An uncorrelated, stress-induced failure of the remaining engine seems pretty unlikely
"Stress-induced" is the correlation. And there would be higher stress during takeoff (which incidentally is when you're going to run into low altitude drones) than during cruise flight. Keep in mind the sentence from your quote:
"In fact it applies to any flight more than specified distances from an available diversion airport."
Then you wave a magic wand and say maybe the other engine will stop too.
The name of that "magic wand" is "entropy". When you're flying or in this case trying to take off on engine, you're putting significant additional stress on a component that can and does fail, no matter what regulation is out there.
Can you explain how ingestion of an R/C aircraft can cause the failure of two engines
It's worth noting here that geese, like most birds, have rather delicate bones. An R/C aircraft might have steel and other really hard materials that could do more damage. That drops the number of engines to one. If the remaining one fails due to the addition stress placed on it, then you have two engine failures as desired.
It's worth noting here that same-sex marriage isn't actually banned, it just isn't recognized by the governments in question and graced with potent legal protections. I think a strong angle here would be to describe how many such "unrecognized" marriages are out there.
You are confirmed for never reading anything he wrote. All those robot books were basically explaining how and why those laws would not work perfectly.
FIFY. If those laws wouldn't work at all, then why did nobody of the stories, human or robot ever come up with a better idea? In the end, robots and humans were separated not because of flaws in the Three Laws, but because the type of care and support that robots provided proved harmful to humans and their development.
Why do people always totally fail to understand Amisov?
Perhaps you can enlighten us then? The original poster was right after all. Asimov portrays a world where the Three Laws work most of the time. In fact, the people of those sets of stories never ever do away with the Three Laws.
Unless we have reached post scarcity, grabbing a bigger piece of the pie for yourself inevitably means less for everyone else.
Sure, over time the pie grows (capitalism and all that)
As even you admit, it hasn't been true in practice. The world is currently in a vast, positive sum game. It's not as wonderful as "post scarcity", but it's something that actually exists.
Envy, which targets the producers along with parasites, is destructive to many of the good things we've managed to accomplish.
Liberal (positive connotation) or neocon (negative connotation) = wants laissez faire all the way
Neoliberal = wants laissez faire but with regulations
No, the "neoliberal" wants laissez faire all the way. "Neoconservative" is a US-only flavor of "conservative" which favors US hegemony and military power, support for Israel over other countries in the Middle East area, and a moderate degree of market liberalization. "Liberal" usually refers to some sort of social reform.
The more concentrated and unchecked the power, the less you need for formalities like writing regulations. The guy holding the gun doesn't need to explain why he's robbing you.
I'll just note that this doesn't match observation. For example, the Communists of the 20th Century exercised a great deal of power, but they also kept track of everyone with vast and comprehensive surveillance and secret police networks. That is as much regulation as the actual written laws that such countries might pass.
Neoliberal wants free market mixed with socialist ideas (i.e the regulations you speak of)
No, seriously. I told you the definition of neoliberal. It has nothing to do with what is usually considered "liberal".
No, shorter regulations is the characteristic of socialist regulation. Socialist regulations inevitably will be short, because there would be no need to detail the who, what, where, when, why, and how government gets power to do things.
That has never been true in practice whether written or "unwritten". They micromanage like anyone else with that kind of power.
Incidentally, I googled this to see if there was an actual case out there (this being the internet and all). This case does exist and the woman in question was assaulted a bit over two weeks ago. My view on it though is that it is a simple though brutal assault and battery (whatever the Texas equivalent is). It shouldn't matter whether the pain was inflicted because the attacker thought she was homosexual or because the attacker wanted her watch. It should matter that the assault was done in front of a bunch of children.
I think that the "hate crime" aspect is a huge red herring. It's useful for ascribing motive in court, but criminalizing bigotry is just a 1984 thoughtcrime thing. We shouldn't be trying to police what people fear and hate. We should be policing what brutal and harmful actions they do in response to that fear and hate. One doesn't need to classify assault and battery as a "hate crime" in order to do that. It's already illegal with suitable punishments in store.
As to the accusation of the police department dragging its feet? There's not enough information out there yet for me to decide if the police department is ignoring the case (unless the poster I'm replying to has more information). It's worth noting that there's probably a couple of people who know a lot about who this man is, there supposedly was a female companion and presumably a child associated with this man, but the group may be unknown to the other people at the park. At that point, you're going on eyewitness accounts and whatever evidence was left behind by the assailant and his group. That might or might not be enough to go on.
Is this the same Greece that screwed up so badly that it's being forced to take on austerity measures or leave the EU? When I heard the phrase "Greek style healthcare", I admit that I had a bit of pessimism about the future of whatever country sesshomaru is a member of, assuming he ever gets his way.
