More taxi than bus. But why buy, when an automated car is essentially a taxi with a computer driver. Just pay for the rides you need, maybe with a cell-phone-like "minutes" or "miles" monthly plan.
Along your lines, the two problems with current auto-drive legistlation (both based on assuming computers aren't as good as people):
1) Requiring a driver to be ready to take over from the computer at all times, and 2) Not allowing computer controlled cars to decide on their own speed (with comms to the police to verify that its actually a computer controlled car). The ability to get from A to B faster if you let the more reliable and safer computer do the driving is an excellent incentive to get people to give up control.
And everyone should always remember ALL AUTO-DRIVES PROPOSED CAN BE TURNED OFF. So, if your in the mood, you can drive for pleasure. You just don't HAVE to drive.
The "algorithm" is a police officer, for whom the masses will also part, and cars that not only move out of the way when they detect impingement, but record video and contact aforementioned police.
Me too. People are not actually reading about the vehicles. They are reacting to what they think the vehicle will be like, rather than what they actually do.
My mom is approaching the point when we're going to have to take away the keys. She's fine for most things, she's just a bit indecisive, hesitant, and, well, wobbly when driving. Taking away the keys means she needs to live with someone, be given rides everywhere etc. Completely unnecessary when the technology exists *RIGHT NOW* to enable her to remain independent. Not allowing/adopting this seem just cruel to me.
Hmm. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_South_Wales, it would appear that you have even more state officials for at least one Australian state than Nevada. (Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Nevada) You just don't get to vote on them all. We get to pick pretty much all the decision makers - the rest of the government implements, and sometimes recommends but does not make policy. I suspect the same at the local level, Australia is prone to using appointments rather than elections. The overall size of government bureaucracy as a percentage of population is similar.
That's really not a moral judgment, you have to allow different people in different places a little room to do their own thing. But my point was, when you vote for that many positions, preferential ballots are going to be unworkable. If you want to extend the argument to say that's a reason to limit the people/positions you can have a direct say in, fine, but I would not want to read that into your position from what you've written. That is a position I disagree with - I would prefer to vote on more things, even with a simpler ballot (first past the post).
The preferential systems are generally preferred by minor parties, as a way of saying "you can vote for us without throwing away your vote", at least in the US. If the trade-off was getting to vote on fewer positions, I don't think you could sell that in the US. People here like having a say in who runs the pool district, who is dog catcher, etc. (No, we don't actually vote for dog catcher in my district, but there are some minor positions such as County Clerk that are elected). Pay for local positions is pretty low (less than half what I make as a software engineer) but the benefits are pretty good.
extra muscle would be useful for sprinters, but not for GC cyclists. There you want aerobic capacity and recovery. Extra muscle is just extra weight to haul around, consuming aerobic capacity, thus requiring more recovery.
I spent 8 years on dialysis, which amounts to 3-4hrs 3/week of watching tv. A shocking number of obese diabetic patients (on very restrictive diets) spent the time watching the Food Channel. It just can't be good for you to lust after a bunch of meals that are direct violations of the diet everyone in the room knows you should be on. I mean, there is a dietitian walking around the place... (who usually brought in samples of sugar-free cookies and punch she'd made for holidays).
Once had a whale of a woman tell me "I never had a problem with the diabetic diet". Other than maintaining her 300lb weight, no she didn't.
Personally, my knees are shot, I have a missing ligament in one knee, and I have severe osteoporosis, and I'm on drugs that inhibit heart rate (which is a problem for cardio exercise, you get out of breath very quickly when your heart just won't speed up anymore).
Partially the result of genetic disease affecting kidneys, partially due to a work-related accident that blew out one knee (sideways). Stuff happens. As you get older, the chance that stuff has happened stops being chance and becomes certainty. And all that wear and tear piles up whether natural or artificial.
Citation? visit a nursing home, or talk to people over 40. Almost everyone over 40 will have some story or another.
Honest curiousity, which votes are removed when a senate candidate wins?
