Whoa! Sunday on Animal Planet last night had a program about pet inventions. One was a cat doorbell for cats that live places where cat doors can't be put in. They say it takes a cat about a weekend to figure out how to use it.
So it's quite possible that the other cat watched yours. Why it saw your house as safe may be that your cat gave good references!
Pavlov had psychologists conditioned to think that classical and operant conditioning were the only way to learn to do things, and Skinner just reinforced this behavior. (Sorry, I had to go for the cheap puns.)
It's only in our lifetime that the experiment proving that human children can learn to do things by watching others. In the classic experiment, they put a Bobo the Clown punching bag in a room and had a child go in and be violent toward the punching bag. Children, watching this, then went in and were violent toward the punching bag. Other children, seeing a child acting non-violently toward the punching bag, acted non-violently toward the punching bag.
In response to the criticism that Bobo the Punching Bag was supposed to be struck, the experimenter substituted a live clown with the same results. And you thought YOUR job sucked.
(Homey don't do that experiment.)
The original experiment was done in 1965 and Bandura pulled a "Flowers For Algernon" with the research (i.e. spend the rest of your career doing variations on the same theme). So it's understandable that psychologists and animal behaviorists are reluctant to think that animals can learn to do by watching others.
This is one of the more astounding things about Dr. Pepperberg's work. She trains parrots using the "Rival-Model" method which works by having the subject, a rival (who can do the desired behavior) and the tester. The tester asks the question, and whoever gives the correct answer first gets the reward.
You don't have to train an African Grey parrot to be a smartass.
It's an instinctive behavior. Their sense of humor is, by human standards, a bit evil.
The classic example of this is a parrot that would bite someone, and then apologize and act all sorrowful. The humans, of course, would attempt to pet the parrot again. The parrot would then bite the huam and laugh like a maniac.
And then apologize, act contrite, and see if he could bite the human again.
One does have to wonder who's testing who's intelligence, especially when you consider that there were people bitten repeatedly by the parrot.
That reminds me. There's some place in Eastern Europe where a bear learned to knock on the door and when the humans answered, push it's way in and grab food and then leave. One human family said that, having fallen for the bear's ruse three times, they now look to see who's knocking before answering the door.
I thought stuff like that was supposed to be "one trial learning"?
If you'd read any of Pepperberg's studies of Alex (or, for that matter, anted up the ~$12 for this article like I did, parrot owner and science nerd that I am) you'd understand that Alex actually tested to see if Alex was using "none" as a way of meaning "zero."
Alex was taught "none" to describe when two blocks of different colors but the same size were presented and Alex was asked "Which color bigger?" In that case, Alex used the word "none" to indicate that they were the same size.
To go from using "none" to indicate that there was no difference to use it to indicate that there were no items of the described characteristics is a small leap for an adult human, but very difficult for small human children and parrots.
Non-human primates can't make that kind of jump. In some ways, Alex, with the brain the size of a walnut, is smarter than an ape with a much bigger brain! Of course, evolution would have selected for a low-weight, highly effective brain in birds because of the weight cost of flying.
Based on what's described in the newest article, I actually suspect that Alex was looking for a word to express just this concept, or something like it. He may have had the concept before he had a word to describe it.
Pepperberg, by the way, knows that she is working in a suspect realm of science. If she cannot document something with experimental evidence that holds up under statistical analysis, she won't say it. That also means that her scientific writing is almost impossible to parse. It's great research, but if you read too much of it, your eyes will bleed.
The best example is the proof that Alex can be ornery. Anyone who owns a parrot knows the #$%^ birds are ornery. But when Alex acted up and proceeded to answer questions wrong, Alex went through every possible answer except the correct one. Pepperberg showed that the probability of that happening by chance was extremely unlikely, and that the only reasonable explanation was that Alex was deliberately answering incorrectly.
One last thing: If Alex is simply answering questions, Alex has an accuracy rate of about 80%. If Alex is competing with another parrot or someone Alex doesn't like, the accuracy goes up to 100%. When attempting to give incorrect answers, again, the accuracy is 100%
There is no doubt in my mind that Alex considers the humans around him to be the inferior species, to be messed with at will. If Pepperberg thinks that as well, she won't say it...until she can prove it conclusively with experiments and statistics.
