The deal is, the big energy companies CAN'T send you a bill for it,because you can own it... -- I had to read this twice. This is not a failure of the free market...but a failure of big business and politics. An individual owning an asset that produces energy is the type of thing that exists in free markets. The blocks big oil and utilities put to small operations like this are anti-market forces.
They can't force you thru any other way then legislation. That is what is happening and has been happening. See below-
On the up side, the natural food market is strong.
Note the regulation of the organic food market. There's some good that can come with it (given the hucksters in our society) but it also gives control - too much - of who can produce and who can't.
For that matter, I think there is more future in developing a market for biomass energy than simply as a way to cut costs.
What I see is that that locals will be providing the infrastructure when our economy and government collapse (they will, eventually, hopefully not soon - and hopefully not concurrently, but I wouldn't bet against it:)
Whether or not it's "democratic" or "republican" or "american" or wtfever, an economy built on debt will collapse. One can already see some of the preliminaries (war is good for an economy -?-) For that matter, I think there is more future in developing a market for biomass energy than simply as a way to cut costs.
When it does, it'll be the locals who will be bearing the burden of supplying people. There has been a lot of "fiction" (*snort* history) written about this. There is not and won't be for the foreseeable future enough people like you to fill the potential need should that happen.
I think of the War Gardens of WWII, and what we, as a culture, gave up for "modern" thinking; and I weep. The embrace and extend of the corporate mentality might not destroy this country, but has certainly set it back a long ways.
I won't be voting in the federal (?-!) elections this year. I'll be concentrating on the local politics in Spearfish - the first time in many years I've found a town/people I'm willing to fight for - wish me luck. I'm too damned outspoken (asshole) to make a good advocate. But then again, the person who comes to me with questions at work everyday is a city councilwoman:) - and she listens.
Cheers, friends. One mind at a time, one dollar saved, at a time. We won't see it...
Let's put the Heisenberg UC principle this way ( I'm *trying* to simplify it):
You fire a couple hundred billion volkswagons out of a *very* high speed cannon at a target a couple million miles away. In the middle of this target is a couple of slits just about the width of three volkswagons.
A couple million miles on the other side of that target, you have this larger target; we'll call it the "screen" for convenience. Now, because some of those volkswagons don't impact the slit directly, you have a "spray" of volkswagons erupting from those slits - they don't just stream thru nice and orderly, some get tangential velocities from "interfering" with one another, and with the borders of the slits.
If you map the patterns of the volkswagon impacts onto the "screen" you'll notice that they have a mathematical distribution. We call this distribution an "interference pattern". This pattern has a distinctive distribution; let's call it the "volkswagon" distribution.
So after repeated experiments, you determine that the volkswagon impacts have a certain mathematical distribution; but also you find that there is a small amount of randomness to that distribution. We'll call that randomness "quantum volkswagon mechanics" - thinking that perhaps there is some small variation in the mass, velocities, and impact geometry of each volkswagon that we can't quite qualify in our experiment. After enough experiments, we determine that our error levels are follow a distribution that has some mathematical relations to the size, mass, and average spin distrubtion of the volkswagons we fired. There may or may not be an additional statistcal factor relating to our observations, which we will call Force "X".
On down the line, we find that some of those volkswagon may shed pieces of themselves, which may or may not contribute to Force "X".
Over years of experimentation, we qualify some of those pieces, and their effects, but we know that we can't adequately predict nor determine the quantity nor various qualitative aspects of those pieces. So we develop more theories, and essentially, that's where we are at now. We suspect that there is a relation between the Q&Q+Unknown of those pieces, the volkswagons, the slits, and the fact that to detect those pieces, we have to employ smaller and smaller BBs to bounce off of them, but the more we observe, the more complex it gets.
Meanwhile we do have some math to describe the whole thing - it's called wave mechanics - but frustratingly, we can't seem to relate that math to simple things like the Apple falling on Newtons' head.
This results in thousands of journal articles by the more learned members of our society; and ultimately, after being filtered thru many learned and not-so-learned members of our society, results in a description on a information site called slashdot, in which the members debate it, including speculations on supernatural dieties, callings upon fantasm including time travel, and eruditions meant to inspire humorous responses.
You can't have it both ways. God is either contrained by his creation(s), or he isn't. If he truly wishes his creations to achieve wisdom, he can't do it by confusing them when he decides to change the rules. Whether or not it's a "moral" restraint is irrelevant for this point.
