The pneumonic form of plague is faster. Even flea-mediated transmission between people would likely produce obviously sick or dead crew before a ship reached its destination.
The plague was so insidious because the bacteria could live in an animal reservoir (rats carried on ships) and ALSO spread quickly between people. The rats carried it long distances, such as on sea voyages, then infected people, who then infected other people.
The word quarantine comes from the italian "quaranta giorni" (40 days) which was a requirement that ships wishing to land at Venice stand isolated offshore for forty days. The policy was enacted to try to stop the spread of a new disease (from the Orient) that had shown up in Venice. It was too late by that time, and the disease went on to kill a third of the population of Europe and became known as the black death.
Beyond that, particularly virulent disease are often self-quarantining. They kill off everyone in an area (a neighbourhood or a village) and can't jump to the next area because of a lack of carriers. Plague was so successful because it could exist in rats then jump to humans. The rat reservoir could be transported long distances (between outbreak centres).
The collision rate has also gone down in most places. Where I live, the collision rate has gone down despite speed limits being increased, traffic getting worse (more accidents happen in heavy traffic, including bumper to bumper), the infrastructure generally going to shit, to the point where bridges actually fall down, and nobody in their right mind would call the street signs "better." Safer cars, particularly ABS, likely had an effect, but ABS equipped cars penetrated the market while cell phone use was still on the rise, yet collision rates continued to go down.
True. But it does suggest that banning cell phone use will not be effective. Real world data also suggests that banning cell phone use is not effective. In medicine this is known as treating the symptoms. You might feel better, but you're still sick.
The ability sure. Drivers on cell phones have the ability to hang them up or put them down if conditions on the road change suddenly. How often does either happen?
I think you've identified a better approach to decreasing traffic collisions than banning cell phone use. Better training and higher licensing requirements.
This is one of those situations where I think the correlation-is-not-causation idiots might have a chance of being (accidentally) correct.
When you observe a correlation there are three possibilities. A causes B, B causes A or C causes A and B.
Clearly the link between cell phone use and collisions is indirect. Using a cell phone doesn't cause you to hit people, it causes you to be distracted, which causes you to hit people. It's quite possible that people who are easily distractible when driving are more likely to hit people while using a cell phone. It's also quite possible that the same people are more likely to hit people while not using a cell phone they find something else to distract them.
Someone really should model the historical collision rate properly, taking into account penetration of safety devices like ABS, cell phone use and the actual collision rate (which is decreasing). That would give a much better indication of how many collisions you could prevent by banning cells. I doubt very much it's anywhere near 25%.
Many of the bad drivers I see today are talking on phones. But twenty years ago many of the bad drivers I saw were doing something else distracting. Collision rates aren't increasing in most places.
Bad drivers are just bad drivers. If they don't have a phone to play with, it will be something else.
When Facebook keeps turning in losses the whole second web bubble will collapse. Perhaps it will take a large part of the world's most intrusive advertising with it. We can hope.
Any one of the biggies could make an open baseband chip. Both Samsung and Apple have chip designers, and Samsung even has foundries. None of them cares. Why would they? What do they possibly have to gain by going to all the trouble to either make their own baseband chip or force an existing manufacturer to do it?
That's silly. Orwell's two minutes of hate was directed at an enemy that may or may not exist, and was certainly very remote from and completely unknown to the people talking about it. A one sided rant. Creationists are real, we've all met them, and their agenda is to force your children to listen to their crazy. This story is about a creationist agenda.
Orwell's two minutes of hate is also not unrealistic. Such things are common and happen every day, from AA meetings to "OMG the terrists" to, well, churches.
Evolution is a "fact," otherwise known as an observation. We observe gradual change over time due to selective pressure. Ask a dog breeder or a bacterial resistance researcher.
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and the more general modern theory of evolution, are theories that were formulated to explain these observations. Being a fairly powerful concept, evolution via natural selection can be applied in lots of domains, some of them not directly observable, such as the origin of species.
He didn't say any such thing. If anything, he implied the opposite. He said natural cures that work are called medicine.
ASA (aka aspirin) is a compound naturally found in willow bark. It occurs quite naturally. It's known to work as a pain reliever (among other things). Know what it's colloquially called? Medicine.
I've seen a lot of posts from you in this thread, and most of them don't make the slightest bit of sense. Are you trolling? That might be funny sometimes, but it's really not cool when you're writing something that someone might take as health advice.
