Actually, I just dislike "imminent threat." It sounds like a Hollywood screenplay. Evil Bomber trying to kill The President has placed an explosive device along his route which can be triggered by a phone call and it's up to two cops to track down the bad guy before he sets it off.
I mean, okay, in that scenario, you just say, "Why not just shut down the cell-towers? The phone attached to the bomb can't receive a signal." The President is safe and the two cops can leisurely go about trying to find the bad guy.
The problem comes up, though, that if it's such a good idea, why not just shut down the cell service along The President's route as Standard Operating Procedure. After all, we can't count on the Evil Bomber notifying the police. There could be one out there, so this will prevent it from detonating. Oh, and we should shut it off around whatever place The President is staying, too. For as long as he's staying. After all, it's for his safety. Suddenly, there is no threat--imminent or otherwise. But because you have the capability, why not use it?
What about other situations where there might be a danger? Protesters are known to have bombs. There's a protest planned for tomorrow at City Hall. Maybe it'd be a good idea to shut down cell-phone service--y'know, just in case. After all, we're talking about safety here--you can't be too safe. And, as a by-product, it'll keep them hippy kids from tweetin' and uploading images and videos when the cops go in with their clubs. But that's not what it's about, of course. It's about safety.
Actually, as I understand it, it doesn't necessarily have to do with the "beauty" of the models, it has to do with how the shape of a skinny person shows off the clothing. Basically, they want walking coat-hangers.
I rather like the remastered episodes that I've seen on broadcast television. At a minimum, it reduces some of the uglier special effects shots. At best, it gives you some interesting views. I rather liked what they did with "The Doomsday Machine." That said, I was sorry that they didn't do more with "The Ultimate Computer" (though maybe the scenes got cut)...
To me, though, there's a difference because "I hate someone because they're gay, so I killed them." and "I hate someone because they're a jerk who happens to be gay, so I killed them."
What if it was a married woman being filmed having sex with her illicit lover who killed herself afterwards?
1: it does not have the person killing themselves because they release of the footage.
Uh, yes, his scenario seems to imply that.
But let's take it a bit further. There's this total bitch who completely pisses me off. I discover she's having an affair and I surreptitiously film her having sex. I figure I'll send it to the husband just to fuck up her life. She discovers this and commits suicide.
[...] you'd take a very simple sin and surround it with the most bizarre circumstances you could imagine...to try to, y'know, relieve the guilt in the sin. We'd usually end up with the, uh, statement, "Would that then be a sin then, Father?"
Like, here, this is an example. There was one sin- not receiving communion during Easter time. You had to perform your "Easter duty". You had to receive once between Ash Wednesday and Pentecost Sunday and if you didn't do it, it was a mortal sin. [...] "Oh, sorry Father. Anyways, Father. Suppose that you didn't make your Easter duty...and it's Pentecost Sunday...the last day...and you're on a ship at sea...and the chaplain goes into a coma...but you wanted to receive. And then it's Monday, too late...but then you cross the International Date Line!"
"Yes, I'm sure God will take that into account. Sit down, Woozie."
I mean, I can come up with a bunch of scenarios--and they don't have to be as odd as George Carlin's--and ask "Would that then be a hate crime then?" So the system is working--we're going to let a jury decide the parameters of a hate crime because a law cannot account for all possible occurrences.
To me, though, there's a difference between "I hate someone because they're gay" and "I hate someone who happens to be gay." One is a hate crime and one is not.
It's a good point: You don't get charged for data overages or the like.
Part of the issue is that, while T-Mobile is clear about what will happen, AT&T is not. You purchase Unlimited Data on your 3G plan, you expect an unlimited amount of data at 3G speeds. To suddenly get a note saying, "Guess what? You use too much data so we're slowing you down" is a bit off. There isn't even a, "We're going to start throttling your speed when you download 5GB, 3GB, or whatever." It's completely arbitrary.
This concerns people who contracted into the unlimited data plan while they were selling it.
Then why do they let people keep it?
I had an iPhone 3GS with AT&T's Unlimited plan for about two-and-a-quarter years. When I decided to upgrade to the iPhone 4S, I figured I'd have to forgo my Unlimited plan. "Nope," according to the AT&T person--they were quite happy to give me my old plan with the new phone.
