I would vote for Bernie over Trump but Trump over Hillary, but How You Remind Me is something I listen to. I thought Closing Time might be a Nickelback song, but it's apparently by a group called Semisonic.
Photograph isn't too bad, but falls outside my taste to actually listen to really. I have a vague impression of several good songs that sound like they might be Nickelback songs, and that may be giving Nickelback fans the impression that Nickelback songs are good or at least better than they actually are. There's a song with lyrics that go "Hey now, you're a rock star. Get your show on. Get paid."- and saw they had a song called, "Rockstar". Not the same song at all.
My mom and I aren't Trump's loyal followers, and I won't even be voting due to circumstances than I don't want to go into, but my mom is more conservative than I am. We believe that Trump does a better job at understanding and acting on his best interests than most of the political creatures. He lies more blatantly than they do. It's hard to be certain which of what he says is a lie, but he would make a racist statement he doesn't actually believe in order to advance his interests. We believe it is likely he will find his way to make things work better than most of the other people, though if Bernie became an option and I were to vote, I would probably vote for Bernie over Trump. But Trump is better than Hillary in my book, because of his better understanding of how to get where he wants to go. With Hillary there's too much things like the "What difference does it make" and the home email server going on. If she had told a somewhat plausible lie instead of "What difference does it make" that would actually improve her suitability in my book. If her duplicity were revealed and she came back with something about how national security would be compromised if the facts were made known to the public and that was a public hearing, I could live with that. But she didn't do any of those things, Those are the sorts of things me and my mom look at when determining the suitability of any candidate to almost any office and when making determinations of people in general. I am generally more liberal than my mom.
Talking about embracing the idea of GMOs is not the same as talking about embracing the way GMO research is currently implemented. Conflating the two doesn't help. The real reason you turn your nose up at GMOs aren't because of some high moral standards but because you are incapable of accurately measuring the real risks and benefits. You can have varieties of plants with the same base of genese that confer benefits that have nothing to do with taste and texture and have a great variety on top that do. That is the real benefit of genetic modification that people who turn up their nose at fail to see.
Monocultures are not all bad nor all good. The bananas humanity used to eat and the bananas we eat now are both monocultures. The old ones were wiped out by disease and the current ones are being wiped out by disease. But the current ones were waiting in the wings when the old ones were being wiped out and there is a new one waiting in the wings when these go by the wayside. And the desirable traits of the old one can be brought back by genetic modification. And when problems of the early GMOs are found, new GMOs will be introduced to address them.
The longstanding problems of the old monocultures were that there was no easy way to replace them and/or change once the weakness was found. Now that we can create alternatives almost at will, a monoculture situation is not the threat it once was. Eventually we will be able to engineer human bodies with the same base states that are more robust than our current bodies. Once we get the variables under control, the "monoculture" won't be the problem it once was.
Nothing is unequivocally harmless. There is no guarantee that the nongenetically engineered organism won't develop an unsavory mutation or get a gene useful to humans transferred to another organism in such a way that that organism becomes harmful or more harmful to humans. With such loose controls on nongenetically engineered organisms, the safe bet is that this has already happened multiple times. There are no guarantees no matter what you do. However, I think it is best for all intelligent kind to seize control of its future and let the uncertainties be of its own making, correction on its own terms. No matter the timescale, it is both very short and far too long.
We should also modify the weather as long as we have preparations in place to change the weather again where the undesirable consequences make themselves known. Everybody says don't do this, don't do that and never do this, but be prepared to do the other when the undesirable consequences happen. Because do or no do, there are always going to be undesirables.
This seems a bit trollish. Too bad several people who believe in the principle of modifying genes but decry letting a handful of people have control of it got in several posts saying just that before you got your posts in. But I'll bite just long enough to say that. I'm hoping this is just a bad troll and not that you are actually stupid and confused people's promotion of genetic modification for promotion of people having monopolies however limited or not, over the modifications they make.
In a sense, you are right about biological processes being too random to allow it to be under such narrow control. But biological processes are currently too random for it to remain outside of human control. We need to get more people trained to do scientific processes. Actually, I'm not confident on what we need to do, only that progress involves this happening. I've started saying stars won't last as long as narrow-sighted scientists say they will, because intelligent beings will come to dismantle them for their energy well beyond that. Perhaps that is where the unlocated energy is, beings that have converted all the local energy around them into intellectual processes. Grey goo on a stellar scale.
