Just like the liability of all those oil spills devastating the environment have destroyed the oil companies, right?
I'm sure BP will be filing for bankruptcy any day now after paying out $50-some-odd billion for cleanup, fines and lawsuits. Aaaaaany day now... =Smidge=
To be fair, someone's personal information is arguably truth, and having it released publicly to a forum of people who might be inclined to harass said person would be very inconvenient for that person.
So "inconvenient truths" is, technically, a correct description... =Smidge=
The point being that unless one counts labor in nearly identical ways any talk of 'jobs created' is meaningless.
Right... and that's why gas stations are totally irrelevant, because that's inappropriately expanding the scope of the definition. If you're going to talk about jobs pertaining to a particular endeavor, you should keep your definition as narrow and relevant as possible to avoid the kind of bullshit you're digging up. If you're not careful you end up including the farmer who grows the wheat that the baker makes into bread so the guy at the deli can make the sandwich for the guy who drives the bus that transports the guy to work at the waterfront where he moors the oil tankers that supply the oil to the power plant. Fucking ridiculous.
It's fair to include things like shipping of solar panels, just as it would be fair to include things like shipping materials to construct any other type of power plant (Note: It's not actually been established, AFAIK, that the jobs numbers *actually* includes such things). Once you get into tertiary or higher abstractions of jobs it becomes meaningless. =Smidge=
Except a trucker delivering a load of solar panels is, in fact, relevant to the solar power industry. You can't produce electricity until the solar panels are installed, and to install them you need to transport them from the factory to the installation site. Therefore, the process of delivery is directly relevant.
A gas station is not even remotely relevant to electricity generation. None of the materials, processes or services a gas station provides are directly necessary for the generation of power; at best it's a tertiary contributor. =Smidge=
The people who didn't vote decided that a Trump administration would be in their best interest.
Not even Kellyanne Conway could claim that with a straight face.
People who didn't vote decided that NONE of the options presented were in their best interest. Abstaining from voting is absolutely not the same as voting for the eventual winner. =Smidge=
Not true. A helicopter can't be moving horizontally when it lands. A flying car with wheels could potentially be moving at 70+ MPH horizontally when it lands.
1) Under what situation would such a maneuver be necessary, or even advantageous, and
2) Given the relative difficulty if making a "flying car" in the first place, it seems the last thing you'd want to do is add more weight and complexity with a second drivetrain (Indeed this has so far been a major failing in flying car concepts), and
3) Landing at 70+MPH is anything but safe, which is why it's typically only done on access-controlled runways under the supervision of air traffic controllers and ground crews.
Flying cars to not address and real problem. People are fixated on them for the same reason they're fixated on "hover boards" and personal jet packs - it's a cool fantasy concept that's been romanticized in film and TV, but has absolutely zero practicality or advantage outside of fiction.
You want a personal flying vehicle? They're called "ultralight aircraft" and you don't even need a license to fly them in most cases. =Smidge=
We have those already. They're called "helicopters" and they are already in service as airborne ambulances at many metropolitan hospitals.
It's a mature and proven technology, with plenty of well trained operators, service/support infrastructure in place, regulatory and safety mechanisms established and well enforced.
"Flying cars" are a solution in desperate need of a problem. =Smidge=
our arguments are not based in law, nor are they in agreement with the physician's code of ethics, which works by informed consent in such cases.
I've already posted a couple of links explaining the history, the law, and the prevailing practice of ethics in medical research... which you very obviously have not bothered to read if you're making comments like that.
Nothing you just wrote about would be resolved if we were to let patients die from lack of treatment. Hell, none of what you wrote about is even comparable, for exactly the reasons I've already explained.
I really don't understand why you're having this difficulty: If giving no treatment carries a known high risk of harm to the patient, then no treatment is not an ethical option.
I'm not dismissing the efficacy and usefulness of placebo-controlled trials. I'm saying it's unethical to not treat patients with fatal illnesses if a proven treatment exists. =Smidge=
As in, it's unethical to take a course of action that you know will result in permanent harm to the patient.
Not treating IBS can potentially result in non-life-threatening discomfort. With patient consent that's an ethically acceptable risk.
Not treating brain cancer can potentially result in mental disability and death. It is not ethically acceptable to provide no treatment when you KNOW that no treatment will result in an unacceptable outcome. So you provide the standard treatment and compare the experimental treatment to that.
How about we throw rocks AT the candidates instead?
Also, it's not absurd; How do you verify the code of a secure system, but in such a way that it's not possible to also alter the system in the course of verifying it? Think of a rootkit. Verifying OS files and BIOS data relies on the OS and BIOS at least to some extent, so a carefully modified system can fake its own authenticity.