For example: Smith, Jones, and Wiffle are running for 2 positions. The quota would be 33% The votes are: Smith, Jones, Wiffle 45% Smith, Wiffle, Jones 20% Jones, Smith, Wiffle 5% Jones, Wiffle, Smith 5% Wiffle, Smith, Jones 5% Wiffle, Jones, Smith 20%
So, Smith clearly wins. If we don't count any of Smith's voters second preference, Wiffle wins the second seat. But Smith voters preferred Jones 2nd (mostly). How does "Any additional votes for this candidate" play out? throw out the first votes counted (to the quota) then second preference the rest? or do some kind of proportional thing? First votes tossed is a bit random, if you happen to count Smith, Jones first, Jones loses out. If you go proportional, Jones wins.
My last ballot, i was voting for 20-30 different things. I'm gonna be in the booth for 2 hrs or more. Hope they have a chair. Probably should fill out the ballot at home and bring it in.
President Senator Representative Governor Lt. Governor Sec. State (for NV) State Treasurer (NV) State Controller (NV) Attorney General (NV) plus 5-10 county officials (i forget) and a couple judges and a couple of state propositions and a local measure about the airport and i think one about the pool
Generally i would agree. However, in this case, they weren't doing CPR on anyone else, they had time for her. Most of the passengers walked away. With only 2 dead, 10 seriously injured, this should have been well within their capability. There are reports that the girl was moved by a firefighter to the position where she eventually died. Firefighters walked by her (curled up in a fetal position) apparently not realizing she needed help. Why she was left alone there is the big question. Unless she was triaged at that point as "unsavable" she should certainly have gotten more attention. Even if she was "unsavable" they had people walking around fighting the fire, one of whom should have been redirected to sit with her, or to get her further from the scene. It really looks like they just lost track of a person who was not able to take care of herself.
more like racking my old brain to remember my CDF training. Needed a web search to confirm details. But the central point of "there is a casualty, what do we do" requires no real thinking at all. SF Fire has serious questions to answer. Its not rocket science that casualties come before firefighting.
There is a distinct possibility that the casualty was at first in the company of another person on the flight, who abandoned them when the trucks aproached, or otherwise some mis-communication about who was in charge of the individual on the ground. But really, that is such a high priority, the FD really needs to do some soul searching about how this happened, how fire fighting got priority over rescue. It may be a lesson that needs to be learned nationally, a fundamental problem in the way we account for people. Not sure, that may be over kill, but it really needs a very hard look.
"dead" people are dead when a doctor says so, otherwise, CPR continues. There are extreme cases, where someone is obviously dead, but if there is any doubt, CPR continues. If you can't tell whether she needs CPR or not, she is alive, and her need for first aid is first priority.
Sorry, this thing has me a little pissed. I did firefighting for a while, and the more I read or think about this, the sloppier it looks, and the angrier I get.
To get at fire inside the aircraft, positioning near the aircraft is necessary. They are going to have to move around.
The real issue is why a girl was left lying on the tarmac by first responders. The general rule is RECEO Rescue - get any people to safety, first-aid as needed Exposures - secure/protect any nearby structures or other risks Confinment - prevent the spread of the fire, limit it's growth Extinguish - put out the fire Overhaul - go over the scene to ensure no remaining embers/restart risk, begin investigation
You did these things in this order, back in the day. Someone in need of rescue preempted putting out a fire. So, I would have expected a body on the ground to get priority attention. Someone(s) should have had her on a stretcher and away from the scene as quickly as possible, or at least posted a person to ensure she didn't come to further harm in the melee. Off-hand, it seems the excitement of the fire got priority. After she was covered in foam, it was near inevitable she'd get hit by something moving around the scene.
But firefighting rules have changed over the years, so what do i know. Wait for the investigation, then decide whether to get angry or not.
The idea is if that if you know what is causing the behavior, perhaps you can remediate better with an improved drug/drug cocktail. You can't fix it very well if you don't know what is wrong. Fixing it would make these people much more employable, generally. I think Hollywood prefers them insane, but elsewhere not so much.