You have a weird definition of misconduct. Mine is along the lines of if someone does something that isn't the best course of action it is misconduct. I may have some qualifiers that make it more strict, but that's a start. When you haven't met a person, any opinions you have of them are going to be inaccurate. Whether or not this is inaccurate enough to make it unusable may vary, but then you end up affecting other people based on that opinion. You can convince them to share that opinion or cause them to discount what you are saying based on the fact that they feel you are judging him unreasonably, which in fact you are.
I don't make it sound like you are advocating physical assault; your narrow view of how your actions affect the people you interact with and the ensuing ripple effect, as well as your understanding of the concept of misconduct make it sound to you like I make it sound like you are advocating physical assault. Although depending on the person or people an advocation of physical assault is against, it kind of is like physical assault. But then it is also like stealing a cookie from a cookie jar. Stealing a cookie from a cookie jar isn't misconduct in your world? As the saying goes, whoever has kept the whole law but one, has broken the whole law.
The motives he had that you cite are good, it is true. His motives weren't pure though. What he was willing to justify in achieving his motives and the way he was willing to go about it aren't the best. There was no good reason for him going it alone. There are plenty of people who believe as he did. In fact, not long after he did what he did, someone discovered their own repository of JSTOR documents.
From the 1st_READ.TXT:
This archive contains 18,592 scientific publications totaling 33GiB, all from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and which should be available to everyone at no cost, but most have previously only been made available at high prices through paywall gatekeepers like JSTOR.
Limited access to the documents here is typically sold for $19 USD per article, though some of the older ones are available as cheaply as $8. Purchasing access to this collection one article at a time would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I've had these files for a long time, but I've been afraid that if I published them I would be subject to unjust legal harassment by those who profit from controlling access to these works. I now feel that I've been making the wrong decision.
On July 19th 2011, Aaron Swartz was criminally charged by the US Attorney General's office for, effectively, downloading too many academic papers from JSTOR.
Academic publishing is an odd system- the authors are not paid for their writing, nor are the peer reviewers (they're just more unpaid academics), and in some fields even the journal editors are unpaid. Sometimes the authors must even pay the publishers.
And yet scientific publications are some of the most outrageously expensive pieces of literature you can buy. In the past, the high access fees supported the costly mechanical reproduction of niche paper journals, but online distribution has mostly made this function obsolete.
As far as I can tell, the money paid for access today serves little significant purpose except to perpetuate dead business models. The "publish or perish" pressure in academia gives the authors an impossibly weak negotiating position, and the existing system has enormous inertia.
Those with the most power to change the system--the long-tenured luminary scholars whose works give legitimacy and prestige to the journals, rather than the other way around--are the least impacted by its failures. They are supported by institutions who invisibly provide access to all of the resources they need. And as the journals depend on them, they may ask for alterations to the standard contract without risking their career on the loss of a publication offer. Many don't even realize the extent to which academic work is inaccessible to the general public, nor do they realize what sort of work is being done outside universities that would benefit by it.
Large publishers are now able to purchase the political clout needed to abuse the narrow commercial scope of copyright protection, extending it to completely inapplicable areas: slavish reproductions of historic documents and art, for example, and exploiting the labors of unpaid scientists. They're even able to make the taxpayers pay for their attacks on free society by pursuing criminal prosecution (copyright has classically been a civil matter) and by burdening public institutions with outrageous subscription fees.
Copyright is a legal fiction representing a narrow compromise: we give up some of our natural right to exchange information in exchange for creating an economic incentive to author, so that we may all enjoy more works. When publishers abuse the system to prop up their existence, when they misrepresent the extent of copyright coverage, when they use threats of frivolous litigation to suppress the dissemination of publicly owned works, they are stealing from everyone else.
Several years ago I came into possession, through rather boring and lawful means, of a large collection of JSTOR documents. These particular documents are the h
So in your first sentence you're telling us you're just like Aaron Swartz. You want to do what you see as a good thing without wanting to deal with the possible negative outcomes.
No, it did not cause his death, but to claim it was not a factor is not dealing with reality. Other people have it far worse should pretty much be only an argument for other people have survived under worse, you can survive too sorts of things. Other people having it worse is not a justification for lesser bad behavior. Your sentence about it has no place in this discussion and just muddys the waters.
Which means that the poor treatment of Aaron Swartz does not justify his poor behavior leading up to his treatment. Yes, that's what he should have done. However, the way they treated him was improper and partially at fault for his death. His response to their treatment of him by killing himself is improper. The way his parents raised him to be so bothered by the way he was treated is partially at fault, too. We should be looking for more precursors to the situation, not less.