That said, you seem like someone who one could have a refreshing discussion (as opposed to argument) about the concept of god with.
Don't be sorry for stating what you think, metlin. No matter what you say, it will always offend someone out there. There are way too many idiots in this world; and I'm talking about the fulltime ones, not the momentary ones - which we can all be.
You're doing well just as you are. Apologizing for offending people can become a fulltime occupation (politicians practice this:)
(Don't let the bastards choose the battleground, either:)
Fossil records that old don't have a very fine time resolution, however. The 80k figure (and I recall reading a couple articles saying it was more like 200k years or so) only indicates that most of the species died off within that period, not that it took that long for them to die off.
Even those figures have a large error margin. Until we have better dating methods, it'll be hard to prove that an impact had anything to do with the Deccan trap eruptions; but then again, the coincidental juxtaposition in time of the two does seem to suggest some relation.
Someone really needs to invent an observational 'time machine':)
Well, theoretically the antipode of the impact would have peaks focused from the shockwaves produced by the impact. If there were weak crustal points there already, that focus could have opened them to produce the Deccan trap supervolcanoes.
One problem I can see with that is that the Earth's surface is not homogenous; the shockwaves traveling outward from the impact would have had their travel velocities and magnitudes changed considerably, and whether or not they would have produced a decent peak is questionable.
However, shockwaves seem to travel very well in the lower parts of the crust and upper part of the mantle, and to some extent those are more homogenous than the surface is. Shockwaves travel faster and further down there.
My main objection to this theory is that we simply haven't dated either the beginning of the Deccan trap eruptions or the asteroidal impact to anything near the accuracy (within days/weeks) that would give us good enough evidence that one caused the other. Not likely to happen, either, unless someone invents a time machine and observes the impact, or dating techniques improve several orders of magnitude.
Still, it's an interesting theory.
(When a third stage from one of the Apollo missions impacted the moon, the seismic instruments still functioning on from one of the Surveyor (or Apollo missions, I forget) reported that "the whole moon rang like a bell" - and that was just a few tons!.)
The fact that we can detect to within a fair probability from seismic data that someone has detonated a nuclear weapon on the other side of the Earth, as has been widely reported for decades, makes you wonder what effects a 9.6km diameter asteroid impact might produce:) We truly know very little about the overall effects such an impact might produce - and let's hope we never get firsthand knowledge.
I've probably made some mistakes here, it's a quick post. But be gentle; I'm not going to spend time chasing links for accuracy right now when this post might get rid by a half dozen people at most and there's so much more reading to do...
IMO, the Slashback commentator is probably off-base low in his estimation of donations. From reading the forum posts and making the assumption that around 5% of the posters are not quite forthright about donating, it's at least twice to three times that much, as of a week or so ago.
That doesn't even include the donators who aren't posting.
It's been absolutely fantastic to see the support Robbins has been getting. I know I speak for most, if not nearly all, Gentoo users when I say that I hope the donations wipe out Mr. Robbins' personal debt and allow him to concentrate on his next project. He certainly deserves it.
Thanks, Daniel. Hope the Tshirts are coming along:)
Good point - but I was thinking mostly of civil cases and not criminal. I asked the question wrong, I think - and I find it weird I was modded insightful for it, rather than interesting:)
I don't agree, for one major reason - the costs of collecting the money would outweigh the benefits gained. Most people simply couldn't afford to pay, and there's no way I can see insurance companies picking up that tab without more massive increases in rates.
We already have enough collection agencies and our courts are overwhelmed. SAR should remain a public service to as large an extent as possible.
In any case, I very much doubt the public would stand for it.
Assuming the judge has a home computer - but OTOH, if he doesn't, then maybe he's not really experienced enough to judge those who do. Back when I did Wintech support one of my most reliable clients was a lawyer, home and office.
A serious (and somewhat general, since you're here) question:
How much ignorance do/have you seen with regards to somewhat obscure computer knowledge such as browser caches (or tmp files, or/var/log files)? I know you said you haven't dealt with sex crime_internet cases, but I'm more interested in the IT cases overall.
Who does the presiding judge tend to believe - those who can present the case in the terms the judge can understand, or the experts who really are cognizant of the technology involved? Is there a significant ratio?