When it comes to anything involving large amounts of resources (such as building and testing significant numbers of prototypes) they pretty much are.
How much is "significant numbers"? An amateur group ought to be able to build hundreds a year.
I don't think that even in the good old days you're herp-derping about people made their own muskets. Of the minority that did some didn't make their own clothes and bread (because they were professional gunsmiths) and the rest blew themselves up.
The previous author didn't say anything about the "good old days" much less "herp-derp" about them. And a lot of advanced weaponry was made by individual gunsmiths, not large businesses.
ed funding has suffered through the last 3 decades
Not by actual money spent. The chart I just linked to shows US spending per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (a crude measure for estimating the relative cost of living for various countries) is the second highers of OECD countries. Yet the results are far weaker (Finland spends a third less by the measure and gets better results).
Obamacare also mandates that insurance companies pay for preventative care, you know the care that prevents serious and expensive conditions from occurring or at least reduces the likelihood of such conditions occurring.
I wonder how much of that preventative care actually is. Medicine is a field notorious for being very difficult to figure out costs and benefits of actions and their consequences.
If preventative care really had that solid benefit to it, then why aren't most insurers funding it already? They aren't dumb. My take is that preventative care is great for finding expensive problems (a major turnoff for insurers) and not so great at actually helping us live longer or cheaper.
You might as well claim Obama is a courtier of the Seelie court, if you ignore Obama's actual ideology and actions.
he'd never propose anything that wasn't a cash grab for someone
That's not what neoliberalism means. Basically, it's a negative connotation label for free market or laissez faire-economy beliefs or advocates.
For example, the US health care legislation, supported by Obama, of which an aspect is discussed here is heavily anti-market and high regulation. It requires insurers to cover various things and forces them to ignore preexisting conditions (interference with the market) and has already generated well over ten thousand pages of new regulation. On that substantial basis alone, one would not consider Obama neoliberal.
His healthcare plan was basically written by the Heritage Foundation, not generally known as a bastion of socialism.
If that were true, then it'd be a lot shorter than it actually is.
They take nothing more seriously than the safe being of the ISS.
NASA has a long history of obsessing over small risks while ignoring large ones. For example, the ISS is one small piece of high velocity space trash away from destruction. That didn't stop NASA from pouring a hundred billion or so dollars into the ISS. And if it does go boom, then they don't have any sort of replacement strategy in mind.
Another classic example is the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) on the ground which was until recently a vital and unique role in preparing the Shuttle for launch. NASA had no plan for replacing the building should it be leveled by a large hurricane or an errant solid rocket motor.
And there's the huge risks they took with each Apollo mission as well as the crazy estimates of risk (the profoundly unrealistic 1 in 100,000 chance of loss of crew according to Feynman) for the Shuttle prior to the first Shuttle accident (Challenger).
A final classic example was the Constellation program. They chose ATK's solid rocket motor as first stage for the Ares I while ignoring the higher risk of that motor, but while simultaneously claiming that the motor was somehow safer. Then later on, when the resulting vehicle turned out to have performance issues, they cut back on the spacecraft design (including vital systems redundancy) that was to be the core of Constellation missions in space.
One consequence is higher risks of loss of mission and/or crew. My take is that they increased significantly the risk of the riskiest parts of the mission (the stuff that's being done in space) in order to protect a political choice, all rationalized on the basis of improving launch safety (where launch is already one of the safer parts of the mission once you start no matter what vehicle choice you make of the choices they had).
My view is that if they had any sort of rational risk management process in place, a lot of things would be done differently.
Yes, I imagine he is speaking of that time. But there was a two year period when they were two votes or less from overcoming the only resistance to Democrat legislation. I suppose one can blame the mean ole Republicans for the Democrat's inability to close that gap, but it's just making excuses.
it's precisely why I believe anyone wishing to run for President should be required to permanently and irrevocably sever all ties with all political parties, to the extent they may not even accept their support, nor can the parties offer any support, in the campaigns.
I imagine such a rule would contradict the First Amendment, namely, the part, " interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." And I'd rather keep that amendment more or less intact.
Slashdot Mirror
An uncorrelated, stress-induced failure of the remaining engine seems pretty unlikely
"Stress-induced" is the correlation. And there would be higher stress during takeoff (which incidentally is when you're going to run into low altitude drones) than during cruise flight. Keep in mind the sentence from your quote:
"In fact it applies to any flight more than specified distances from an available diversion airport."
So somebody dropped a castiron drone from somewhere above the plane? I see no other way to make an aircraft made of steel or similar fly.