The original replier demolished one of your fundamental assumptions: vaccinations don't confer 100% immunity. You've spent the rest of the thread writing random things to try and make yourself sound smart. Yup, sounds like you studied rhetoric all right.
That's kind of a silly term. Occidental refers to the western world, of which the Americas, and "America", are a part. Neither has much to do with facial structure. There are lots of occidental people who are not caucasians, and lots of Americans who are not caucasian. If you're speaking anthropologically, the original residents of the Americas are very much non-caucasian.
Caucasian refers to people who are presumed, based on appearance, to be related to groups that lived in Europe. It's not a bad term to use in this context since it's specifically based on appearance. You might have also meant "white" (caucasians tend to have lighter skin but are not necessarily what most people mean when they say "white").
It's highly unlikely that Facebook grabbed a bunch of white (or even caucasian) pictures though. It's almost certainly a fairly random sample their archive, or at least of the US.
You're making up numbers. We've had billions of transistors on chips for some time now. The XBox One's main chip has five billion transistors. And that's just one chip. The Titan supercomputer has nearly 200 trillion transistors.
If the transistor doubling time remains about the same, you can equate any number of transistors you like to a neuron and Kurzweil's prediction still won't be off by much. Such is the nature of exponential curves. Sophisticated objections to his predictions don't involve transistor counts.
Nobody knows how much of a neuron you need to build a brain. If you actually have to simulate it, possibly at the quantum level, then no number of transistors may be sufficient. You can probably get around that problem by not using regular transistors though. Sufficient artificial neurons might actually be easier to build - noise and interference are probably not as harmful as they are in regular computing, and may actually be beneficial.
Isn't there a city in your "midwest" (which is actually pretty far east, no?) that's called the windy city? Seems like wind power might be a reasonable thing in that region.
You know you can use electricity to produce heat, right?
Slashdot Mirror
The pneumonic form of plague is faster. Even flea-mediated transmission between people would likely produce obviously sick or dead crew before a ship reached its destination.
The plague was so insidious because the bacteria could live in an animal reservoir (rats carried on ships) and ALSO spread quickly between people. The rats carried it long distances, such as on sea voyages, then infected people, who then infected other people.
We live in a world of sound bites. Sorry, tweets.
The word quarantine comes from the italian "quaranta giorni" (40 days) which was a requirement that ships wishing to land at Venice stand isolated offshore for forty days. The policy was enacted to try to stop the spread of a new disease (from the Orient) that had shown up in Venice. It was too late by that time, and the disease went on to kill a third of the population of Europe and became known as the black death.
Beyond that, particularly virulent disease are often self-quarantining. They kill off everyone in an area (a neighbourhood or a village) and can't jump to the next area because of a lack of carriers. Plague was so successful because it could exist in rats then jump to humans. The rat reservoir could be transported long distances (between outbreak centres).
The collision rate has also gone down in most places. Where I live, the collision rate has gone down despite speed limits being increased, traffic getting worse (more accidents happen in heavy traffic, including bumper to bumper), the infrastructure generally going to shit, to the point where bridges actually fall down, and nobody in their right mind would call the street signs "better." Safer cars, particularly ABS, likely had an effect, but ABS equipped cars penetrated the market while cell phone use was still on the rise, yet collision rates continued to go down.
True. But it does suggest that banning cell phone use will not be effective. Real world data also suggests that banning cell phone use is not effective. In medicine this is known as treating the symptoms. You might feel better, but you're still sick.
There are generally two drivers involved in a collision. The actual value for chance association is quite a bit lower.
The ability sure. Drivers on cell phones have the ability to hang them up or put them down if conditions on the road change suddenly. How often does either happen?
I think you've identified a better approach to decreasing traffic collisions than banning cell phone use. Better training and higher licensing requirements.
Insurance companies don't care what your crash per mile driven rate is, they care about your crash per insured day rate.
This is one of those situations where I think the correlation-is-not-causation idiots might have a chance of being (accidentally) correct.
When you observe a correlation there are three possibilities. A causes B, B causes A or C causes A and B.
Clearly the link between cell phone use and collisions is indirect. Using a cell phone doesn't cause you to hit people, it causes you to be distracted, which causes you to hit people. It's quite possible that people who are easily distractible when driving are more likely to hit people while using a cell phone. It's also quite possible that the same people are more likely to hit people while not using a cell phone they find something else to distract them.