That, if true, is an interesting statistic, but I'd like to know where it came from.
There have been several studies on energy expenditure and human beings. The usual method is to collect the exhalate and measure the decrease in the oxygen or the increase in carbon dioxide, or both. If you also measure the volume exhaled, then you have a pretty good measure of energy expenditure with time.
A cruder method is to measure your heart rate. If you've got one of the many heart monitors used by runners or cyclists, this is trivial.
The study's been done several times. I thought there was one in Noakes The Lore of Running but I can't find it. Then again, finding anything in Noakes' book is difficult.
To make a point, I've had people put on my heart monitor and watch TV or play cards or read a book. I haven't told them what I was doing, and guaranteed, they'll drop their heart rate the greatest while watching most TV (24 and Babylon 5 and a few other shows excepted).
I now watch TV standing up or doing something else that will force me to be active.
If I can find the reference, I'll post it as a follow-up to this message.
I've started using my blog as a way to find references to a lot of this stuff!
Imagine a beowulf cluster of a marathon of these babies!
I'm doing Cleveland's Marathon (yeah, 26.2 miles, 42.2 km) this weekend. Not only can I have desert afterward, but I'd be able to watch TV for ages!
The energy expended by the human body while watching TV is actually less than the energy expended sitting, doing nothing. If this device forces the kids to sit there and shake their foot, it's an improvement.
I do wonder what this decreased energy expenditure while watching TV says about the ability to think while watching TV....
The DPP study showed that exercise and diet were two critical ways to prevent diabetes. As it is, Type II diabetes is being seen in children, when a generation ago it was a disease of older people.
Diabetes can be controlled, but it is still a life-threatening illness. I made the mistake of thinking that I was "too old to run." I became a diabetic as a result of that stupidity.
This shoe may be a form of "pinhead responsibility," but pinhead responsibility is better than no responsibility whatsoever. If it enables parents to control TV and exercise in their children, then it will be useful.
Is it a weak solution to the problem? Certainly. Can it be hacked by the child? More than likely. But at least it's a start. It sure beats kidney failure, heart disease, blindness, stroke, impotence, and death. It certainly beats the cost of all those little kids spending their lives as diabetics.
Heck, it beats having to pass up deserts. Unless you are a diabetic, you have no idea how this disease sucks.
Does it run Linux? I'm sure someone will find a way, and it might even improve the system!
These eggs show microevolution to be a fact, although most creationists will accept that. Microevolution is the mutation of a species to better adapt to it's surroundings by small amounts that do not create new species.
The startling point is that we're talking about only 100 years. Given the number of generations the Daphnia can manage in that time, I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.
But think: if you can get that much useful change in such a short amount of time, how much more can occur over hundreds of thousands of years?
The first question is whether this happens in human DNA. Then the second question would be, if the first answer is positive, is there any way to ensure that it occurs? It occurred very rarely in the plants, which ain't a good sign. Third, is there a way to take advantage of it even if it could be made reliable?
That's a lot of ifs. People get Nobel Prizes for such ifs. People also spend their entire lives doing such research and come up with crapola.
Earth life that might survive on Mars would not be found anywhere near the spacecraft.
The signature's too big. There's no way Earthlife that would survive on Mars (see point 1) would spread that fast.
If there is life there, it's Martian or came from Earth back when Mars was more habitable. And yes, just as Mars rocks can make it to Earth, Earth rocks might have been blasted to Mars by a meteor impact, and life could have survived both the impact and the trip.
Alas and dang it, the methane's probably due to non-life chemical reactions. Still, life's an interesting possibility.
Unsupported statement. What scientists? My reading indicates the bulk still follow the old train of thought. References please.
Sorry, I assumed the original article would have been read - it mentions that sexual reproduction is a puzzle. Try this article for a look at some of the problems (and possibly a solution).
The only important thing is that they do better in th real world.
Ah, but then that means we don't understand what's going on yet, does it? If we can't reproduce the results with a model, then we need to learn more. That was the whole point.