I don't buy for a minute that the fault for the change of policy at MIT can be all laid at the feet of Aaron Swartz. JSTOR had probably been pushing for tighter restrictions on the documents they offered before the Aaron Swartz incident. Was it additional leverage? Yes. But there have been any number of other things involved in the decision. Again we should be looking for more precursors.
But this time instead of saying that something isn't at fault, you are committing the mistake of saying something is the only thing to blame, and not even the people with agency involved. Why are you so quick to blame only Aaron when it comes to his death, but so quick to absolve MIT of everything when it made a decision?
That's what situations like the one surrounding Aaron Swartz is for me. Not about making him a hero, or vilifying him but speaking out against people like you who basically want the same things as Aaron Swartz, but don't realize that's what they are doing, people like you who want to make things all or nothing, and people like you who want to blame the person with agency when it is convenient for their worldview and absolve people when it is convenient to do that too. I don't view hypocrisy to necessarily be a problem, but I do find these behaviors that just happen to be hypocritical to be a problem. If you are going to be hypocritical, at least do it right.
It may not be DRM as the term is commonly used, but if you take the meanings of the words rights management, it is still a way of managing whether or not mainly people who access the material are the people who have a right to.
No man is an island, nor exists in a vacuum. Next you'll be going around telling random strangers that the reason they don't have unicorns is because they only have themselves to blame.
No, it's actually J# then Microsoft got sued by Sun and had to drop it because Microsoft was intentionally adding in incompatibilities because Microsoft could expect to be the biggest player.
At the very least, we need to start having those sorts of discussions about abolishment and curtailment and what it all means. YouTube content generators have been (or is is had been) making where's the fair use videos, but the furor seems to have died down. When the Orlando shooting happened, I started to speak about the "two weeks" of caring people seem to go through and the where's the fair use bit has gone through its. The Orlando shooting is about through its. Hollywood contributes to this two weeks of caring problem with its two hour coaster ride of emotions and then back to normal fare. Hollywood also contributes to the fanboy syndrome with its sequelitis. Scary... The built in dictionary didn't know Dalek and a large variety of other words out of the box but it apparently knows sequelitis. The fanboy syndrome as I am using the term refers to the inability of fans to enjoy a perfectly enjoyable piece of work because it is attached to a content history like the Avengers, or recently Legend of Zelda simply because it doesn't adhere to what they perceive as "canon". And what got them to expect canon? Hollywood. Hollywood wants you to believe the demand came first, but ask yourself which is easier to produce with the copyright regime the way it is..
No. I don't drive. I was saying there's misinformation that might be somewhat cleared up by a marketing campaign. I asked my mom about it and she said she was told it was called an emergency brake and when in park the vehicle should be put in first gear instead, though she couldn't remember by who.
She also seems to think that the brake is a separate system from the regular brakes, but I don't remember seeing anything about another physically present brake other than the regular brakes. She thought it could be engaged if the regular brake gives out. I suppose that's why she was told first gear only as the "emergency" brake would supposedly be conserved for when the regular brakes gave out. It seems to me that the best name for the brake is "parking brake" though. Or maybe change it up to dispel the notion that there is another brake down there.if that is actually the case and just call it parking lever or something.
Putting it into first gear instead of neutral might be hard on the gear, so I don't know if the supposed additional safety is worth it.
Automatics don't have a parking lever so there are probably quite a few people who drive those who wouldn't know what they are for.
Jokes on you. I don't even drive. And you completely ignored the part where I said that not all cars have them, though that appears to be automatic transmissions whose park mode may be completely different from manuals, but probably wouldn't hurt to have the same brake as a manual, though that might be overkill. I also pointed out that there was misinformation that could be partially dispelled by a marketing campaign.
The "P" position of an automatic transmission has the obvious use of engaging the parking brake and disengaging gears. Its suitability to that task however is another question altogether. What leads you to believe it isn't up to that task?
As the other person pointed out the gearbox is apparently not engaged when an automatic transmission is in park, so I guess it wouldn't damage the gearbox... ever? Unless it is somehow tampered with to not disengage the gearbox, I guess.
The brake handle thing on manuals could damage the gearbox if used while driving or on a hill.
None of us either to get the VCR to flash 1:00 because that's not the desired behavior, nor to keep the VCR from flashing 1:00, that's who.
I wrote:
Both you and the other respondent have poor memories as VCRs did not blink 1:00 after daylight savings time. They kept the time they were keeping before daylight savings time.
