hey may have been brought into the wheel because of curiosity, and are trying to escape by running away.
Saw a short video related to this last night.
The mouse in question came up to the thing, climbed on, ran as fast as its little legs would carry it for a few seconds, till it was about 40 degrees from vertical...then stopped and let the thing carry him back and forth till to halted.
Then he got off, took a few steps, turned around, and repeated the whole process.
Personally, I think they were doing it for the fun factor - "Hey, guys! Watch this!"....
My machine is a 30-ish year old Kenmoore. Its had to be repaired twice in that span. $50 once - $75 the other time. Heck of a lot cheaper than buying a new unit that is likely of lesser quality and would break within 3-4 years.
Just curious, did you buy that washer new? And did it cost less than $100 new?
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the Feds NEED California Law Enforcement assistance to spy on Californians.
They don't. Any more than the FBI requires the assistance of local LEOs. The FBI works as it wills, without consulting with the locals unless they absolutely must (usually to get the locals to stop trying to arrest their suspects till the FBI is done with its investigation).
...and California, much as it likes to think it's a country unto itself, has NO jurisdiction over the NSA, over their methods, even over their agents (when acting in an official capacity and all those other qualifiers)
If it makes the CA legislature feel good about themselves to do this, great! But it means about as much as the lot of them threatening to hold their breath till the NSA stops spying...
Would you want *your* car to be used by somebody else?
For certain values of "somebody else", of course.
Would it bother me to send my car back home so my kids could use it to go to school? Nope.
How about sending it over to my brother's house while his car is in the shop. No problem.
My two immediate neighbors? Well, they have more cars each than I do, but if one of them needed to borrow a car, I'd not have a problem sending the car to fetch them when i was at work.
But then, the example of a car with five passengers stuck on a railway track and another car with two passengers behind it - how often does that happen?
If the five people are in an autonomous vehicle, they won't be on the railroad track. They'll have been driving as safely as possible and not gotten on the tracks till there was room to get off. Just like any sane driver does....
Traffic deaths per person and per mile were at their peak in the 30s and 40s, when cars were poorly designed and tested (given their relative novelty) and today, despite there being so many new distractions for drivers, traffic deaths continue to decline. We suck at driving way more than cars suck at protecting us, and it's only through better designed machines (not anything we are doing to be better drivers, clearly) are we staying safer on the roads.
It is certainly true that traffic deaths have continued to decline for decades. And that is mostly, if not entirely, due to safer cars.
However, traffic ACCIDENTS (measured both by accidents per passenger-mile and by absolute number of accidents) have also been declining for at least the last couple decades. I can believe safer cars cause fewer deaths, I don't see how safer cars cause fewer accidents....
911 vehicles on the other hand should always value their own occupants less than than others
So, imagine the case where your car decides it's better to kill you than to allow that kitten to get run over.
The car acts, the kitten lives, you get maimed.
The ambulance shows up, picks you up, and heads down the road toward the hospital.
(You can probably guess where this is going) ANOTHER kitten is in the road. The 911 vehicle, valuing its own occupants less than others, swerves to avoid the kitten, and runs into a tree.
And so after your car maims you to save someone "worth more than you", the ambulance maims you AGAIN to save someone "worth more than you".
By the by, if the kitten thing offends you, replace the kitten with a pregnant woman, or a Hollywood star, or whatever fits best with your own prejudices.
Oh and if it wasn't clear, a car that will sacrifice me to save someone else is a car I won't ever buy. Whether *I* would swerve off the road to avoid killing a stranger is MY decision. I'd like to think I would, but you really can never tell till you've been in the situation.
"The odds of using a gun to defend yourself are statistically tiny. But the odds of"The odds of using a gun to defend yourself are statistically tiny. But the odds of getting liquored-up and shooting Mom over an argument about the pot roast are rather high." are rather high."
In 2011, to pick the year that first came up when I googled, there were 8589 homicides with firearms in the USA. There are also 330 million people in the USA, and about 300 million firearms.
So, in 2011, assuming that ALL of the 8589 murders were, how did you put it, "the odds of getting liquored-up and shooting Mom over an argument about the pot roast are rather high.", then the chances were about 0.0025% of this happening.
First, there's no indication that even a significant fraction of murders fit your description, and
Second, even if they did, I can't imagine anyone considering 0.0025% "rather high".
Of course, since availability of "smart" guns doesn't magically cause all other guns to poof out of existence, you're not actually going to get that result.