Same reasons many other parasites lost functions of and even the appearance of organs.
Note to self: rhetorical questions don't work well on Slashdot. Flight is a wonderful ability - animals from birds to mammals to ants. Birds that don't have predators almost always lose the ability to fly - c.f. ostrich. Flying's too expensive energy-wise - if it's not needed.
So, what is it that allows giardia to drop sexual reproduction? What is it that forces giardia to keep the genes ready "just in case?" There's a good chance the answer might be found because of giardia!
More importantly, Sexual reproduction offers something that's fairly lacking in asexual reproduction: Significant genetic exchange.
That was the old thought. For years now, scientists have been doubting that theory. The work with the digital life has shown that, while it confers more genetic variety, it also allows more genetic damage to collect.
Sexually reproducing organisms do not do any better under most simulation conditions.
Recent studies of giardia have shown that this ancient organism has the genes for sexual reproduction. Apparently, sexual reproduction conferred some powerful advantage, given how early it developed in the history of life. But if this is so, why does giardia not actually use sexual reproduction? The genes are there - they have just never been seen to be activated. In all the conditions so far observed, giardia reproduces asexually. If the advantage of sexual reproduction is so great, why did giardia give it up?
According to the ESA did not have adequate funding in place when Beagle 2 was given the go-ahead. Their own report said that under those circumstances, the program never should have been started. Major cost over-runs in construction, caused by bad management and (strangely enough) lack of established funding, worsened the situation.
Add to that the attempt to design the Beagle 2 as a "bolt-on" experiment instead of a separate spacecraft (which it would be during separation, re-entry and landing) meant that the Beagle 2 was doomed. The myriad possible failure modes highlight how bad this decision was.
Of course, because no one thought to have telemetry from the Beagle 2 once it separated - only after it landed safely - the only way anyone will ever figure out what really went wrong will be to recover the pieces and do a physical analysis. If those future explorers discover there were multiple failure modes, I wouldn't be surprised.
No government will send explorers to find out. Instead, some Richard Branson-like people (i.e. rich nerds) will get together on their vacation to Mars and mount an expedition to the wreckage site and announce the results to the press.
"They'd better have his fellow firefighters on the stand talking about his 'deep, disturbing fascination with fire" and how he 'would often get to the fire in his own vehicle before the fire trucks.'"
That's not necessarily the case. For example, a relatively local fire department, wishing a new fire hall, decided that burning down the fire hall was the solution. Failing the first time, they tried again.
In a lot of cases, it's not the fascination with fire, but the need to be a hero.
In others, where the size or need for the F.D. was in question, arson is a simple way to "prove" the necessity.
A couple cases where I've known the individuals, the cause was boredom. The fire fighters wanted something to do.
All these individuals are deeply disturbed. A reasonable individual does not see such a violent act as a "solution," does not need to prove their heorism, does not make political points by violence, nor do they threaten the lives of other fire fighters for kicks.
They are deeply disturbed, but they aren't your classic pyro. If anything, a lot of pyros tend to do well as fire fighters. If they recognize that they have a problem and channel their urges into fighting fires, they can do well.
A local steel mill had a pyro for a "salamander," someone who went around keeping the fires lit. Only after the steel mill closed did he become a danger to society again.
If the lawyer is presenting the truth, she or he would wish me on the jury. If the lawyer is shovelling the semi-solid metabolic waste products, their jury consultant will tell them to get me out of there with the very first pre-emption.
I've actually helped defend a fire fighter from charges that he committed arson. He was innocent - eventually (as in this case) someone else was found to be the perp. In my case, it was another fire fighter, who attempted to frame the first fire fighter.
I'd trust circumstantial evidence over eyewitness testimony any day. About 1/2 of the eyewitness testimony I've heard when in court or at a coroner's inquest would have been funny were the matter not so serious. About a quarter of the remainder was plausible but contradicted by videotape or other hard evidence.
"They'd have to convince a jury that this "noble, hard working volunteer firefighter...."
There's the conviction right there. The prosecuter brings in an FBI profiler who points out that firefighters are the first ones they check out when they're looking for an arsonist.