Employers are already drug testing for a large number of professions. Its not Gattaca by a long stretch though. Personally, I don't want to work with people that are unsafe for mental heath, drug/alcohol problems, or whatever. If there is a marker for unsafe, by all means test for it. If I come back with "not enough fear of heights" and they restrict me from working in high places, all well and good - I benefit by being safer. The argument that this translates into no job is a slippery slope fallacy. There are already jobs I cannot do because of markers - I was turned down for air traffic control for medical reasons. Can't be a pilot either. But I am still employed making a decent living. There are plenty of jobs for 'average' people with a little education and willingness to work.
And yeah, being an active alcoholic is going to impair your life. But I don't think it's as bleak as your making it out to be. My employer offers programs for employees for a variety of pseudo-mental health issues (addictions, stress, marital problems, difficult kids, etc). And of course, actual mental heath for people with more serious issues.
more evidence: suicide survivor Ken Baldwin - 'I instantly realized that everything in my life that Id thought was unfixable was totally fixable.....except for having just jumped.'
This is done in the UK right now. Only with cameras, and the ticket is mailed to you, saving the expense of two cars and six police officer salaries required for 24/7 coverage.
The list does not work the way you think it does. My brother had not been employed for several years, not a problem. Kidney transplants are money saving operations, so money is not really an obstacle. All kidney patients are eligible for Medicare, and the break-even of cost of transplanted patients vs dialysis is 2 years or less. So, generally the government is eager for you to get a kidney transplant because they are covering all or the bulk of your costs regardless of socio-economic status or voluntariness of your residence.
So... everyone goes on the list, and it's pretty much do first come, first serve, with exceptions for people who have some particular difficulty that might make a long wait impossible. Generally, loss of kidney function will not kill you directly, you can live a very long time on dialysis. My brother lived for several years with no kidneys at all (removed for extreme size).
Bad (medical) behavior can get you off the list (excessive drugs, alcohol, or obesity, for example), but money can be worked around.
Other organs do not have the same cost-benefit structure, and there are not alternative therapies, so the rules work differently.
I don't know what the rules are for sex changes, so I'm no help there.
Mmm, really? Arab countries famously have laws prohibiting Israeli content in products. The US has laws outlawing such (http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htmt).
The problem is that you can't get countries to agree to have compatible laws, and the internet presence of a company is effectively in one place. If the rules are different from locale to locale, users will tend to gravitate to one particular locale that is most attractive (for whatever reason). Insisting on enforcing your laws in someone else's locale is futile. The logical extension of this is that companies with internet presence would have to comply with every law in every country - a logical impossibility, not to mention the practical impossibility.
Having the US to blame for everything helps pull the continent together. I'd like to see Europe cut itself off from Google, Apple. Ebay, et.al. It would be entertaining. Be interesting to see whether the rest of the world followed them, or stuck with the American services they are used to. Be interesting to see everything required to have French as the default, or at least in an equal prominence as English. Basically, I don't have confidence in Europe's ability to settle it's own differences, without accusing each other of spying, or controlling, or destroying other cultures, etc. Watching them have to deal honestly with their internal divisions would be fascinating.
Nuke plants are steam-based. Steam turbines have long startup and shutdown times as a consequence of the heat soaking requirements. The demands of rapidly changing the heat of different parts of the plant are very damaging. I only really know a little about the turbines themselves - the machines are so large and the steam so hot that you get differential expansion on the parts of the machine if you do not follow a very specific (and slow) regimen during startup. Heat to this temperature, this speed, soak for 3hrs, move to the next heat/speed, soak for hours, repeat 4 or 5 times to get to running speed where you can generate electricity. Other parts of the generation stream (the boilers, piping, heat exchangers, water treatment, water recovery, etc. all have demanding startup requirements of their own.
If you don't follow the plan, the rotor/blade-rotating part of the machine may thermally expand into the stationary casing (that isn't absorbing heat as fast, and consequently not expanding as fast). I've heard stories of machine trains where the expansion is measured in inches. If the innards grow an inch, but the case doesn't, well, it's bad. You will not be generating electricity today.
Slashdot Mirror
More taxi than bus. But why buy, when an automated car is essentially a taxi with a computer driver. Just pay for the rides you need, maybe with a cell-phone-like "minutes" or "miles" monthly plan.
Yeah, auto insurance merges with manufacturer liability.