But then I saw what you actually wrote, so:
The desired behavior is not to get it to flash 1:00 or flash any time but to keep daylight savings time. This means holding the same digits for a whole minute, and I'd hardly call that a flash. I grew up in Indiana and they weren't on DST at the time so I didn't have to do that, though power outages did happen. I never seemed to need a manual, but I WAS a kid then, so no problem.
You left out the most important issue about muscle wastage: what can be done to prevent it happening. That can help not only for space colonies but for diseases as well. Though I suppose you might as well call the space muscle wastage a congenital disease. Keep sending astronauts to space and examining their DNA and comparing the degrees of muscle wastage and we should get a lock on what causes it.
So what if it is just dumb fools looking for a payout? (Sarcasm) I love how people just assume their position is the one everyone should accept without defending it. That goes double for when they show a total disregard for life on the level of human beings.(/sarcasm) You shouldn't just feel sad for the family; you should be concerned for the fact that a human being just died and what that means for the greater human community.
Slashdot Mirror
I would vote for Bernie over Trump but Trump over Hillary, but How You Remind Me is something I listen to. I thought Closing Time might be a Nickelback song, but it's apparently by a group called Semisonic.
Photograph isn't too bad, but falls outside my taste to actually listen to really. I have a vague impression of several good songs that sound like they might be Nickelback songs, and that may be giving Nickelback fans the impression that Nickelback songs are good or at least better than they actually are. There's a song with lyrics that go "Hey now, you're a rock star. Get your show on. Get paid."- and saw they had a song called, "Rockstar". Not the same song at all.
My mom and I aren't Trump's loyal followers, and I won't even be voting due to circumstances than I don't want to go into, but my mom is more conservative than I am. We believe that Trump does a better job at understanding and acting on his best interests than most of the political creatures. He lies more blatantly than they do. It's hard to be certain which of what he says is a lie, but he would make a racist statement he doesn't actually believe in order to advance his interests. We believe it is likely he will find his way to make things work better than most of the other people, though if Bernie became an option and I were to vote, I would probably vote for Bernie over Trump. But Trump is better than Hillary in my book, because of his better understanding of how to get where he wants to go. With Hillary there's too much things like the "What difference does it make" and the home email server going on. If she had told a somewhat plausible lie instead of "What difference does it make" that would actually improve her suitability in my book. If her duplicity were revealed and she came back with something about how national security would be compromised if the facts were made known to the public and that was a public hearing, I could live with that. But she didn't do any of those things, Those are the sorts of things me and my mom look at when determining the suitability of any candidate to almost any office and when making determinations of people in general. I am generally more liberal than my mom.
Talking about embracing the idea of GMOs is not the same as talking about embracing the way GMO research is currently implemented. Conflating the two doesn't help. The real reason you turn your nose up at GMOs aren't because of some high moral standards but because you are incapable of accurately measuring the real risks and benefits. You can have varieties of plants with the same base of genese that confer benefits that have nothing to do with taste and texture and have a great variety on top that do. That is the real benefit of genetic modification that people who turn up their nose at fail to see.
Monocultures are not all bad nor all good. The bananas humanity used to eat and the bananas we eat now are both monocultures. The old ones were wiped out by disease and the current ones are being wiped out by disease. But the current ones were waiting in the wings when the old ones were being wiped out and there is a new one waiting in the wings when these go by the wayside. And the desirable traits of the old one can be brought back by genetic modification. And when problems of the early GMOs are found, new GMOs will be introduced to address them.
The longstanding problems of the old monocultures were that there was no easy way to replace them and/or change once the weakness was found. Now that we can create alternatives almost at will, a monoculture situation is not the threat it once was. Eventually we will be able to engineer human bodies with the same base states that are more robust than our current bodies. Once we get the variables under control, the "monoculture" won't be the problem it once was.
Nothing is unequivocally harmless. There is no guarantee that the nongenetically engineered organism won't develop an unsavory mutation or get a gene useful to humans transferred to another organism in such a way that that organism becomes harmful or more harmful to humans. With such loose controls on nongenetically engineered organisms, the safe bet is that this has already happened multiple times. There are no guarantees no matter what you do. However, I think it is best for all intelligent kind to seize control of its future and let the uncertainties be of its own making, correction on its own terms. No matter the timescale, it is both very short and far too long.