The people who obey all laws will find themselves with guns that don't work half the time, and the people who don't care what the law says will have guns that work all the time....
Deaths versus shootings...are you really that stupid as to not be able to tell the difference?
Hmm...from your original post:
BLOCKQUOTE>4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.
So, you referred to deaths...and from the post you were responding to...
Given that CDP numbers put the total number of accidental shooting deaths annually between 500 and 600 -- for all ages of shooters -- I expect your link to be very interesting.
Oh, wait! He was referring to deaths too!
So, again, citation? Accidental shooting deaths were 606 in 2010 from shooters of all ages. And 3800 from 2005-2010 (inclusive). So, where's the 4000 killed by children with firearms every year?
4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.
Citation?
Only numbers I could find even close to this are the total number of people who were accidentally shot over a SIX year period. Not just by children, but by adults.
And that reference mentioned in passing that their definition of children was "under 25 years of age".
Its asinine to pretend there are absolute rights. they dont exist - even in the US you have no right to certain speech
Other than libel and slander (both of which require, among other things, that your statements are FALSE), I can't actually think of "certain speech" we're not allowed.
So, enlighten me, if you please, as to what truthful speech we are forbidden here.
So, your argument is that a fully reusable Falcon will reduce costs to launch by ~8%?
I'm curious, do you have any basis for this belief?
Obviously, SpaceX doesn't believe this to be true, or they wouldn't bother doing it - massive amounts of work for an 8% savings aren't worth the bother (it's not like their prices aren't already the lowest in the world).
And yet they're charging considerably less than their nearest competitor for unmanned launches. It's not really all that hard to find out how much SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are charging for CRS missions.
Hint: Orbital Sciences is being paid rather more for eight launches ($1.9B) than SpaceX is for twelve launches ($1.6B).
Even though a Dragon can loft ~50% more payload than a Cygnus can.
If or when they start doing regular launches with the reusable Dragon and F9R, how low do you think they can get the price per seat down to? Russians are charging $71m per seat, can SpaceX get it down to $1m per seat?
Hmm, Dragon seats seven in manned-mode. $133M per launch (which is what NASA is paying SpaceX now for flights to ISS. Double that for no other reason than that we can...
Hmm, $40M per person sound reasonable.
Of course, if Dragon and Falcon 9R are each good for, say, five flights, we can reduce the cost per flight by half easily (F9R first stage is 70% of the cost of the Falcon all by itself). Which could leave you at $20M per seat.
By and by, Falcon 9R's second stage will also be reusable. If they can get five launches out of that, we're talking an 80% reduction in cost of a Falcon/Dragon combo, which might let you put a man up for $4M per seat....
And that's assuming five launches per bird. Ten reduces cost by half again.
Yes, prices above (except for the base $133M that NASA is paying SpaceX now) are highly speculative. Point is that SpaceX can probably boost men for considerably less than Russia charges without even finishing up the "Reusable" part of Falcon-9, much less after they get Falcon 9R fully reusable.
On the other hand, the first amendment says congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In this case, it is pretty clear what the intent was. Congress is not to make any laws. It doesn't say that you cannot contract your speech rights away with a third party or that the loss of free speech in any way is prohibited.
Nonetheless, numerous rulings by the Supremes have established quite a bit more power to the First than "Congress shall make no laws...".
As an obvious example, the local sheriff isn't actually allowed to arrest you for displaying a US flag upside-down. Though apparently one tried that recently, and is hopefully going to be sued into next week as a result.
Note, for the people who aren't local to the US - the sheriff is a county-level official, in no way associated with Congress. Hell, the sheriff isn't even associated with the State government.
Nonsense! Dragon is beginnning its Man-Rating this year.
It should be qualified by the end of next year, unless NASA gets a big helping of "Not Invented Here" and decides to kill the man-rated Dragon in favour of its own design (which won't be ready this decade, if ever).
So, sea level rise will be a bit less than two inches by 2100?
And nearly 3.5 inches by 2200?
As a result of Antarctic ice melting, of course.
Color me unworried. I wasn't terribly impressed when people were talking a foot this century - a sixth of that is a complete yawner as far as threats go....
Quicker? Doubt it. The robot can't do much beyond what it was designed to do. And when you run into something interesting beyond its design parameters, all you can do is build another robot and send it along in a few years.
A man on the scene, presuming he's not a complete idiot, should be much more versatile than any robot.