Not all screws are made of materials softer than steel.
Then you wave a magic wand and say maybe the other engine will stop too.
The name of that "magic wand" is "entropy". When you're flying or in this case trying to take off on engine, you're putting significant additional stress on a component that can and does fail, no matter what regulation is out there.
Can you explain how ingestion of an R/C aircraft can cause the failure of two engines
It's worth noting here that geese, like most birds, have rather delicate bones. An R/C aircraft might have steel and other really hard materials that could do more damage. That drops the number of engines to one. If the remaining one fails due to the addition stress placed on it, then you have two engine failures as desired.
It's worth noting here that same-sex marriage isn't actually banned, it just isn't recognized by the governments in question and graced with potent legal protections. I think a strong angle here would be to describe how many such "unrecognized" marriages are out there.
You are confirmed for never reading anything he wrote. All those robot books were basically explaining how and why those laws would not work perfectly.
FIFY. If those laws wouldn't work at all, then why did nobody of the stories, human or robot ever come up with a better idea? In the end, robots and humans were separated not because of flaws in the Three Laws, but because the type of care and support that robots provided proved harmful to humans and their development.
Why do people always totally fail to understand Amisov?
Perhaps you can enlighten us then? The original poster was right after all. Asimov portrays a world where the Three Laws work most of the time. In fact, the people of those sets of stories never ever do away with the Three Laws.
Unless we have reached post scarcity, grabbing a bigger piece of the pie for yourself inevitably means less for everyone else.
Sure, over time the pie grows (capitalism and all that)
As even you admit, it hasn't been true in practice. The world is currently in a vast, positive sum game. It's not as wonderful as "post scarcity", but it's something that actually exists.
Envy, which targets the producers along with parasites, is destructive to many of the good things we've managed to accomplish.
Liberal (positive connotation) or neocon (negative connotation) = wants laissez faire all the way
Neoliberal = wants laissez faire but with regulations
No, the "neoliberal" wants laissez faire all the way. "Neoconservative" is a US-only flavor of "conservative" which favors US hegemony and military power, support for Israel over other countries in the Middle East area, and a moderate degree of market liberalization. "Liberal" usually refers to some sort of social reform.
The more concentrated and unchecked the power, the less you need for formalities like writing regulations. The guy holding the gun doesn't need to explain why he's robbing you.
I'll just note that this doesn't match observation. For example, the Communists of the 20th Century exercised a great deal of power, but they also kept track of everyone with vast and comprehensive surveillance and secret police networks. That is as much regulation as the actual written laws that such countries might pass.
Well, passing by Mars is a point unto itself. You don't need another one.
There's a reason we have jealousy and envy. That we're driven to change and better our lives.
Or as in the case of the story, worsen the lives of other people.
Neoliberal wants free market mixed with socialist ideas (i.e the regulations you speak of)
No, seriously. I told you the definition of neoliberal. It has nothing to do with what is usually considered "liberal".
No, shorter regulations is the characteristic of socialist regulation. Socialist regulations inevitably will be short, because there would be no need to detail the who, what, where, when, why, and how government gets power to do things.
That has never been true in practice whether written or "unwritten". They micromanage like anyone else with that kind of power.
You apparently have never dealt with government RFP's,
You do know that it is possible, via bribes and lobbying, to steer RFPs.
Incidentally, I googled this to see if there was an actual case out there (this being the internet and all). This case does exist and the woman in question was assaulted a bit over two weeks ago. My view on it though is that it is a simple though brutal assault and battery (whatever the Texas equivalent is). It shouldn't matter whether the pain was inflicted because the attacker thought she was homosexual or because the attacker wanted her watch. It should matter that the assault was done in front of a bunch of children.
I think that the "hate crime" aspect is a huge red herring. It's useful for ascribing motive in court, but criminalizing bigotry is just a 1984 thoughtcrime thing. We shouldn't be trying to police what people fear and hate. We should be policing what brutal and harmful actions they do in response to that fear and hate. One doesn't need to classify assault and battery as a "hate crime" in order to do that. It's already illegal with suitable punishments in store.
As to the accusation of the police department dragging its feet? There's not enough information out there yet for me to decide if the police department is ignoring the case (unless the poster I'm replying to has more information). It's worth noting that there's probably a couple of people who know a lot about who this man is, there supposedly was a female companion and presumably a child associated with this man, but the group may be unknown to the other people at the park. At that point, you're going on eyewitness accounts and whatever evidence was left behind by the assailant and his group. That might or might not be enough to go on.
