It depends on how you define influential. The winner is responsible for the name used in every culture in the world for every single living thing on Earth. Most people have never heard of him but he has certainly influence quite a bit.
You just equated individuals making a choice to consume a product you wouldn't choose to consume with murder. I'm sorry but epic fail.
If you want to take it to the extreme lets at least keep it to something one does to oneself. "We should also legalize suicide because despite it being illegal, there are still suicides occurring. Makes a lot of sense."
Yes but those are incidental. Cop pulls you over and smells pot or otherwise is encountering someone for a reason that has nothing to do with drugs and discovers you have them and charges you with that as well.
Actual targeted police effort for the purpose of catching people with drugs are generally targeted at people producing and distributing.
Not actually true. This is DEA propaganda. It is based on the DEA pulverizing some crappy Mexican sun cured brick weed loaded with stems, leaf, and seed all mixed together and measuring the THC in the past and then measuring properly grown hydroponic bud today.
It is true that higher quality weed is more commonly available today but it existed all along. When the DEA was measuring that brick there was already plenty of commonly available Skunk (~12%) as the mainstay in the US. Haze (remember Jimi Hendrix) which is ~20% and lots of other strains every bit as strong as they are today. People knew how to grow marijuana properly then, even more people know how to do it now.
There is nobody doing anything that they could stop doing. If all the humans drop their arms to their sides and walk away that machine stays on autopilot.
The machine is on. If you turned it off, you WOULD be doing something, turning off the machine. Lifting your hand is doing something. Reaching it out is doing something. Pulling a plug/hitting and off switch. That is doing something.
If a human were performing CPR they could just stop, that would be stopping doing something. If no machine were on, they could not hook one up in the first place. That wouldn't be stopping but it would be doing nothing.
Someone has to actively do something to stop the machine from continuing to keep her alive. That someone is taking a deliberate action to bring about her life. Just the same as if you were in a cave and a ventilation system was circulating fresh air down to you and someone (who knew this) pressed the button to turn off the fans.
"Just because she's conscious and has a means to convey her wishes, it does not mean that other people around her will respect her wishes. For instance, they could declare her mentally challenged, unable to make correct decisions under the duress and stress of the situation, and she might be overly emotional(like all women are), and the community might make a decision for her different than what she would make for herself."
If she's conscious and has a means to convey her wishes no doctor will ever declare her braindead. Having someone declared mentally challenged and having legal power of attorney doesn't empower you to make the decision to have the plug pulled without a doctor deciding the patient is gone! If she made the call herself it would be doctor assisted suicide, if someone had her declared incompetent it would be doctor assisted murder. In either case THE DOCTOR would be going to prison as well.
Why would they put someone in witness protection who has already testified. He is worthless to the feds at this point. He would have had to negotiate that when he had leverage. That costs money and resources.
You mean throw my life away as well? Today? I probably wouldn't. I'm newly married and we are talking about a baby. So no, I wouldn't throw that away. A couple years back? Maybe. 20 years down the line, maybe.
That is a pretty big choice and I certainly wouldn't say someone "sucks as a human being" because of the decision they made. I would say that the people who fight to keep laws like these in place suck as human beings. I'd support some kind of mandatory delay, maybe 90 days. But it's her life and her decision. Suicide and assisted suicide should not be illegal. And I say that as someone who is otherwise very much opposed to suicide.
This is a good point, ESPECIALLY when talking about a stroke. There is no way at this point to determine what her level of functioning will be in six months with rehabilitation. The brain is capable of learning new paths to those nerves throughout the rest of her body. She likely will never be as adept as before the stroke but she might well regain some level of control and sensation through her body.
I believe you are mistaken. There have been serious battles surrounding the issue of whether someone was "gone" enough for it to be legal or moral to turn off the machines. If it weren't an issue he wouldn't be the one to do it. She is conscious and has means to convey her wishes. She could direct the doctors to do it herself.
Nobody should be making her medical decisions for her if she has (albeit limited) a way to communicate and a sound mind.
With some rehabilitation she can likely regain mouth movement and then lip reading technologies could open the window dramatically.
As someone else mentioned, there are EEG based cursors. This is actually readily available off the shelf technology made for gaming. If combined with accessibility features available in most operating systems you can get a "mouse" controlled keyboard.
If eyes is what she has, it's what she has. I don't know what the options are for off the shelf solutions. The doctors probably have better ideas about that.
But eye tracking is definitely something that can be done and relatively cheaply. Eye positions. N, S, E, W, NE, NW, SE, SW. That's 8 positions. They can be done with left, right, or both eyes open. That's 24 unique combinations. Combine it with blinks and you can expand that dramatically.
"Where do you get that this prediction is easily testable ? Have you read the article ?"
Yes. Yes I have.
FTFA, "In just one day over several cups of coffee in a tiny office in Imperial's Blackett Physics Laboratory, three physicists worked out a relatively simple way to physically prove a theory first devised by scientists Breit and Wheeler in 1934."