Along your lines, the two problems with current auto-drive legistlation (both based on assuming computers aren't as good as people):
1) Requiring a driver to be ready to take over from the computer at all times, and
2) Not allowing computer controlled cars to decide on their own speed (with comms to the police to verify that its actually a computer controlled car). The ability to get from A to B faster if you let the more reliable and safer computer do the driving is an excellent incentive to get people to give up control.
And everyone should always remember ALL AUTO-DRIVES PROPOSED CAN BE TURNED OFF. So, if your in the mood, you can drive for pleasure. You just don't HAVE to drive.
The "algorithm" is a police officer, for whom the masses will also part, and cars that not only move out of the way when they detect impingement, but record video and contact aforementioned police.
Me too. People are not actually reading about the vehicles. They are reacting to what they think the vehicle will be like, rather than what they actually do.
My mom is approaching the point when we're going to have to take away the keys. She's fine for most things, she's just a bit indecisive, hesitant, and, well, wobbly when driving. Taking away the keys means she needs to live with someone, be given rides everywhere etc. Completely unnecessary when the technology exists *RIGHT NOW* to enable her to remain independent. Not allowing/adopting this seem just cruel to me.
Guys! YOU CAN TURN AUTO-DRIVE OFF!!!!
Hmm. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_South_Wales, it would appear that you have even more state officials for at least one Australian state than Nevada. (Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Nevada) You just don't get to vote on them all. We get to pick pretty much all the decision makers - the rest of the government implements, and sometimes recommends but does not make policy. I suspect the same at the local level, Australia is prone to using appointments rather than elections. The overall size of government bureaucracy as a percentage of population is similar.
That's really not a moral judgment, you have to allow different people in different places a little room to do their own thing. But my point was, when you vote for that many positions, preferential ballots are going to be unworkable. If you want to extend the argument to say that's a reason to limit the people/positions you can have a direct say in, fine, but I would not want to read that into your position from what you've written. That is a position I disagree with - I would prefer to vote on more things, even with a simpler ballot (first past the post).
The preferential systems are generally preferred by minor parties, as a way of saying "you can vote for us without throwing away your vote", at least in the US. If the trade-off was getting to vote on fewer positions, I don't think you could sell that in the US. People here like having a say in who runs the pool district, who is dog catcher, etc. (No, we don't actually vote for dog catcher in my district, but there are some minor positions such as County Clerk that are elected). Pay for local positions is pretty low (less than half what I make as a software engineer) but the benefits are pretty good.
extra muscle would be useful for sprinters, but not for GC cyclists. There you want aerobic capacity and recovery. Extra muscle is just extra weight to haul around, consuming aerobic capacity, thus requiring more recovery.
I spent 8 years on dialysis, which amounts to 3-4hrs 3/week of watching tv. A shocking number of obese diabetic patients (on very restrictive diets) spent the time watching the Food Channel. It just can't be good for you to lust after a bunch of meals that are direct violations of the diet everyone in the room knows you should be on. I mean, there is a dietitian walking around the place... (who usually brought in samples of sugar-free cookies and punch she'd made for holidays).
Once had a whale of a woman tell me "I never had a problem with the diabetic diet". Other than maintaining her 300lb weight, no she didn't.
Personally, my knees are shot, I have a missing ligament in one knee, and I have severe osteoporosis, and I'm on drugs that inhibit heart rate (which is a problem for cardio exercise, you get out of breath very quickly when your heart just won't speed up anymore).
Partially the result of genetic disease affecting kidneys, partially due to a work-related accident that blew out one knee (sideways). Stuff happens. As you get older, the chance that stuff has happened stops being chance and becomes certainty. And all that wear and tear piles up whether natural or artificial.
Citation? visit a nursing home, or talk to people over 40. Almost everyone over 40 will have some story or another.
Honest curiousity, which votes are removed when a senate candidate wins?