(I know they are not mutually exclusive, I'm wondering about the cases where they weren't, which in IT patent cases seem to be too often.)
If/. was just discovered today, it would be illegal to use in the USA. It would be a Schedule 1 drug, right next to heroin, cocaine, late night redeye programming sessions, pot, tobacco, kernel rebuilds, alcohol, marijuana, Everquest, peyote, Neverwinter Nights, etc, etc, etc...
It satisfies the requirements of addiction, acute withdrawal, and abnormal body functions while partaking of it, along with long-term physiological affects similar to Cowboy Neal's.
When you say you need your fix, you are closer to the truth than you think! [ turn off your computer ]
Note-I don't necessarily agree with the above, but that's the way it is. [ Duh, I'm posting here ]
Well, shit. [ Karma: Excellent ] - I guess I should find a local slashdot users support group...
SB [ The above post is intended as humorous. If you suffer from ill effects while reading it, consult your physician ]
So, let's leave it up to the "donors" (the thousands of women who have abortions every month). How about a simple check box: "Are you willing to donate your childs/fetuses'/gamete tissue to medical science for research on stem cells?" We all know there are many abortions undertaken for purely medical reasons involving the health of the mother, and other reasons such as rape+pregnancy.
I know damned well this won't satisfy the radicals on both sides, but I think it would be a reasonable compromise; let's face it, whether or not abortion is legal, abortions are going to happen. It's arguably more moral to allow them to happen in supervised and licensed clinics where there is less risk for the woman.
In that sense, arguing for pro-choice (and I am, although I see the arguments on both sides, once having disagreed with someone who aborted a potential child of mine), doesn't it make sense from a moral and ethical standpoint to let the woman decide what should be done with the tissue that is taken from her own body?
One thing that this whole debate lacks to a large extent is a rational decision as to whose choice it is to allow a fetus to come to term. What I find disgusting about the whole debate is that it's come down to whether it's the choice of the majority (ie, government), rather than the choice of the people involved, to make the decision. I fail to understand what role, if any, the federal government should play in those decisions.
If the people on either side don't like what I've posted, I don't really care. Just think about it, and think about this: While you argue, you are screwing up a lot of lives, and most of them are people who are grown and already contribute to society. That kind of damage is of a higher magnitude than ending the life of an early term fetus is, to society as a whole.
If we have a dysfunctional society, we might as well be living back in the Dark Ages.
I agree with you, but I suspect that remote piloted aircraft technology and sophisticated image processing may likely make a dent in that problem someday.
Hopefully soon. The military has some pretty awesome kit, and eventually it'll filter down.
It being just outside of a sizeable city means you have other resources to draw on other than just the park employees or local SAR, if you need to . I'd imagine that policing the park is a vastly larger problem.
So some people (me included) don't stay on the trails anyway, tracking issues or no. I fail to understand your point.
I doubt that most day or casual hikers are aware of or even concerned that much about being tracked, and they pretty much stay on the trails (I speak from personal experience here, being an avid hiker). Most of the damage I've seen from these people is from campsites they didn't properly clean up.
So it's unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future, that there will be a whole lot of damage done by the few hikers who don't. Most of the ones I've met who blaze their own trails are responsible and competent. ( Yes, I know there are parks and places in parks where there are exceptions - but those tend to be the most popular parks, where you will expect it anyway, and where SAR is much less necessary than Rangers playing policeman is.)
Making people financially responsible for their own rescue costs is just ridiculous. Or are you seriously suggesting that only the people who can or are willing to risk that kind of liability should have access to our Public Parks?
Agreed, the logs are great. I sign every one I pass - but not because I'm worried about needing SAR. For me it's a way of sharing my experiences. But then I've been hiking (mostly alone) for nearly thirty years.
I do agree that there are people who need this system - I encounter way too many clueless hikers - but I think it should be voluntary and unobtrusive, and if at all possible, not linked to your personal data.
Kind of like....trail head logs; although I think it'd be a neat idea if hikers were offered the option to sign out emergency transponders. Hell, I'd even carry one - if for no other reason than I might encounter a hiker along the way who is too badly injured to travois out or leave alone.
Argh, what we really should be spending this money on is more public education. Personally, I kind of take the "On your head be it" view toward unprepared hikers - even as I lecture those who'll listen - but having spent a few times helping out with searches, I have to agree with you.