Most firefighters are good, hardworking folks. But the profession (and it is, whether you get paid or volunteer) also attracts those who have an unhealthy fascination with fire or those who are driven by internal demons.
First, the checkout will only find certain kinds of problems, the Shuttles can still get creamed on launch or reentry.
The biggest known risk factor for shuttle loss on re-entry is loss of tiles. Period.
OTOH, no matter where you are, a competent space organization can always send another Shuttle up.
Not in time. You can't get to Hubble before basic supplies run out unless you have a fully prepped shuttle ready to go when you launch. If the first orbiter was damaged by a systemic failure, you won't launch it, either. Boosting up a Progress supply ship to the stranded orbiter is problematic in Hubble's orbit, as is sending a Soyuz recovery capsule. The Russians aren't used to dealing with stuff in Hubble's orbit. Especially since they launch so far from the equator, there'd be some real problems getting a recovery capsule to Hubble. The Russians have said that it's not a realistic option for them.
Why sacrifice a useful tool for a boondoggle?
You believe it's a boondoggle. That's nice. Even if you were right, killing the ISS will kill the space program politically. The real problem with the ISS is the unwillingness by Congress to spend the needed money. NASA has had to learn to make a bad system work, and they've gotten a decent amount of science out of it as well.
We have the ISS now. Deorbit it, and you'll never get anything like it ever again. Well, at least not until the Chinese or Indians begin orbital construction.
Dont forget, American soldiers have (I am almost sure) the most money spent on them by far compared to other country's soldiers.
I'll admit I was being a bit flippant, but if you think about it, there are already machines out there where it's already considered cost-effective to lose a few humans than to lose the machine.
If there were something on a battlefield like an Ogre (large autonomous tank from the Steve Jackson game by the same name), it might be of such strategic importance that a human would be required to sacrifice her or his life for the robot - and the other humans, and the battle.
Let's face it, war forces one to make ugly choices. Of course, when a company decides it's cheaper to pay the liability claims for the deaths and injury than to correct the product, the same decisions are made - and there's no war.
Somehow, this has me thinking of the old Steve Jackson game "Ogre". I've still got a copy of "Ogre", "GEV", and at least one expansion pack.
The basic McGuffin is you've got one huge mother of a cybernetic tank with armor plating that shoots micronukes and it goes up against an entire army - and the battle's a fair fight!
Then again, with the current administration, perhaps I should be playing "Rivets" instead. "Rivets" were the third-world's answer to the superpower Ogres. The robots were rather dain-bramaged and could only shoot at what they were programmed to shoot at. It's a funny game, in a sick sort of way.
Slashdot Mirror
The author's got his axes to grind, but it's amazing what the kid was able to accomplish. Frighting, but amazing.
And sad how things turned out.
Ok, should have seen that one coming....
So it's quite possible that the other cat watched yours. Why it saw your house as safe may be that your cat gave good references!
Pavlov had psychologists conditioned to think that classical and operant conditioning were the only way to learn to do things, and Skinner just reinforced this behavior. (Sorry, I had to go for the cheap puns.)
It's only in our lifetime that the experiment proving that human children can learn to do things by watching others. In the classic experiment, they put a Bobo the Clown punching bag in a room and had a child go in and be violent toward the punching bag. Children, watching this, then went in and were violent toward the punching bag. Other children, seeing a child acting non-violently toward the punching bag, acted non-violently toward the punching bag.
In response to the criticism that Bobo the Punching Bag was supposed to be struck, the experimenter substituted a live clown with the same results. And you thought YOUR job sucked. (Homey don't do that experiment.)
The original experiment was done in 1965 and Bandura pulled a "Flowers For Algernon" with the research (i.e. spend the rest of your career doing variations on the same theme). So it's understandable that psychologists and animal behaviorists are reluctant to think that animals can learn to do by watching others.
This is one of the more astounding things about Dr. Pepperberg's work. She trains parrots using the "Rival-Model" method which works by having the subject, a rival (who can do the desired behavior) and the tester. The tester asks the question, and whoever gives the correct answer first gets the reward.
Eventually the parrot learns.