For example: Smith, Jones, and Wiffle are running for 2 positions. The quota would be 33%
The votes are:
Smith, Jones, Wiffle 45%
Smith, Wiffle, Jones 20%
Jones, Smith, Wiffle 5%
Jones, Wiffle, Smith 5%
Wiffle, Smith, Jones 5%
Wiffle, Jones, Smith 20%
So, Smith clearly wins. If we don't count any of Smith's voters second preference, Wiffle wins the second seat. But Smith voters preferred Jones 2nd (mostly). How does "Any additional votes for this candidate" play out? throw out the first votes counted (to the quota) then second preference the rest? or do some kind of proportional thing? First votes tossed is a bit random, if you happen to count Smith, Jones first, Jones loses out. If you go proportional, Jones wins.
5 minutes for 1 position?
My last ballot, i was voting for 20-30 different things. I'm gonna be in the booth for 2 hrs or more. Hope they have a chair. Probably should fill out the ballot at home and bring it in.
President
Senator
Representative
Governor
Lt. Governor
Sec. State (for NV)
State Treasurer (NV)
State Controller (NV)
Attorney General (NV)
plus 5-10 county officials (i forget)
and a couple judges
and a couple of state propositions
and a local measure about the airport and i think one about the pool
Generally i would agree. However, in this case, they weren't doing CPR on anyone else, they had time for her. Most of the passengers walked away. With only 2 dead, 10 seriously injured, this should have been well within their capability. There are reports that the girl was moved by a firefighter to the position where she eventually died. Firefighters walked by her (curled up in a fetal position) apparently not realizing she needed help. Why she was left alone there is the big question. Unless she was triaged at that point as "unsavable" she should certainly have gotten more attention. Even if she was "unsavable" they had people walking around fighting the fire, one of whom should have been redirected to sit with her, or to get her further from the scene. It really looks like they just lost track of a person who was not able to take care of herself.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/peninsula&id=9185603
agreed
more like racking my old brain to remember my CDF training. Needed a web search to confirm details. But the central point of "there is a casualty, what do we do" requires no real thinking at all. SF Fire has serious questions to answer. Its not rocket science that casualties come before firefighting.
There is a distinct possibility that the casualty was at first in the company of another person on the flight, who abandoned them when the trucks aproached, or otherwise some mis-communication about who was in charge of the individual on the ground. But really, that is such a high priority, the FD really needs to do some soul searching about how this happened, how fire fighting got priority over rescue. It may be a lesson that needs to be learned nationally, a fundamental problem in the way we account for people. Not sure, that may be over kill, but it really needs a very hard look.
"dead" people are dead when a doctor says so, otherwise, CPR continues. There are extreme cases, where someone is obviously dead, but if there is any doubt, CPR continues. If you can't tell whether she needs CPR or not, she is alive, and her need for first aid is first priority.
Sorry, this thing has me a little pissed. I did firefighting for a while, and the more I read or think about this, the sloppier it looks, and the angrier I get.
To get at fire inside the aircraft, positioning near the aircraft is necessary. They are going to have to move around.
The real issue is why a girl was left lying on the tarmac by first responders. The general rule is RECEO
Rescue - get any people to safety, first-aid as needed
Exposures - secure/protect any nearby structures or other risks
Confinment - prevent the spread of the fire, limit it's growth
Extinguish - put out the fire
Overhaul - go over the scene to ensure no remaining embers/restart risk, begin investigation
You did these things in this order, back in the day. Someone in need of rescue preempted putting out a fire. So, I would have expected a body on the ground to get priority attention. Someone(s) should have had her on a stretcher and away from the scene as quickly as possible, or at least posted a person to ensure she didn't come to further harm in the melee. Off-hand, it seems the excitement of the fire got priority. After she was covered in foam, it was near inevitable she'd get hit by something moving around the scene.
But firefighting rules have changed over the years, so what do i know. Wait for the investigation, then decide whether to get angry or not.
The idea is if that if you know what is causing the behavior, perhaps you can remediate better with an improved drug/drug cocktail. You can't fix it very well if you don't know what is wrong. Fixing it would make these people much more employable, generally. I think Hollywood prefers them insane, but elsewhere not so much.