I will say this, tho - keep it in the parks which see a lot of general public use, and out of the parks that are closest to real wilderness. If someone goes into the deeper parts of Glacier NP without being prepared, well, On Their Head Be It.:)
(Yes, I'm well aware that even the best preparation can't foresee the most unlikely accidents. But we all take risks every day, don't we? )
Cheers, friend. Keep up the good work. SB
Re:keep it anonymous and private.
on
Privacy in the Woods?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Joe average should be able to find someone's sensor trail on a website just as easily as the ranger sitting in the search-and-rescue booth.
Hmm.
As long as Joe Average can't connect that data to a individual identity, I'm ok with that. (JA: "Hey, look, my neighbor Charlie is out hiking in Yellowstone. He really pissed me off last week; he's hiking all alone, and I know where he was an hour ago or so"....)
The system could still work well for it's intended purpose - "74 hikers in, 73 out. Uh oh. We know *approximately* where the missing one could be, call SAR" - of course this would require unique tag IDs, but they don't have to be tied to identities to be useful.
As to designing the system to be abuse-resistant; this is practically impossible. Anyone who really wanted to misuse the system would simply change it; say, start requiring ID to enter the park, and planting RFID tags on the hikers... there is no way to design a system that can't be abused in the future by someone who can simply change the way it works. Not in this case, anyway.
Weirdness - opened that link up, and got the LJ layout, but most of the text doesn't show up. A few of the entries do, but most don't. Haven't had this problem with LJ before.
Latest vers. Mozilla etc. Can't see any text via selecting it - is this a stylesheet problem?
Slashdot Mirror
The deal is, the big energy companies CAN'T send you a bill for it,because you can own it...
:)
:) - and she listens.
--
I had to read this twice. This is not a failure of the free market...but a failure of big business and politics. An individual owning an asset that produces energy is the type of thing that exists in free markets. The blocks big oil and utilities put to small operations like this are anti-market forces.
They can't force you thru any other way then legislation. That is what is happening and has been happening. See below-
On the up side, the natural food market is strong.
Note the regulation of the organic food market. There's some good that can come with it (given the hucksters in our society) but it also gives control - too much - of who can produce and who can't.
For that matter, I think there is more future in developing a market for biomass energy than simply as a way to cut costs.
What I see is that that locals will be providing the infrastructure when our economy and government collapse (they will, eventually, hopefully not soon - and hopefully not concurrently, but I wouldn't bet against it
Whether or not it's "democratic" or "republican" or "american" or wtfever, an economy built on debt will collapse. One can already see some of the preliminaries (war is good for an economy -?-)
For that matter, I think there is more future in developing a market for biomass energy than simply as a way to cut costs.
When it does, it'll be the locals who will be bearing the burden of supplying people. There has been a lot of "fiction" (*snort* history) written about this. There is not and won't be for the foreseeable future enough people like you to fill the potential need should that happen.
I think of the War Gardens of WWII, and what we, as a culture, gave up for "modern" thinking; and I weep. The embrace and extend of the corporate mentality might not destroy this country, but has certainly set it back a long ways.
I won't be voting in the federal (?-!) elections this year. I'll be concentrating on the local politics in Spearfish - the first time in many years I've found a town/people I'm willing to fight for - wish me luck. I'm too damned outspoken (asshole) to make a good advocate. But then again, the person who comes to me with questions at work everyday is a city councilwoman
Cheers, friends. One mind at a time, one dollar saved, at a time. We won't see it...
SB
Let's put the Heisenberg UC principle this way ( I'm *trying* to simplify it):
You fire a couple hundred billion volkswagons out of a *very* high speed cannon at a target a couple million miles away. In the middle of this target is a couple of slits just about the width of three volkswagons.
A couple million miles on the other side of that target, you have this larger target; we'll call it the "screen" for convenience. Now, because some of those volkswagons don't impact the slit directly, you have a "spray" of volkswagons erupting from those slits - they don't just stream thru nice and orderly, some get tangential velocities from "interfering" with one another, and with the borders of the slits.
If you map the patterns of the volkswagon impacts onto the "screen" you'll notice that they have a mathematical distribution. We call this distribution an "interference pattern". This pattern has a distinctive distribution; let's call it the "volkswagon" distribution.