We should also modify the weather as long as we have preparations in place to change the weather again where the undesirable consequences make themselves known. Everybody says don't do this, don't do that and never do this, but be prepared to do the other when the undesirable consequences happen. Because do or no do, there are always going to be undesirables.
This seems a bit trollish. Too bad several people who believe in the principle of modifying genes but decry letting a handful of people have control of it got in several posts saying just that before you got your posts in. But I'll bite just long enough to say that. I'm hoping this is just a bad troll and not that you are actually stupid and confused people's promotion of genetic modification for promotion of people having monopolies however limited or not, over the modifications they make.
In a sense, you are right about biological processes being too random to allow it to be under such narrow control. But biological processes are currently too random for it to remain outside of human control. We need to get more people trained to do scientific processes. Actually, I'm not confident on what we need to do, only that progress involves this happening. I've started saying stars won't last as long as narrow-sighted scientists say they will, because intelligent beings will come to dismantle them for their energy well beyond that. Perhaps that is where the unlocated energy is, beings that have converted all the local energy around them into intellectual processes. Grey goo on a stellar scale.
You have a weird definition of misconduct. Mine is along the lines of if someone does something that isn't the best course of action it is misconduct. I may have some qualifiers that make it more strict, but that's a start. When you haven't met a person, any opinions you have of them are going to be inaccurate. Whether or not this is inaccurate enough to make it unusable may vary, but then you end up affecting other people based on that opinion. You can convince them to share that opinion or cause them to discount what you are saying based on the fact that they feel you are judging him unreasonably, which in fact you are.
I don't make it sound like you are advocating physical assault; your narrow view of how your actions affect the people you interact with and the ensuing ripple effect, as well as your understanding of the concept of misconduct make it sound to you like I make it sound like you are advocating physical assault. Although depending on the person or people an advocation of physical assault is against, it kind of is like physical assault. But then it is also like stealing a cookie from a cookie jar. Stealing a cookie from a cookie jar isn't misconduct in your world? As the saying goes, whoever has kept the whole law but one, has broken the whole law.
The motives he had that you cite are good, it is true. His motives weren't pure though. What he was willing to justify in achieving his motives and the way he was willing to go about it aren't the best. There was no good reason for him going it alone. There are plenty of people who believe as he did. In fact, not long after he did what he did, someone discovered their own repository of JSTOR documents.
From the 1st_READ.TXT:
So in your first sentence you're telling us you're just like Aaron Swartz. You want to do what you see as a good thing without wanting to deal with the possible negative outcomes.
No, it did not cause his death, but to claim it was not a factor is not dealing with reality. Other people have it far worse should pretty much be only an argument for other people have survived under worse, you can survive too sorts of things. Other people having it worse is not a justification for lesser bad behavior. Your sentence about it has no place in this discussion and just muddys the waters.
Which means that the poor treatment of Aaron Swartz does not justify his poor behavior leading up to his treatment. Yes, that's what he should have done. However, the way they treated him was improper and partially at fault for his death. His response to their treatment of him by killing himself is improper. The way his parents raised him to be so bothered by the way he was treated is partially at fault, too. We should be looking for more precursors to the situation, not less.
I don't buy for a minute that the fault for the change of policy at MIT can be all laid at the feet of Aaron Swartz. JSTOR had probably been pushing for tighter restrictions on the documents they offered before the Aaron Swartz incident. Was it additional leverage? Yes. But there have been any number of other things involved in the decision. Again we should be looking for more precursors.
But this time instead of saying that something isn't at fault, you are committing the mistake of saying something is the only thing to blame, and not even the people with agency involved. Why are you so quick to blame only Aaron when it comes to his death, but so quick to absolve MIT of everything when it made a decision?
That's what situations like the one surrounding Aaron Swartz is for me. Not about making him a hero, or vilifying him but speaking out against people like you who basically want the same things as Aaron Swartz, but don't realize that's what they are doing, people like you who want to make things all or nothing, and people like you who want to blame the person with agency when it is convenient for their worldview and absolve people when it is convenient to do that too. I don't view hypocrisy to necessarily be a problem, but I do find these behaviors that just happen to be hypocritical to be a problem. If you are going to be hypocritical, at least do it right.
It may not be DRM as the term is commonly used, but if you take the meanings of the words rights management, it is still a way of managing whether or not mainly people who access the material are the people who have a right to.
In order for you to know that they are publicly available, you must know where they are publicly available. So, where are they publicly available.
No man is an island, nor exists in a vacuum. Next you'll be going around telling random strangers that the reason they don't have unicorns is because they only have themselves to blame.