Is this the same Greece that screwed up so badly that it's being forced to take on austerity measures or leave the EU? When I heard the phrase "Greek style healthcare", I admit that I had a bit of pessimism about the future of whatever country sesshomaru is a member of, assuming he ever gets his way.
When it comes to anything involving large amounts of resources (such as building and testing significant numbers of prototypes) they pretty much are.
How much is "significant numbers"? An amateur group ought to be able to build hundreds a year.
I don't think that even in the good old days you're herp-derping about people made their own muskets. Of the minority that did some didn't make their own clothes and bread (because they were professional gunsmiths) and the rest blew themselves up.
The previous author didn't say anything about the "good old days" much less "herp-derp" about them. And a lot of advanced weaponry was made by individual gunsmiths, not large businesses.
Also, why is Microsoft explicitly being mentioned?
Maybe because the guy returns his calls? That's how a lot of the people who get quoted over and over got where they are.
ed funding has suffered through the last 3 decades
Not by actual money spent. The chart I just linked to shows US spending per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (a crude measure for estimating the relative cost of living for various countries) is the second highers of OECD countries. Yet the results are far weaker (Finland spends a third less by the measure and gets better results).
Obamacare also mandates that insurance companies pay for preventative care, you know the care that prevents serious and expensive conditions from occurring or at least reduces the likelihood of such conditions occurring.
I wonder how much of that preventative care actually is. Medicine is a field notorious for being very difficult to figure out costs and benefits of actions and their consequences.
If preventative care really had that solid benefit to it, then why aren't most insurers funding it already? They aren't dumb. My take is that preventative care is great for finding expensive problems (a major turnoff for insurers) and not so great at actually helping us live longer or cheaper.
Obama is a neoliberal,
You might as well claim Obama is a courtier of the Seelie court, if you ignore Obama's actual ideology and actions.
he'd never propose anything that wasn't a cash grab for someone
That's not what neoliberalism means. Basically, it's a negative connotation label for free market or laissez faire-economy beliefs or advocates.
For example, the US health care legislation, supported by Obama, of which an aspect is discussed here is heavily anti-market and high regulation. It requires insurers to cover various things and forces them to ignore preexisting conditions (interference with the market) and has already generated well over ten thousand pages of new regulation. On that substantial basis alone, one would not consider Obama neoliberal.
His healthcare plan was basically written by the Heritage Foundation, not generally known as a bastion of socialism.
If that were true, then it'd be a lot shorter than it actually is.
That's why I pay taxes.
Well, then that government is your insurer. At least, when it's not throwing that money at other things.
They take nothing more seriously than the safe being of the ISS.
NASA has a long history of obsessing over small risks while ignoring large ones. For example, the ISS is one small piece of high velocity space trash away from destruction. That didn't stop NASA from pouring a hundred billion or so dollars into the ISS. And if it does go boom, then they don't have any sort of replacement strategy in mind.
Another classic example is the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) on the ground which was until recently a vital and unique role in preparing the Shuttle for launch. NASA had no plan for replacing the building should it be leveled by a large hurricane or an errant solid rocket motor.
And there's the huge risks they took with each Apollo mission as well as the crazy estimates of risk (the profoundly unrealistic 1 in 100,000 chance of loss of crew according to Feynman) for the Shuttle prior to the first Shuttle accident (Challenger).
A final classic example was the Constellation program. They chose ATK's solid rocket motor as first stage for the Ares I while ignoring the higher risk of that motor, but while simultaneously claiming that the motor was somehow safer. Then later on, when the resulting vehicle turned out to have performance issues, they cut back on the spacecraft design (including vital systems redundancy) that was to be the core of Constellation missions in space.
One consequence is higher risks of loss of mission and/or crew. My take is that they increased significantly the risk of the riskiest parts of the mission (the stuff that's being done in space) in order to protect a political choice, all rationalized on the basis of improving launch safety (where launch is already one of the safer parts of the mission once you start no matter what vehicle choice you make of the choices they had).
My view is that if they had any sort of rational risk management process in place, a lot of things would be done differently.
Yes, I imagine he is speaking of that time. But there was a two year period when they were two votes or less from overcoming the only resistance to Democrat legislation. I suppose one can blame the mean ole Republicans for the Democrat's inability to close that gap, but it's just making excuses.
When it comes to Senate filibusters, we are no longer playing with rational actors.
What makes you think it wasn't rational?
it's precisely why I believe anyone wishing to run for President should be required to permanently and irrevocably sever all ties with all political parties, to the extent they may not even accept their support, nor can the parties offer any support, in the campaigns.
I imagine such a rule would contradict the First Amendment, namely, the part, " interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." And I'd rather keep that amendment more or less intact.