Skinner would have a conniption.
It's an instinctive behavior. Their sense of humor is, by human standards, a bit evil.
The classic example of this is a parrot that would bite someone, and then apologize and act all sorrowful. The humans, of course, would attempt to pet the parrot again. The parrot would then bite the huam and laugh like a maniac.
And then apologize, act contrite, and see if he could bite the human again.
One does have to wonder who's testing who's intelligence, especially when you consider that there were people bitten repeatedly by the parrot.
That reminds me. There's some place in Eastern Europe where a bear learned to knock on the door and when the humans answered, push it's way in and grab food and then leave. One human family said that, having fallen for the bear's ruse three times, they now look to see who's knocking before answering the door.
I thought stuff like that was supposed to be "one trial learning"?
Alex was taught "none" to describe when two blocks of different colors but the same size were presented and Alex was asked "Which color bigger?" In that case, Alex used the word "none" to indicate that they were the same size.
To go from using "none" to indicate that there was no difference to use it to indicate that there were no items of the described characteristics is a small leap for an adult human, but very difficult for small human children and parrots.
Non-human primates can't make that kind of jump. In some ways, Alex, with the brain the size of a walnut, is smarter than an ape with a much bigger brain! Of course, evolution would have selected for a low-weight, highly effective brain in birds because of the weight cost of flying.
Based on what's described in the newest article, I actually suspect that Alex was looking for a word to express just this concept, or something like it. He may have had the concept before he had a word to describe it.
Pepperberg, by the way, knows that she is working in a suspect realm of science. If she cannot document something with experimental evidence that holds up under statistical analysis, she won't say it. That also means that her scientific writing is almost impossible to parse. It's great research, but if you read too much of it, your eyes will bleed.
The best example is the proof that Alex can be ornery. Anyone who owns a parrot knows the #$%^ birds are ornery. But when Alex acted up and proceeded to answer questions wrong, Alex went through every possible answer except the correct one. Pepperberg showed that the probability of that happening by chance was extremely unlikely, and that the only reasonable explanation was that Alex was deliberately answering incorrectly.
One last thing: If Alex is simply answering questions, Alex has an accuracy rate of about 80%. If Alex is competing with another parrot or someone Alex doesn't like, the accuracy goes up to 100%. When attempting to give incorrect answers, again, the accuracy is 100%
There is no doubt in my mind that Alex considers the humans around him to be the inferior species, to be messed with at will. If Pepperberg thinks that as well, she won't say it...until she can prove it conclusively with experiments and statistics.
I'm sure Ford is grateful to you for the suggestion!
There have been several studies on energy expenditure and human beings. The usual method is to collect the exhalate and measure the decrease in the oxygen or the increase in carbon dioxide, or both. If you also measure the volume exhaled, then you have a pretty good measure of energy expenditure with time.
A cruder method is to measure your heart rate. If you've got one of the many heart monitors used by runners or cyclists, this is trivial.
The study's been done several times. I thought there was one in Noakes The Lore of Running but I can't find it. Then again, finding anything in Noakes' book is difficult.
To make a point, I've had people put on my heart monitor and watch TV or play cards or read a book. I haven't told them what I was doing, and guaranteed, they'll drop their heart rate the greatest while watching most TV (24 and Babylon 5 and a few other shows excepted).
I now watch TV standing up or doing something else that will force me to be active.
If I can find the reference, I'll post it as a follow-up to this message.
I've started using my blog as a way to find references to a lot of this stuff!
Imagine a beowulf cluster of a marathon of these babies! I'm doing Cleveland's Marathon (yeah, 26.2 miles, 42.2 km) this weekend. Not only can I have desert afterward, but I'd be able to watch TV for ages!
I was a paramedic for far too many years. You have no idea the average level of human stupidity, nor just how bad the average level of parenting is.
Would we need this? Probably not. Are there folks out there for whom this would be useful?
Far too many.
I do wonder what this decreased energy expenditure while watching TV says about the ability to think while watching TV....
No, wait. I don't wonder at all!
The DPP study showed that exercise and diet were two critical ways to prevent diabetes. As it is, Type II diabetes is being seen in children, when a generation ago it was a disease of older people.