Someone really should model the historical collision rate properly, taking into account penetration of safety devices like ABS, cell phone use and the actual collision rate (which is decreasing). That would give a much better indication of how many collisions you could prevent by banning cells. I doubt very much it's anywhere near 25%.
Many of the bad drivers I see today are talking on phones. But twenty years ago many of the bad drivers I saw were doing something else distracting. Collision rates aren't increasing in most places.
Bad drivers are just bad drivers. If they don't have a phone to play with, it will be something else.
NSA tracking platinum edition and marketing plus.
When Facebook keeps turning in losses the whole second web bubble will collapse. Perhaps it will take a large part of the world's most intrusive advertising with it. We can hope.
Any one of the biggies could make an open baseband chip. Both Samsung and Apple have chip designers, and Samsung even has foundries. None of them cares. Why would they? What do they possibly have to gain by going to all the trouble to either make their own baseband chip or force an existing manufacturer to do it?
How much do you want to bet that the twits will just keep on hash tagging everything?
That's silly. Orwell's two minutes of hate was directed at an enemy that may or may not exist, and was certainly very remote from and completely unknown to the people talking about it. A one sided rant. Creationists are real, we've all met them, and their agenda is to force your children to listen to their crazy. This story is about a creationist agenda.
Orwell's two minutes of hate is also not unrealistic. Such things are common and happen every day, from AA meetings to "OMG the terrists" to, well, churches.
Evolution is a "fact," otherwise known as an observation. We observe gradual change over time due to selective pressure. Ask a dog breeder or a bacterial resistance researcher.
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and the more general modern theory of evolution, are theories that were formulated to explain these observations. Being a fairly powerful concept, evolution via natural selection can be applied in lots of domains, some of them not directly observable, such as the origin of species.
Creationists go two further and posit that the outside-the-universe entity likes to talk to them. Personally.
"There are roughly 313 groups of religions, which would cut the 60 minute show down to about 11.5 seconds each."
That's some concentrated crazy.
He didn't say any such thing. If anything, he implied the opposite. He said natural cures that work are called medicine.
ASA (aka aspirin) is a compound naturally found in willow bark. It occurs quite naturally. It's known to work as a pain reliever (among other things). Know what it's colloquially called? Medicine.
I've seen a lot of posts from you in this thread, and most of them don't make the slightest bit of sense. Are you trolling? That might be funny sometimes, but it's really not cool when you're writing something that someone might take as health advice.
The original replier demolished one of your fundamental assumptions: vaccinations don't confer 100% immunity. You've spent the rest of the thread writing random things to try and make yourself sound smart. Yup, sounds like you studied rhetoric all right.
That's kind of a silly term. Occidental refers to the western world, of which the Americas, and "America", are a part. Neither has much to do with facial structure. There are lots of occidental people who are not caucasians, and lots of Americans who are not caucasian. If you're speaking anthropologically, the original residents of the Americas are very much non-caucasian.
Caucasian refers to people who are presumed, based on appearance, to be related to groups that lived in Europe. It's not a bad term to use in this context since it's specifically based on appearance. You might have also meant "white" (caucasians tend to have lighter skin but are not necessarily what most people mean when they say "white").
It's highly unlikely that Facebook grabbed a bunch of white (or even caucasian) pictures though. It's almost certainly a fairly random sample their archive, or at least of the US.
You're making up numbers. We've had billions of transistors on chips for some time now. The XBox One's main chip has five billion transistors. And that's just one chip. The Titan supercomputer has nearly 200 trillion transistors.
If the transistor doubling time remains about the same, you can equate any number of transistors you like to a neuron and Kurzweil's prediction still won't be off by much. Such is the nature of exponential curves. Sophisticated objections to his predictions don't involve transistor counts.
Nobody knows how much of a neuron you need to build a brain. If you actually have to simulate it, possibly at the quantum level, then no number of transistors may be sufficient. You can probably get around that problem by not using regular transistors though. Sufficient artificial neurons might actually be easier to build - noise and interference are probably not as harmful as they are in regular computing, and may actually be beneficial.
1300 times as massive.
Isn't there a city in your "midwest" (which is actually pretty far east, no?) that's called the windy city? Seems like wind power might be a reasonable thing in that region.
You know you can use electricity to produce heat, right?