Note, by the by, that I am opposed to any base on Mars (or anywhere else) unless it is intended to be a PERMANENT presence. Send twelve to the moon and never go back? Waste of time. Establish a permanent, expanding presence on the moon? All for it. Ditto Mars. And Jupiter's moons.
Did you really just spell that word two different ways in the space of two sentences????
Not that I disagree with the sentiment. I think someone is trying for distraction from the NSA in the news, and also trying to get over looking like an idiot with regards to Russia, Syria, and Iran. Especially Syria. 160K dead so far, and the USA hasn't even been able to stop Assad from using chemical weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
Saw a short video related to this last night.
The mouse in question came up to the thing, climbed on, ran as fast as its little legs would carry it for a few seconds, till it was about 40 degrees from vertical...then stopped and let the thing carry him back and forth till to halted.
Then he got off, took a few steps, turned around, and repeated the whole process.
Personally, I think they were doing it for the fun factor - "Hey, guys! Watch this!"....
Just curious, did you buy that washer new? And did it cost less than $100 new?
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the Feds NEED California Law Enforcement assistance to spy on Californians.
They don't. Any more than the FBI requires the assistance of local LEOs. The FBI works as it wills, without consulting with the locals unless they absolutely must (usually to get the locals to stop trying to arrest their suspects till the FBI is done with its investigation).
Interesting theory.
It no doubt explains why the 300M guns cause about 10K deaths per year while the 250M cars cause about 35K deaths per year.
Fewer cars, more deaths. And yet guns are more dangerous?
...and California, much as it likes to think it's a country unto itself, has NO jurisdiction over the NSA, over their methods, even over their agents (when acting in an official capacity and all those other qualifiers)
If it makes the CA legislature feel good about themselves to do this, great! But it means about as much as the lot of them threatening to hold their breath till the NSA stops spying...
For certain values of "somebody else", of course.
Would it bother me to send my car back home so my kids could use it to go to school? Nope.
How about sending it over to my brother's house while his car is in the shop. No problem.
My two immediate neighbors? Well, they have more cars each than I do, but if one of them needed to borrow a car, I'd not have a problem sending the car to fetch them when i was at work.
My boss? He knows where the streetcars stop....
If the five people are in an autonomous vehicle, they won't be on the railroad track. They'll have been driving as safely as possible and not gotten on the tracks till there was room to get off. Just like any sane driver does....
It is certainly true that traffic deaths have continued to decline for decades. And that is mostly, if not entirely, due to safer cars.
However, traffic ACCIDENTS (measured both by accidents per passenger-mile and by absolute number of accidents) have also been declining for at least the last couple decades. I can believe safer cars cause fewer deaths, I don't see how safer cars cause fewer accidents....
So, imagine the case where your car decides it's better to kill you than to allow that kitten to get run over.
The car acts, the kitten lives, you get maimed.
The ambulance shows up, picks you up, and heads down the road toward the hospital.
(You can probably guess where this is going) ANOTHER kitten is in the road. The 911 vehicle, valuing its own occupants less than others, swerves to avoid the kitten, and runs into a tree.
And so after your car maims you to save someone "worth more than you", the ambulance maims you AGAIN to save someone "worth more than you".
By the by, if the kitten thing offends you, replace the kitten with a pregnant woman, or a Hollywood star, or whatever fits best with your own prejudices.
Oh and if it wasn't clear, a car that will sacrifice me to save someone else is a car I won't ever buy. Whether *I* would swerve off the road to avoid killing a stranger is MY decision. I'd like to think I would, but you really can never tell till you've been in the situation.
In 2011, to pick the year that first came up when I googled, there were 8589 homicides with firearms in the USA. There are also 330 million people in the USA, and about 300 million firearms.
So, in 2011, assuming that ALL of the 8589 murders were, how did you put it, "the odds of getting liquored-up and shooting Mom over an argument about the pot roast are rather high.", then the chances were about 0.0025% of this happening.
First, there's no indication that even a significant fraction of murders fit your description, and
Second, even if they did, I can't imagine anyone considering 0.0025% "rather high".
You too, eh? I have a couple of cap&ball revolvers also. Pain in the ass to clean....
Of course, since availability of "smart" guns doesn't magically cause all other guns to poof out of existence, you're not actually going to get that result.
The people who obey all laws will find themselves with guns that don't work half the time, and the people who don't care what the law says will have guns that work all the time....
Hmm...from your original post:
BLOCKQUOTE>4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.
So, you referred to deaths...and from the post you were responding to...
Oh, wait! He was referring to deaths too!