Diabetes can be controlled, but it is still a life-threatening illness. I made the mistake of thinking that I was "too old to run." I became a diabetic as a result of that stupidity.
This shoe may be a form of "pinhead responsibility," but pinhead responsibility is better than no responsibility whatsoever. If it enables parents to control TV and exercise in their children, then it will be useful.
Is it a weak solution to the problem? Certainly. Can it be hacked by the child? More than likely. But at least it's a start. It sure beats kidney failure, heart disease, blindness, stroke, impotence, and death. It certainly beats the cost of all those little kids spending their lives as diabetics.
Heck, it beats having to pass up deserts. Unless you are a diabetic, you have no idea how this disease sucks.
Does it run Linux? I'm sure someone will find a way, and it might even improve the system!
The startling point is that we're talking about only 100 years. Given the number of generations the Daphnia can manage in that time, I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.
But think: if you can get that much useful change in such a short amount of time, how much more can occur over hundreds of thousands of years?
Incorrect. Try "Maybe, but probably not."
The first question is whether this happens in human DNA. Then the second question would be, if the first answer is positive, is there any way to ensure that it occurs? It occurred very rarely in the plants, which ain't a good sign. Third, is there a way to take advantage of it even if it could be made reliable?
That's a lot of ifs. People get Nobel Prizes for such ifs. People also spend their entire lives doing such research and come up with crapola.
Wanna cork nut?
If there is life there, it's Martian or came from Earth back when Mars was more habitable. And yes, just as Mars rocks can make it to Earth, Earth rocks might have been blasted to Mars by a meteor impact, and life could have survived both the impact and the trip.
Alas and dang it, the methane's probably due to non-life chemical reactions. Still, life's an interesting possibility.
Sorry, I assumed the original article would have been read - it mentions that sexual reproduction is a puzzle. Try this article for a look at some of the problems (and possibly a solution). The only important thing is that they do better in th real world.
Ah, but then that means we don't understand what's going on yet, does it? If we can't reproduce the results with a model, then we need to learn more. That was the whole point. Same reasons many other parasites lost functions of and even the appearance of organs.
Note to self: rhetorical questions don't work well on Slashdot. Flight is a wonderful ability - animals from birds to mammals to ants. Birds that don't have predators almost always lose the ability to fly - c.f. ostrich. Flying's too expensive energy-wise - if it's not needed.
So, what is it that allows giardia to drop sexual reproduction? What is it that forces giardia to keep the genes ready "just in case?" There's a good chance the answer might be found because of giardia!
That was the old thought. For years now, scientists have been doubting that theory. The work with the digital life has shown that, while it confers more genetic variety, it also allows more genetic damage to collect.
Sexually reproducing organisms do not do any better under most simulation conditions.
Recent studies of giardia have shown that this ancient organism has the genes for sexual reproduction. Apparently, sexual reproduction conferred some powerful advantage, given how early it developed in the history of life. But if this is so, why does giardia not actually use sexual reproduction? The genes are there - they have just never been seen to be activated. In all the conditions so far observed, giardia reproduces asexually. If the advantage of sexual reproduction is so great, why did giardia give it up?
Enquiring minds, etc.
Add to that the attempt to design the Beagle 2 as a "bolt-on" experiment instead of a separate spacecraft (which it would be during separation, re-entry and landing) meant that the Beagle 2 was doomed. The myriad possible failure modes highlight how bad this decision was.
Of course, because no one thought to have telemetry from the Beagle 2 once it separated - only after it landed safely - the only way anyone will ever figure out what really went wrong will be to recover the pieces and do a physical analysis. If those future explorers discover there were multiple failure modes, I wouldn't be surprised.
No government will send explorers to find out. Instead, some Richard Branson-like people (i.e. rich nerds) will get together on their vacation to Mars and mount an expedition to the wreckage site and announce the results to the press.
That's not necessarily the case. For example, a relatively local fire department, wishing a new fire hall, decided that burning down the fire hall was the solution. Failing the first time, they tried again.
In a lot of cases, it's not the fascination with fire, but the need to be a hero.