"Lead researcher Oliver Pike, "... We were able to develop the idea for the collider very quickly, but the experimental design we propose can be carried out with relative ease and with existing technology. Within a few hours of looking for applications of hohlraums outside their traditional role in fusion energy research, we were astonished to find they provided the perfect conditions for creating a photon collider.""
If it can worked out by a PhD candidate on a napkin in a day. I'm calling it easily testable. Not in the sense that it won't be a major accomplishment or in a way that is dismissive of those who actually do it of course. Just versus being physically possible and within reasonable bounds of worth funding.
This is a major prediction of QED. Something can be considered a theory without every major prediction being confirmed but generally only when it is infeasible to test the prediction. Such is the case with QED which is otherwise widely tested and the prediction being tested in the proposed experiment was PREVIOUSLY thought infeasible to test.
But if QED were being considered as a theory today, it would not generally get that distinction with an easily testable major prediction outstanding like this one.
"A theory is a descriptive framework, today usually mathematical. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based on a theory."
A hypothesis is an educated guess to explain an observation of reality. A hypothesis is not a prediction of anything. Predictions are made to test a hypothesis. A hypothesis that is thoroughly tested is called a theory, especially one which encapsulates many tested hypothesis (again, with it's own confirmed predictions).
You've got your order of operations wrong. The first step in the scientific method is not the theory, the first step is observation, followed by hypothesis, followed by prediction, followed by experiments to test prediction, revision if they don't, and in general practice peer review and replication throughout.
QED is a hypothesis whose major predictions were all tested or believed not to be feasible to test. Now it has been found that this major prediction of QED is testable. If QED were being proposed today we wouldn't be calling it a theory without performing this experiment successfully and the results being replicated. That doesn't mean we should stop calling it a theory but a failure in this experiment would definitely put a hole in QED as it sits today.
A theory is a hypothesis whose predictions have been confirmed. So it certainly can't be a theory without first being a hypothesis.
This experiment is testing a prediction of a hypothesis. The hypothesis is based on observation, predictions are based on the hypothesis. QED is being tested here. There being a testable and untested prediction that must be true to confirm QED technically makes it a hypothesis. This prediction was previously thought untestable therefore it was called a theory. All the other testable predictions already having been confirmed just makes it highly unlikely this one won't be as well. But QED failing to predict this would shake things up quite a bit as I understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
Biology actually has quite a bit of impact on just about everything else... everything alive anyway.
It depends on how you define influential. The winner is responsible for the name used in every culture in the world for every single living thing on Earth. Most people have never heard of him but he has certainly influence quite a bit.
Well done bot, well done.
You just equated individuals making a choice to consume a product you wouldn't choose to consume with murder. I'm sorry but epic fail.
If you want to take it to the extreme lets at least keep it to something one does to oneself. "We should also legalize suicide because despite it being illegal, there are still suicides occurring. Makes a lot of sense."
Yes but those are incidental. Cop pulls you over and smells pot or otherwise is encountering someone for a reason that has nothing to do with drugs and discovers you have them and charges you with that as well.
Actual targeted police effort for the purpose of catching people with drugs are generally targeted at people producing and distributing.
Stop buying from the streets. The dark web is where you find consistently good quality drugs these days.
Not actually true. This is DEA propaganda. It is based on the DEA pulverizing some crappy Mexican sun cured brick weed loaded with stems, leaf, and seed all mixed together and measuring the THC in the past and then measuring properly grown hydroponic bud today.
It is true that higher quality weed is more commonly available today but it existed all along. When the DEA was measuring that brick there was already plenty of commonly available Skunk (~12%) as the mainstay in the US. Haze (remember Jimi Hendrix) which is ~20% and lots of other strains every bit as strong as they are today. People knew how to grow marijuana properly then, even more people know how to do it now.
Your brilliant mind and revolutionary work will be missed. And no doubt the world will be a little dimmer without your bright spirit glowing among us.
points for reference, original point regarding snitches as informants not withstanding
There is nobody doing anything that they could stop doing. If all the humans drop their arms to their sides and walk away that machine stays on autopilot.
The machine is on. If you turned it off, you WOULD be doing something, turning off the machine. Lifting your hand is doing something. Reaching it out is doing something. Pulling a plug/hitting and off switch. That is doing something.
If a human were performing CPR they could just stop, that would be stopping doing something. If no machine were on, they could not hook one up in the first place. That wouldn't be stopping but it would be doing nothing.
Someone has to actively do something to stop the machine from continuing to keep her alive. That someone is taking a deliberate action to bring about her life. Just the same as if you were in a cave and a ventilation system was circulating fresh air down to you and someone (who knew this) pressed the button to turn off the fans.
huh?
I believe I saw something a few years back where stem cells injections were helping patients like these restore function.
"Just because she's conscious and has a means to convey her wishes, it does not mean that other people around her will respect her wishes. For instance, they could declare her mentally challenged, unable to make correct decisions under the duress and stress of the situation, and she might be overly emotional(like all women are), and the community might make a decision for her different than what she would make for herself."