So after repeated experiments, you determine that the volkswagon impacts have a certain mathematical distribution; but also you find that there is a small amount of randomness to that distribution. We'll call that randomness "quantum volkswagon mechanics" - thinking that perhaps there is some small variation in the mass, velocities, and impact geometry of each volkswagon that we can't quite qualify in our experiment. After enough experiments, we determine that our error levels are follow a distribution that has some mathematical relations to the size, mass, and average spin distrubtion of the volkswagons we fired. There may or may not be an additional statistcal factor relating to our observations, which we will call Force "X".
On down the line, we find that some of those volkswagon may shed pieces of themselves, which may or may not contribute to Force "X".
Over years of experimentation, we qualify some of those pieces, and their effects, but we know that we can't adequately predict nor determine the quantity nor various qualitative aspects of those pieces. So we develop more theories, and essentially, that's where we are at now. We suspect that there is a relation between the Q&Q+Unknown of those pieces, the volkswagons, the slits, and the fact that to detect those pieces, we have to employ smaller and smaller BBs to bounce off of them, but the more we observe, the more complex it gets.
Meanwhile we do have some math to describe the whole thing - it's called wave mechanics - but frustratingly, we can't seem to relate that math to simple things like the Apple falling on Newtons' head.
This results in thousands of journal articles by the more learned members of our society; and ultimately, after being filtered thru many learned and not-so-learned members of our society, results in a description on a information site called slashdot, in which the members debate it, including speculations on supernatural dieties, callings upon fantasm including time travel, and eruditions meant to inspire humorous responses.
Do I have it right?
I think I should go to bed...
SB
You can't have it both ways. God is either contrained by his creation(s), or he isn't. If he truly wishes his creations to achieve wisdom, he can't do it by confusing them when he decides to change the rules. Whether or not it's a "moral" restraint is irrelevant for this point.
That said, you seem like someone who one could have a refreshing discussion (as opposed to argument) about the concept of god with.
Cheers!
SB
Just as a sideline FYI, here's the best I've ever found as to the pronunciation and spelling of Chicxulub.
:)
Here's an amusing debate...
SB
Don't be sorry for stating what you think, metlin. No matter what you say, it will always offend someone out there. There are way too many idiots in this world; and I'm talking about the fulltime ones, not the momentary ones - which we can all be.
You're doing well just as you are. Apologizing for offending people can become a fulltime occupation (politicians practice this
(Don't let the bastards choose the battleground, either
Cheers, friend
SB
Fossil records that old don't have a very fine time resolution, however. The 80k figure (and I recall reading a couple articles saying it was more like 200k years or so) only indicates that most of the species died off within that period, not that it took that long for them to die off.
Even those figures have a large error margin. Until we have better dating methods, it'll be hard to prove that an impact had anything to do with the Deccan trap eruptions; but then again, the coincidental juxtaposition in time of the two does seem to suggest some relation.
Someone really needs to invent an observational 'time machine'
SB
Well, theoretically the antipode of the impact would have peaks focused from the shockwaves produced by the impact. If there were weak crustal points there already, that focus could have opened them to produce the Deccan trap supervolcanoes.
:) We truly know very little about the overall effects such an impact might produce - and let's hope we never get firsthand knowledge.
One problem I can see with that is that the Earth's surface is not homogenous; the shockwaves traveling outward from the impact would have had their travel velocities and magnitudes changed considerably, and whether or not they would have produced a decent peak is questionable.
However, shockwaves seem to travel very well in the lower parts of the crust and upper part of the mantle, and to some extent those are more homogenous than the surface is. Shockwaves travel faster and further down there.
My main objection to this theory is that we simply haven't dated either the beginning of the Deccan trap eruptions or the asteroidal impact to anything near the accuracy (within days/weeks) that would give us good enough evidence that one caused the other. Not likely to happen, either, unless someone invents a time machine and observes the impact, or dating techniques improve several orders of magnitude.
Still, it's an interesting theory.
(When a third stage from one of the Apollo missions impacted the moon, the seismic instruments still functioning on from one of the Surveyor (or Apollo missions, I forget) reported that "the whole moon rang like a bell" - and that was just a few tons!.)
The fact that we can detect to within a fair probability from seismic data that someone has detonated a nuclear weapon on the other side of the Earth, as has been widely reported for decades, makes you wonder what effects a 9.6km diameter asteroid impact might produce
I've probably made some mistakes here, it's a quick post. But be gentle; I'm not going to spend time chasing links for accuracy right now when this post might get rid by a half dozen people at most and there's so much more reading to do...