You, the average voter or poll volunteer, have no way of verifying the code operating on a voting machine without also having the ability to change the code on the voting machine, and if anyone has the ability to change the code, then the code is not secure is it?
Voting machines need to be black boxes, but the content of that box is too critical to simply be trusted... so electronic voting is a non-starter. =Smidge=
Hmm... what's the difference between Irritable bowel syndrome and brain cancer? Can you think of any? Something that might make it acceptable to give one a placebo and not the other?
If you're informed that you're getting placebo then it's not placebo anymore. It is literally impossible to have informed consent in a placebo controlled trial.
And even if you phrase it like, "you MIGHT get a placebo" that still doesn't cover you.
It must come as quite a shock that there are rather strict ethical guidelines when it comes to experimenting on humans, born mostly out of a very ugly history of malpractice.
There are serious ethical concerns with giving a placebo where giving no treatment is substantially worse. You'd basically be condemning them to a death if you did that. That's why, in these kinds of circumstances, the experimental treatment is compared to the current accepted standard of treatment.
This kind of treatment has been in the experimental phases since at least 2011, and has undergone clinical trials;
And I believe this link, from 2011, is a press release announcing the approval of the trial discussed in this particular story. I'm not 100% sure, but the names and terminology match up...
Slashdot Mirror
Just like the liability of all those oil spills devastating the environment have destroyed the oil companies, right?
I'm sure BP will be filing for bankruptcy any day now after paying out $50-some-odd billion for cleanup, fines and lawsuits. Aaaaaany day now...
=Smidge=
Except you can't scale solar production up or down to handle fluctuations in demand.
You can scale it down, absolutely.
Or produce solar at night.
You don't need nearly as much power at night, and if they go with solar thermal you get quite a bit of storage "for free."
Or control the weather.
It's Arizona. They basically have two types of weather; Sunny and Night.
=Smidge=
My math says 1250 A @ 480V to fully charge 100kWh pack in 10 minutes
722 Amps since, at 480V, it's probably going to be three phase.
However, in the scenario you're suggesting, it would be more prudent to do battery swapping.
=Smidge=
Wrong.
All electric vehicles need to make The Jetsons car sound.
=Smidge=
Coal accounts for 33% of U.S. electricity production, vs 0.6% for solar.
Just as an FYI; about five years ago, Coal accounted for over 40%.
=Smidge=
They spelled "incorrect" wrong.
To be fair, someone's personal information is arguably truth, and having it released publicly to a forum of people who might be inclined to harass said person would be very inconvenient for that person.
So "inconvenient truths" is, technically, a correct description...
=Smidge=
The point being that unless one counts labor in nearly identical ways any talk of 'jobs created' is meaningless.
Right... and that's why gas stations are totally irrelevant, because that's inappropriately expanding the scope of the definition. If you're going to talk about jobs pertaining to a particular endeavor, you should keep your definition as narrow and relevant as possible to avoid the kind of bullshit you're digging up. If you're not careful you end up including the farmer who grows the wheat that the baker makes into bread so the guy at the deli can make the sandwich for the guy who drives the bus that transports the guy to work at the waterfront where he moors the oil tankers that supply the oil to the power plant. Fucking ridiculous.
It's fair to include things like shipping of solar panels, just as it would be fair to include things like shipping materials to construct any other type of power plant (Note: It's not actually been established, AFAIK, that the jobs numbers *actually* includes such things). Once you get into tertiary or higher abstractions of jobs it becomes meaningless.
=Smidge=
Except a trucker delivering a load of solar panels is, in fact, relevant to the solar power industry. You can't produce electricity until the solar panels are installed, and to install them you need to transport them from the factory to the installation site. Therefore, the process of delivery is directly relevant.
A gas station is not even remotely relevant to electricity generation. None of the materials, processes or services a gas station provides are directly necessary for the generation of power; at best it's a tertiary contributor.
=Smidge=
Gas stations produce electricity?
=Smidge=
The people who didn't vote decided that a Trump administration would be in their best interest.
Not even Kellyanne Conway could claim that with a straight face.
People who didn't vote decided that NONE of the options presented were in their best interest. Abstaining from voting is absolutely not the same as voting for the eventual winner.
=Smidge=
Not true. A helicopter can't be moving horizontally when it lands. A flying car with wheels could potentially be moving at 70+ MPH horizontally when it lands.
1) Under what situation would such a maneuver be necessary, or even advantageous, and
2) Given the relative difficulty if making a "flying car" in the first place, it seems the last thing you'd want to do is add more weight and complexity with a second drivetrain (Indeed this has so far been a major failing in flying car concepts), and
3) Landing at 70+MPH is anything but safe, which is why it's typically only done on access-controlled runways under the supervision of air traffic controllers and ground crews.