Employers are already drug testing for a large number of professions. Its not Gattaca by a long stretch though. Personally, I don't want to work with people that are unsafe for mental heath, drug/alcohol problems, or whatever. If there is a marker for unsafe, by all means test for it. If I come back with "not enough fear of heights" and they restrict me from working in high places, all well and good - I benefit by being safer. The argument that this translates into no job is a slippery slope fallacy. There are already jobs I cannot do because of markers - I was turned down for air traffic control for medical reasons. Can't be a pilot either. But I am still employed making a decent living. There are plenty of jobs for 'average' people with a little education and willingness to work.
And yeah, being an active alcoholic is going to impair your life. But I don't think it's as bleak as your making it out to be. My employer offers programs for employees for a variety of pseudo-mental health issues (addictions, stress, marital problems, difficult kids, etc). And of course, actual mental heath for people with more serious issues.
more evidence: suicide survivor Ken Baldwin - 'I instantly realized that everything in my life that Id thought was unfixable was totally fixable.....except for having just jumped.'
Sorry, forgot the
This is done in the UK right now. Only with cameras, and the ticket is mailed to you, saving the expense of two cars and six police officer salaries required for 24/7 coverage.
It's racist to assume that people violating the law are a particular race. You just have to stop thinking altogether, or you're racist.
The list does not work the way you think it does. My brother had not been employed for several years, not a problem. Kidney transplants are money saving operations, so money is not really an obstacle. All kidney patients are eligible for Medicare, and the break-even of cost of transplanted patients vs dialysis is 2 years or less. So, generally the government is eager for you to get a kidney transplant because they are covering all or the bulk of your costs regardless of socio-economic status or voluntariness of your residence.
So... everyone goes on the list, and it's pretty much do first come, first serve, with exceptions for people who have some particular difficulty that might make a long wait impossible. Generally, loss of kidney function will not kill you directly, you can live a very long time on dialysis. My brother lived for several years with no kidneys at all (removed for extreme size).
Bad (medical) behavior can get you off the list (excessive drugs, alcohol, or obesity, for example), but money can be worked around.
Other organs do not have the same cost-benefit structure, and there are not alternative therapies, so the rules work differently.
I don't know what the rules are for sex changes, so I'm no help there.
Windows 8 turned me into a newt!
Mmm, really? Arab countries famously have laws prohibiting Israeli content in products. The US has laws outlawing such (http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htmt).
The problem is that you can't get countries to agree to have compatible laws, and the internet presence of a company is effectively in one place. If the rules are different from locale to locale, users will tend to gravitate to one particular locale that is most attractive (for whatever reason). Insisting on enforcing your laws in someone else's locale is futile. The logical extension of this is that companies with internet presence would have to comply with every law in every country - a logical impossibility, not to mention the practical impossibility.
Having the US to blame for everything helps pull the continent together. I'd like to see Europe cut itself off from Google, Apple. Ebay, et.al. It would be entertaining. Be interesting to see whether the rest of the world followed them, or stuck with the American services they are used to. Be interesting to see everything required to have French as the default, or at least in an equal prominence as English. Basically, I don't have confidence in Europe's ability to settle it's own differences, without accusing each other of spying, or controlling, or destroying other cultures, etc. Watching them have to deal honestly with their internal divisions would be fascinating.
Nuke plants are steam-based. Steam turbines have long startup and shutdown times as a consequence of the heat soaking requirements. The demands of rapidly changing the heat of different parts of the plant are very damaging. I only really know a little about the turbines themselves - the machines are so large and the steam so hot that you get differential expansion on the parts of the machine if you do not follow a very specific (and slow) regimen during startup. Heat to this temperature, this speed, soak for 3hrs, move to the next heat/speed, soak for hours, repeat 4 or 5 times to get to running speed where you can generate electricity. Other parts of the generation stream (the boilers, piping, heat exchangers, water treatment, water recovery, etc. all have demanding startup requirements of their own.
If you don't follow the plan, the rotor/blade-rotating part of the machine may thermally expand into the stationary casing (that isn't absorbing heat as fast, and consequently not expanding as fast). I've heard stories of machine trains where the expansion is measured in inches. If the innards grow an inch, but the case doesn't, well, it's bad. You will not be generating electricity today.
Power demand, for the curious.
http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html