Cheers @ thread!
SB
LOL.
They probably already have a room...but like most creationist nuts, they can't just stay there.
Glad I read a bit deeper in this thread - needed the laughter - watching these guys play with themselves is all too funny.
SB
Ditto here. I donated a fair chunk of a paycheck.
:)
IMO, the Slashback commentator is probably off-base low in his estimation of donations. From reading the forum posts and making the assumption that around 5% of the posters are not quite forthright about donating, it's at least twice to three times that much, as of a week or so ago.
That doesn't even include the donators who aren't posting.
It's been absolutely fantastic to see the support Robbins has been getting. I know I speak for most, if not nearly all, Gentoo users when I say that I hope the donations wipe out Mr. Robbins' personal debt and allow him to concentrate on his next project. He certainly deserves it.
Thanks, Daniel. Hope the Tshirts are coming along
SB
Darl McBride will be waiting at the landing site with a target strapped to his forhead to aid in the experiment.
You misspelled homing beacon.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
SB
Good point - but I was thinking mostly of civil cases and not criminal. I asked the question wrong, I think - and I find it weird I was modded insightful for it, rather than interesting :)
Cheers
SB
I don't agree, for one major reason - the costs of collecting the money would outweigh the benefits gained. Most people simply couldn't afford to pay, and there's no way I can see insurance companies picking up that tab without more massive increases in rates.
We already have enough collection agencies and our courts are overwhelmed. SAR should remain a public service to as large an extent as possible.
In any case, I very much doubt the public would stand for it.
SB
Assuming the judge has a home computer - but OTOH, if he doesn't, then maybe he's not really experienced enough to judge those who do. Back when I did Wintech support one of my most reliable clients was a lawyer, home and office.
Had to throw that out here...
SB
A serious (and somewhat general, since you're here) question:
/var/log files)? I know you said you haven't dealt with sex crime_internet cases, but I'm more interested in the IT cases overall.
How much ignorance do/have you seen with regards to somewhat obscure computer knowledge such as browser caches (or tmp files, or
Who does the presiding judge tend to believe - those who can present the case in the terms the judge can understand, or the experts who really are cognizant of the technology involved? Is there a significant ratio?
(I know they are not mutually exclusive, I'm wondering about the cases where they weren't, which in IT patent cases seem to be too often.)
SB
If /. was just discovered today, it would be illegal to use in the USA.
It would be a Schedule 1 drug, right next to heroin, cocaine, late night redeye programming sessions, pot, tobacco, kernel rebuilds, alcohol, marijuana, Everquest, peyote, Neverwinter Nights, etc, etc, etc...
It satisfies the requirements of addiction, acute withdrawal, and abnormal body functions while partaking of it, along with long-term physiological affects similar to Cowboy Neal's.
When you say you need your fix, you are closer to the truth than you think! [ turn off your computer ]
Note-I don't necessarily agree with the above, but that's the way it is. [ Duh, I'm posting here ]
Well, shit. [ Karma: Excellent ] - I guess I should find a local slashdot users support group...
SB
[ The above post is intended as humorous. If you suffer from ill effects while reading it, consult your physician ]
So, let's leave it up to the "donors" (the thousands of women who have abortions every month). How about a simple check box: "Are you willing to donate your childs/fetuses'/gamete tissue to medical science for research on stem cells?" We all know there are many abortions undertaken for purely medical reasons involving the health of the mother, and other reasons such as rape+pregnancy.
I know damned well this won't satisfy the radicals on both sides, but I think it would be a reasonable compromise; let's face it, whether or not abortion is legal, abortions are going to happen. It's arguably more moral to allow them to happen in supervised and licensed clinics where there is less risk for the woman.
In that sense, arguing for pro-choice (and I am, although I see the arguments on both sides, once having disagreed with someone who aborted a potential child of mine), doesn't it make sense from a moral and ethical standpoint to let the woman decide what should be done with the tissue that is taken from her own body?
One thing that this whole debate lacks to a large extent is a rational decision as to whose choice it is to allow a fetus to come to term. What I find disgusting about the whole debate is that it's come down to whether it's the choice of the majority (ie, government), rather than the choice of the people involved, to make the decision. I fail to understand what role, if any, the federal government should play in those decisions.