So, again, citation? Accidental shooting deaths were 606 in 2010 from shooters of all ages. And 3800 from 2005-2010 (inclusive). So, where's the 4000 killed by children with firearms every year?
Yes, it's mandatory that a single male in the USA is REQUIRED to carry insurance that will pay for contraceptives.
So, what's "civilized" about requiring people who can't use the Pill to pay for insurance providing subsidized access to the Pill?
Citation?
Only numbers I could find even close to this are the total number of people who were accidentally shot over a SIX year period. Not just by children, but by adults.
And that reference mentioned in passing that their definition of children was "under 25 years of age".
Other than libel and slander (both of which require, among other things, that your statements are FALSE), I can't actually think of "certain speech" we're not allowed.
So, enlighten me, if you please, as to what truthful speech we are forbidden here.
So, your argument is that a fully reusable Falcon will reduce costs to launch by ~8%?
I'm curious, do you have any basis for this belief?
Obviously, SpaceX doesn't believe this to be true, or they wouldn't bother doing it - massive amounts of work for an 8% savings aren't worth the bother (it's not like their prices aren't already the lowest in the world).
The NSA's mandate...listening in on foreigners is why they were created back in the day.
In other words, this is a non-issue. Almost as silly as an article that accused the FBI of arresting kidnappers in Pennsylvania....
And yet they're charging considerably less than their nearest competitor for unmanned launches. It's not really all that hard to find out how much SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are charging for CRS missions.
Hint: Orbital Sciences is being paid rather more for eight launches ($1.9B) than SpaceX is for twelve launches ($1.6B).
Even though a Dragon can loft ~50% more payload than a Cygnus can.
Hmm, Dragon seats seven in manned-mode. $133M per launch (which is what NASA is paying SpaceX now for flights to ISS. Double that for no other reason than that we can...
Hmm, $40M per person sound reasonable.
Of course, if Dragon and Falcon 9R are each good for, say, five flights, we can reduce the cost per flight by half easily (F9R first stage is 70% of the cost of the Falcon all by itself). Which could leave you at $20M per seat.
By and by, Falcon 9R's second stage will also be reusable. If they can get five launches out of that, we're talking an 80% reduction in cost of a Falcon/Dragon combo, which might let you put a man up for $4M per seat....
And that's assuming five launches per bird. Ten reduces cost by half again.
Yes, prices above (except for the base $133M that NASA is paying SpaceX now) are highly speculative. Point is that SpaceX can probably boost men for considerably less than Russia charges without even finishing up the "Reusable" part of Falcon-9, much less after they get Falcon 9R fully reusable.
Nonetheless, numerous rulings by the Supremes have established quite a bit more power to the First than "Congress shall make no laws...".
As an obvious example, the local sheriff isn't actually allowed to arrest you for displaying a US flag upside-down. Though apparently one tried that recently, and is hopefully going to be sued into next week as a result.
Note, for the people who aren't local to the US - the sheriff is a county-level official, in no way associated with Congress. Hell, the sheriff isn't even associated with the State government.
Nonsense! Dragon is beginnning its Man-Rating this year.
It should be qualified by the end of next year, unless NASA gets a big helping of "Not Invented Here" and decides to kill the man-rated Dragon in favour of its own design (which won't be ready this decade, if ever).
So, sea level rise will be a bit less than two inches by 2100?
And nearly 3.5 inches by 2200?
As a result of Antarctic ice melting, of course.
Color me unworried. I wasn't terribly impressed when people were talking a foot this century - a sixth of that is a complete yawner as far as threats go....
Cheaper? Yep. Easier. Probably.
Quicker? Doubt it. The robot can't do much beyond what it was designed to do. And when you run into something interesting beyond its design parameters, all you can do is build another robot and send it along in a few years.
A man on the scene, presuming he's not a complete idiot, should be much more versatile than any robot.
Note, by the by, that I am opposed to any base on Mars (or anywhere else) unless it is intended to be a PERMANENT presence. Send twelve to the moon and never go back? Waste of time. Establish a permanent, expanding presence on the moon? All for it. Ditto Mars. And Jupiter's moons.
Oh, and terraform Venus while we're at it....
Did you really just spell that word two different ways in the space of two sentences????
Not that I disagree with the sentiment. I think someone is trying for distraction from the NSA in the news, and also trying to get over looking like an idiot with regards to Russia, Syria, and Iran. Especially Syria. 160K dead so far, and the USA hasn't even been able to stop Assad from using chemical weapons.