If she's conscious and has a means to convey her wishes no doctor will ever declare her braindead. Having someone declared mentally challenged and having legal power of attorney doesn't empower you to make the decision to have the plug pulled without a doctor deciding the patient is gone! If she made the call herself it would be doctor assisted suicide, if someone had her declared incompetent it would be doctor assisted murder. In either case THE DOCTOR would be going to prison as well.
Why would they put someone in witness protection who has already testified. He is worthless to the feds at this point. He would have had to negotiate that when he had leverage. That costs money and resources.
There is no such thing as a good snitch.
You mean throw my life away as well? Today? I probably wouldn't. I'm newly married and we are talking about a baby. So no, I wouldn't throw that away. A couple years back? Maybe. 20 years down the line, maybe.
That is a pretty big choice and I certainly wouldn't say someone "sucks as a human being" because of the decision they made. I would say that the people who fight to keep laws like these in place suck as human beings. I'd support some kind of mandatory delay, maybe 90 days. But it's her life and her decision. Suicide and assisted suicide should not be illegal. And I say that as someone who is otherwise very much opposed to suicide.
This is a good point, ESPECIALLY when talking about a stroke. There is no way at this point to determine what her level of functioning will be in six months with rehabilitation. The brain is capable of learning new paths to those nerves throughout the rest of her body. She likely will never be as adept as before the stroke but she might well regain some level of control and sensation through her body.
I believe you are mistaken. There have been serious battles surrounding the issue of whether someone was "gone" enough for it to be legal or moral to turn off the machines. If it weren't an issue he wouldn't be the one to do it. She is conscious and has means to convey her wishes. She could direct the doctors to do it herself.
Nobody should be making her medical decisions for her if she has (albeit limited) a way to communicate and a sound mind.
Like actively unplugging or turning off the machine?
With some rehabilitation she can likely regain mouth movement and then lip reading technologies could open the window dramatically.
As someone else mentioned, there are EEG based cursors. This is actually readily available off the shelf technology made for gaming. If combined with accessibility features available in most operating systems you can get a "mouse" controlled keyboard.
If eyes is what she has, it's what she has. I don't know what the options are for off the shelf solutions. The doctors probably have better ideas about that.
But eye tracking is definitely something that can be done and relatively cheaply. Eye positions. N, S, E, W, NE, NW, SE, SW. That's 8 positions. They can be done with left, right, or both eyes open. That's 24 unique combinations. Combine it with blinks and you can expand that dramatically.
They probably can't. Euthanasia is illegal in most places. If she has higher brain function that probably isn't a legal option.
"Where do you get that this prediction is easily testable ? Have you read the article ?"
Yes. Yes I have.
FTFA, "In just one day over several cups of coffee in a tiny office in Imperial's Blackett Physics Laboratory, three physicists worked out a relatively simple way to physically prove a theory first devised by scientists Breit and Wheeler in 1934."
"Lead researcher Oliver Pike, "... We were able to develop the idea for the collider very quickly, but the experimental design we propose can be carried out with relative ease and with existing technology. Within a few hours of looking for applications of hohlraums outside their traditional role in fusion energy research, we were astonished to find they provided the perfect conditions for creating a photon collider.""
If it can worked out by a PhD candidate on a napkin in a day. I'm calling it easily testable. Not in the sense that it won't be a major accomplishment or in a way that is dismissive of those who actually do it of course. Just versus being physically possible and within reasonable bounds of worth funding.
This is a major prediction of QED. Something can be considered a theory without every major prediction being confirmed but generally only when it is infeasible to test the prediction. Such is the case with QED which is otherwise widely tested and the prediction being tested in the proposed experiment was PREVIOUSLY thought infeasible to test.
But if QED were being considered as a theory today, it would not generally get that distinction with an easily testable major prediction outstanding like this one.
"A theory is a descriptive framework, today usually mathematical. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based on a theory."
A hypothesis is an educated guess to explain an observation of reality. A hypothesis is not a prediction of anything. Predictions are made to test a hypothesis. A hypothesis that is thoroughly tested is called a theory, especially one which encapsulates many tested hypothesis (again, with it's own confirmed predictions).
You've got your order of operations wrong. The first step in the scientific method is not the theory, the first step is observation, followed by hypothesis, followed by prediction, followed by experiments to test prediction, revision if they don't, and in general practice peer review and replication throughout.
QED is a hypothesis whose major predictions were all tested or believed not to be feasible to test. Now it has been found that this major prediction of QED is testable. If QED were being proposed today we wouldn't be calling it a theory without performing this experiment successfully and the results being replicated. That doesn't mean we should stop calling it a theory but a failure in this experiment would definitely put a hole in QED as it sits today.
A theory is a hypothesis whose predictions have been confirmed. So it certainly can't be a theory without first being a hypothesis.
This experiment is testing a prediction of a hypothesis. The hypothesis is based on observation, predictions are based on the hypothesis. QED is being tested here. There being a testable and untested prediction that must be true to confirm QED technically makes it a hypothesis. This prediction was previously thought untestable therefore it was called a theory. All the other testable predictions already having been confirmed just makes it highly unlikely this one won't be as well. But QED failing to predict this would shake things up quite a bit as I understand it.