In others, where the size or need for the F.D. was in question, arson is a simple way to "prove" the necessity.
A couple cases where I've known the individuals, the cause was boredom. The fire fighters wanted something to do.
All these individuals are deeply disturbed. A reasonable individual does not see such a violent act as a "solution," does not need to prove their heorism, does not make political points by violence, nor do they threaten the lives of other fire fighters for kicks.
They are deeply disturbed, but they aren't your classic pyro. If anything, a lot of pyros tend to do well as fire fighters. If they recognize that they have a problem and channel their urges into fighting fires, they can do well.
A local steel mill had a pyro for a "salamander," someone who went around keeping the fires lit. Only after the steel mill closed did he become a danger to society again.
If the lawyer is presenting the truth, she or he would wish me on the jury. If the lawyer is shovelling the semi-solid metabolic waste products, their jury consultant will tell them to get me out of there with the very first pre-emption.
I've actually helped defend a fire fighter from charges that he committed arson. He was innocent - eventually (as in this case) someone else was found to be the perp. In my case, it was another fire fighter, who attempted to frame the first fire fighter.
I'd trust circumstantial evidence over eyewitness testimony any day. About 1/2 of the eyewitness testimony I've heard when in court or at a coroner's inquest would have been funny were the matter not so serious. About a quarter of the remainder was plausible but contradicted by videotape or other hard evidence.
There's the conviction right there. The prosecuter brings in an FBI profiler who points out that firefighters are the first ones they check out when they're looking for an arsonist.
Most firefighters are good, hardworking folks. But the profession (and it is, whether you get paid or volunteer) also attracts those who have an unhealthy fascination with fire or those who are driven by internal demons.
That was disgusting! Shame on you for posting a link to that picture!
I'm going to have to wash my eyes out with soap. Ewww. I'm gonna puke.
The biggest known risk factor for shuttle loss on re-entry is loss of tiles. Period. OTOH, no matter where you are, a competent space organization can always send another Shuttle up.
Not in time. You can't get to Hubble before basic supplies run out unless you have a fully prepped shuttle ready to go when you launch. If the first orbiter was damaged by a systemic failure, you won't launch it, either. Boosting up a Progress supply ship to the stranded orbiter is problematic in Hubble's orbit, as is sending a Soyuz recovery capsule. The Russians aren't used to dealing with stuff in Hubble's orbit. Especially since they launch so far from the equator, there'd be some real problems getting a recovery capsule to Hubble. The Russians have said that it's not a realistic option for them. Why sacrifice a useful tool for a boondoggle?
You believe it's a boondoggle. That's nice. Even if you were right, killing the ISS will kill the space program politically. The real problem with the ISS is the unwillingness by Congress to spend the needed money. NASA has had to learn to make a bad system work, and they've gotten a decent amount of science out of it as well.
We have the ISS now. Deorbit it, and you'll never get anything like it ever again. Well, at least not until the Chinese or Indians begin orbital construction.
I was speaking of a McGuffin. Notice there's no letter "a" in the name. It's a gimmick that forms the basis of the plot.
People get them confused a lot.
I'll admit I was being a bit flippant, but if you think about it, there are already machines out there where it's already considered cost-effective to lose a few humans than to lose the machine.
If there were something on a battlefield like an Ogre (large autonomous tank from the Steve Jackson game by the same name), it might be of such strategic importance that a human would be required to sacrifice her or his life for the robot - and the other humans, and the battle.
Let's face it, war forces one to make ugly choices. Of course, when a company decides it's cheaper to pay the liability claims for the deaths and injury than to correct the product, the same decisions are made - and there's no war.
The basic McGuffin is you've got one huge mother of a cybernetic tank with armor plating that shoots micronukes and it goes up against an entire army - and the battle's a fair fight!
Then again, with the current administration, perhaps I should be playing "Rivets" instead. "Rivets" were the third-world's answer to the superpower Ogres. The robots were rather dain-bramaged and could only shoot at what they were programmed to shoot at. It's a funny game, in a sick sort of way.
Maybe I'll play the "Ogre vs. Rivets" variant.