Where would we all be if the response to all forms of prevalent misconduct was "We all do it, get over it?".
No, it's actually J# then Microsoft got sued by Sun and had to drop it because Microsoft was intentionally adding in incompatibilities because Microsoft could expect to be the biggest player.
I did. In insinuating his post was a good troll you got responses.
Modern app appers?
What leads to to believe they're not the same person?
At the very least, we need to start having those sorts of discussions about abolishment and curtailment and what it all means. YouTube content generators have been (or is is had been) making where's the fair use videos, but the furor seems to have died down. When the Orlando shooting happened, I started to speak about the "two weeks" of caring people seem to go through and the where's the fair use bit has gone through its. The Orlando shooting is about through its. Hollywood contributes to this two weeks of caring problem with its two hour coaster ride of emotions and then back to normal fare. Hollywood also contributes to the fanboy syndrome with its sequelitis. Scary... The built in dictionary didn't know Dalek and a large variety of other words out of the box but it apparently knows sequelitis. The fanboy syndrome as I am using the term refers to the inability of fans to enjoy a perfectly enjoyable piece of work because it is attached to a content history like the Avengers, or recently Legend of Zelda simply because it doesn't adhere to what they perceive as "canon". And what got them to expect canon? Hollywood. Hollywood wants you to believe the demand came first, but ask yourself which is easier to produce with the copyright regime the way it is..
No. I don't drive. I was saying there's misinformation that might be somewhat cleared up by a marketing campaign. I asked my mom about it and she said she was told it was called an emergency brake and when in park the vehicle should be put in first gear instead, though she couldn't remember by who.
She also seems to think that the brake is a separate system from the regular brakes, but I don't remember seeing anything about another physically present brake other than the regular brakes. She thought it could be engaged if the regular brake gives out. I suppose that's why she was told first gear only as the "emergency" brake would supposedly be conserved for when the regular brakes gave out. It seems to me that the best name for the brake is "parking brake" though. Or maybe change it up to dispel the notion that there is another brake down there.if that is actually the case and just call it parking lever or something.
Putting it into first gear instead of neutral might be hard on the gear, so I don't know if the supposed additional safety is worth it.
Automatics don't have a parking lever so there are probably quite a few people who drive those who wouldn't know what they are for.
Jokes on you. I don't even drive. And you completely ignored the part where I said that not all cars have them, though that appears to be automatic transmissions whose park mode may be completely different from manuals, but probably wouldn't hurt to have the same brake as a manual, though that might be overkill. I also pointed out that there was misinformation that could be partially dispelled by a marketing campaign.
The "P" position of an automatic transmission has the obvious use of engaging the parking brake and disengaging gears. Its suitability to that task however is another question altogether. What leads you to believe it isn't up to that task?
As the other person pointed out the gearbox is apparently not engaged when an automatic transmission is in park, so I guess it wouldn't damage the gearbox... ever? Unless it is somehow tampered with to not disengage the gearbox, I guess.
The brake handle thing on manuals could damage the gearbox if used while driving or on a hill.
None of us either to get the VCR to flash 1:00 because that's not the desired behavior, nor to keep the VCR from flashing 1:00, that's who.
I wrote:
Both you and the other respondent have poor memories as VCRs did not blink 1:00 after daylight savings time. They kept the time they were keeping before daylight savings time.
But then I saw what you actually wrote, so:
The desired behavior is not to get it to flash 1:00 or flash any time but to keep daylight savings time. This means holding the same digits for a whole minute, and I'd hardly call that a flash. I grew up in Indiana and they weren't on DST at the time so I didn't have to do that, though power outages did happen. I never seemed to need a manual, but I WAS a kid then, so no problem.
It means that only private companies' and not governments' vehicles will dock with it.
You left out the most important issue about muscle wastage: what can be done to prevent it happening. That can help not only for space colonies but for diseases as well. Though I suppose you might as well call the space muscle wastage a congenital disease. Keep sending astronauts to space and examining their DNA and comparing the degrees of muscle wastage and we should get a lock on what causes it.
So what if it is just dumb fools looking for a payout? (Sarcasm) I love how people just assume their position is the one everyone should accept without defending it. That goes double for when they show a total disregard for life on the level of human beings.(/sarcasm) You shouldn't just feel sad for the family; you should be concerned for the fact that a human being just died and what that means for the greater human community.
It's kind of hard holding someone responsible after they are dead. Responsibility is only useful when it corrects for mistakes.