seeking glory. They never worry about the pecking order. No one challenges their natural authority. They get along other alphas, too. They're sometimes mistaken for being "picked on" because they will graciously share their toys and food with underlings. But when they say jump, *everybody* jumps.
"Betas" have this need to constantly prove themselves. They tend to reject authority unless coerced. Since they're not true leaders, when they do find themselves in charge, they bully underlings (especially lower-level betas). They fight among themselves (but never with an alpha) and sometimes pick on the "nobodies". There's a spectrum from "Me tough, you dead" to the sort that constantly poke the lion from behind the safety of the fence. They cause the most trouble and they take the most risks. They don't share and may hoard resources. In a fight between two betas, the higher-status beta *always* wins. They are frequently mistaken for 'alphas' because of their aggression.
"Nobodies" are like alphas, but without the initiative. They have no clue socially. When there's a goal or a fight they're the ones who stand around going "Wha'happened?" and sometimes they make easy targets because they won't defend themselves. But they're easy to get along with, because they don't have an excessive need to perform for themselves or anyone else.
These types are inherited, not made or learned. And I've noted that my 'rules' apply pretty well across social predator species, including humans.
[I'm a pro dog trainer with 45 years experience, whence these observations.]
"...humans who take the risk of hunting big game due to arrogance..."
If you've got a family or a village to feed, and you have a choice, do you spear the elk or the rabbit? That's not arrogance; it's common sense.
Lets say the fantasy is about bombing or shooting up an airport. How far do the "making threats in an airport" laws go?
Repeating the AC's excellent post to make it more visible:
========
Quote:
Orr had argued that the legislature gives a non-criminal penalty for refusing to take a breathalyzer test, so it would make no sense to turn refusal to take a field sobriety test into a more severe criminal offense. The three-judge panel concluded there was no case law supporting this position and upheld Orr's conviction.
AC:
In this case, if the facts as described are correct, the three judge panel violated their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights: the ruling is illegal and actions taken pursuant to that ruling are illegal (and possibly criminal).
Acting according to reasonable expectations regarding the law is a right retained by the people under the 9th Amendment: failure to recognize this is not merely an accidental or minor technical violation of the judge's oaths to uphold the law, but unethical practice of law.
After all, if one can not act according to reasonable expectations regarding the law, that fact by itself automatically increases the demand for the services of legal professionals to "protect" one from one's own legal system. It is the equivalent of organized crime tactics of scaring people to get "protection" money.
Unfortunately, considerable evidence suggests expecting the average legal professional in the USA to understand ethics is like expecting a 19th century slave owner to understand morality.
=========