If the people on either side don't like what I've posted, I don't really care. Just think about it, and think about this: While you argue, you are screwing up a lot of lives, and most of them are people who are grown and already contribute to society. That kind of damage is of a higher magnitude than ending the life of an early term fetus is, to society as a whole.
If we have a dysfunctional society, we might as well be living back in the Dark Ages.
SB
I agree with you, but I suspect that remote piloted aircraft technology and sophisticated image processing may likely make a dent in that problem someday.
Hopefully soon. The military has some pretty awesome kit, and eventually it'll filter down.
Cheers
SB
My first thought WRT to the grandparent post was: How many more 1-800 Find_A_Job_In_L.E. offers will I see in the classifieds...
SB
Yeah, god forbid campers might have to brew their own coffee on a campstove. We're civilized.
SB
Out of curiosity, R, just how big is this park?
It being just outside of a sizeable city means you have other resources to draw on other than just the park employees or local SAR, if you need to . I'd imagine that policing the park is a vastly larger problem.
SB
So some people (me included) don't stay on the trails anyway, tracking issues or no. I fail to understand your point.
I doubt that most day or casual hikers are aware of or even concerned that much about being tracked, and they pretty much stay on the trails (I speak from personal experience here, being an avid hiker). Most of the damage I've seen from these people is from campsites they didn't properly clean up.
So it's unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future, that there will be a whole lot of damage done by the few hikers who don't. Most of the ones I've met who blaze their own trails are responsible and competent. ( Yes, I know there are parks and places in parks where there are exceptions - but those tend to be the most popular parks, where you will expect it anyway, and where SAR is much less necessary than Rangers playing policeman is.)
Making people financially responsible for their own rescue costs is just ridiculous. Or are you seriously suggesting that only the people who can or are willing to risk that kind of liability should have access to our Public Parks?
SB
Agreed, the logs are great. I sign every one I pass - but not because I'm worried about needing SAR. For me it's a way of sharing my experiences. But then I've been hiking (mostly alone) for nearly thirty years.
:)
I do agree that there are people who need this system - I encounter way too many clueless hikers - but I think it should be voluntary and unobtrusive, and if at all possible, not linked to your personal data.
Kind of like....trail head logs; although I think it'd be a neat idea if hikers were offered the option to sign out emergency transponders. Hell, I'd even carry one - if for no other reason than I might encounter a hiker along the way who is too badly injured to travois out or leave alone.
Argh, what we really should be spending this money on is more public education. Personally, I kind of take the "On your head be it" view toward unprepared hikers - even as I lecture those who'll listen - but having spent a few times helping out with searches, I have to agree with you.
I will say this, tho - keep it in the parks which see a lot of general public use, and out of the parks that are closest to real wilderness. If someone goes into the deeper parts of Glacier NP without being prepared, well, On Their Head Be It.
(Yes, I'm well aware that even the best preparation can't foresee the most unlikely accidents. But we all take risks every day, don't we? )
Cheers, friend. Keep up the good work.
SB
Joe average should be able to find someone's sensor trail on a website just as easily as the ranger sitting in the search-and-rescue booth.
Hmm.
As long as Joe Average can't connect that data to a individual identity, I'm ok with that. (JA: "Hey, look, my neighbor Charlie is out hiking in Yellowstone. He really pissed me off last week; he's hiking all alone, and I know where he was an hour ago or so"....)
The system could still work well for it's intended purpose - "74 hikers in, 73 out. Uh oh. We know *approximately* where the missing one could be, call SAR" - of course this would require unique tag IDs, but they don't have to be tied to identities to be useful.
As to designing the system to be abuse-resistant; this is practically impossible. Anyone who really wanted to misuse the system would simply change it; say, start requiring ID to enter the park, and planting RFID tags on the hikers... there is no way to design a system that can't be abused in the future by someone who can simply change the way it works. Not in this case, anyway.
Cheers
SB
Weirdness - opened that link up, and got the LJ layout, but most of the text doesn't show up. A few of the entries do, but most don't. Haven't had this problem with LJ before.
Latest vers. Mozilla etc. Can't see any text via selecting it - is this a stylesheet problem?
SB
I for one welcome our UberOverLords.
*ducks*
SB