Flying cars to not address and real problem. People are fixated on them for the same reason they're fixated on "hover boards" and personal jet packs - it's a cool fantasy concept that's been romanticized in film and TV, but has absolutely zero practicality or advantage outside of fiction.
You want a personal flying vehicle? They're called "ultralight aircraft" and you don't even need a license to fly them in most cases.
=Smidge=
Just about anyplace you could safely land a "flying car" you could also land a helicopter.
And that's assuming you actually have to land. If it's enough of an emergency you'd probably be winching the patient up and down while in flight.
Solution in search of a problem.
=Smidge=
We have those already. They're called "helicopters" and they are already in service as airborne ambulances at many metropolitan hospitals.
It's a mature and proven technology, with plenty of well trained operators, service/support infrastructure in place, regulatory and safety mechanisms established and well enforced.
"Flying cars" are a solution in desperate need of a problem.
=Smidge=
Wikileaks does not wish to dox anyone. They wish to create a database of influence.
So all those rape victims and mental health patients they doxxed last August were all influential politicos?
=Smidge=
All companies are allowed practically cost-free, perpetual leases on government owned wilderness lands? Wowee!
=Smidge=
Adam, the First Angel.
Brace for (Second) Impact!
=Smidge=
They've done it before... in fact that's exactly what this seems to be about.
They want the ability to impose a media blackout should something happen in the chamber they want to keep under wraps.
=Smidge=
If anything, most or all social media platforms should prevent editing. People need to learn that there are consequences to saying things in public.
Maybe if people had to live with the embarrassment of saying stupid things, they'd say fewer stupid things.
=Smidge=
our arguments are not based in law, nor are they in agreement with the physician's code of ethics, which works by informed consent in such cases.
I've already posted a couple of links explaining the history, the law, and the prevailing practice of ethics in medical research... which you very obviously have not bothered to read if you're making comments like that.
=Smidge=
Nothing you just wrote about would be resolved if we were to let patients die from lack of treatment. Hell, none of what you wrote about is even comparable, for exactly the reasons I've already explained.
I really don't understand why you're having this difficulty: If giving no treatment carries a known high risk of harm to the patient, then no treatment is not an ethical option.
I'm not dismissing the efficacy and usefulness of placebo-controlled trials. I'm saying it's unethical to not treat patients with fatal illnesses if a proven treatment exists.
=Smidge=
Yes it does, that's why it's called ethics.
As in, it's unethical to take a course of action that you know will result in permanent harm to the patient.
Not treating IBS can potentially result in non-life-threatening discomfort. With patient consent that's an ethically acceptable risk.
Not treating brain cancer can potentially result in mental disability and death. It is not ethically acceptable to provide no treatment when you KNOW that no treatment will result in an unacceptable outcome. So you provide the standard treatment and compare the experimental treatment to that.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
=Smidge=
How about we throw rocks AT the candidates instead?
Also, it's not absurd; How do you verify the code of a secure system, but in such a way that it's not possible to also alter the system in the course of verifying it? Think of a rootkit. Verifying OS files and BIOS data relies on the OS and BIOS at least to some extent, so a carefully modified system can fake its own authenticity.
You, the average voter or poll volunteer, have no way of verifying the code operating on a voting machine without also having the ability to change the code on the voting machine, and if anyone has the ability to change the code, then the code is not secure is it?
Voting machines need to be black boxes, but the content of that box is too critical to simply be trusted... so electronic voting is a non-starter.
=Smidge=
Hmm... what's the difference between Irritable bowel syndrome and brain cancer? Can you think of any? Something that might make it acceptable to give one a placebo and not the other?
=Smidge=
If you're informed that you're getting placebo then it's not placebo anymore. It is literally impossible to have informed consent in a placebo controlled trial.
And even if you phrase it like, "you MIGHT get a placebo" that still doesn't cover you.
It must come as quite a shock that there are rather strict ethical guidelines when it comes to experimenting on humans, born mostly out of a very ugly history of malpractice.
http://www.pcrm.org/research/h...
Using humans as lab rats is simply not an option.
=Smidge=
There are serious ethical concerns with giving a placebo where giving no treatment is substantially worse. You'd basically be condemning them to a death if you did that. That's why, in these kinds of circumstances, the experimental treatment is compared to the current accepted standard of treatment.
This kind of treatment has been in the experimental phases since at least 2011, and has undergone clinical trials;
http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10...
http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10...
And I believe this link, from 2011, is a press release announcing the approval of the trial discussed in this particular story. I'm not 100% sure, but the names and terminology match up...
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/...
=Smidge=