If they're trying to get people off these plans, why are they still offering them to holdover people?
With gas prices the way they are, I'm not sure I'd buy the "cheaper" argument.
Figure that gas here in LA is $4.11. Assuming you're heading to Santa Monica beach, that's about 17 miles. So figure you'll use half to three-quarters of a gallon of gasoline to get there. Assuming you're planning on returning, you'll use 1 to 1.5 gallons of gasoline. So figure you'll spend anywhere from $4.11 to $6.17 to get to the beach. This doesn't include parking, etc.
Now I can take the "Rapid 10" Blue Bus from downtown to Santa Monica for, I'm guessing, $2.00 each way (I thought Google gave fare info, but I guess not). So figure that's $4.00 round-trip. So unless your car gets better than 34 MPG, you're spending less money taking the bus than driving a car.
As for "convenience," well, that's up to individual taste. I'd submit that driving to the beach is much more convenient for the beginning of the trip (just hop in and go versus waiting around for the bus to show up) but far less convenient at the end of trip (try to find parking versus stepping off the bus at the beach). So it sort of depends on when you want your hassle--beginning or end.
I did mention that you should make it smart enough to avoid falling rocks on its own.
Where is the dividing line between "telepresence" and "remote control"?
I would submit that telepresence is where the "robot" (for lack of better term) is completely and utterly controlled by you--the robot is merely a collection of sensors that are fed to you. So, for example, if the robot touches something hot, it will communicate it to you by applying heat to your fingers and you will pull back your hand. The robot will not decide for itself that what it touched is hot and pull back the hand for you.
Now this is arguable, I'll admit. I mean, given the above example, it's not like I'm actually thinking, "Gee, that's really hot--I should pull back my hand before I get burned." The act of pulling my hand back is an autonomic response. If I want to walk someplace, I figure out how to get there and start walking in that direction. I'm not really thinking about putting one foot in front of the other and maintaining my balance and all of that stuff. So why couldn't I instruct a "telepresence" to walk over to that crater and leave the driving to it?
I would argue that the act of doing the walking and reacting to the conditions is part of the "presence" and, the more you remove it, the less "present" you are. But it is a somewhat philosophical debate as to the nature of "presence." The correct answer, I suppose, would be a combination of the two. As you suggested, for planetary exploration, the delays involved are such that the robot has to have more of a brain.
The issue is "telepresence" requires more of a real-time feed, IMHO, than what you'll get even earth-to-moon.
For example, "avoid falling rocks." Figure that it takes a radio signal 1.25 seconds to get from the Earth to the Moon. So you're watching a rock falling towards you. What you're seeing was 1.25 seconds ago. So you immediately jump to the right to avoid it. By the time the robot gets the signal to jump to the right, it's been another 1.25 seconds. So assuming your robot was just standing there, by the time the robot got the signal to jump, 2.5 seconds have gone by and it's likely been hit by the rock.
they treat you as if your concerns are completely invalid, no matter how dangerous that outcome may be.
The next question is "How dangerous is the outcome and what are the chances of it occuring?"
From the original post:
It isn't that we don't want our son to be immunized, it is just we would rather not give him something that results in violent reactions. Especially at the young age that he is..
Now, I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on television. So the question is, what are these "violent reactions"?
A quick trip to the Mayo Clinic points out that the symptoms of egg allergies can include Skin Inflammation or Hives, Nasal Inflamation, cramps, nausea, vomiting, and Asthma symptoms. The article also points out the possibility of an anaphylactic reaction--which is very serious if not treated.
Now, Hives is pretty uncomfortable, I'll agree. And it might depend on what you're immunizing against, but I'd say if the side effect of the shot is hives, it's probably better to give him the shot and accept some discomfort for a few days. If we're talking a possibility of an anaphylactic reaction...well, I might leave out the flu shot but I'd probably consider it for polio or tuberculosis but I'd keep the car warmed up for a trip to the emergency room.
...and, yet, when someone wants to make an airport bigger or extend a railway for commuter service, all those people who complain are denounced as NIMBYs.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I just dislike "imminent threat." It sounds like a Hollywood screenplay. Evil Bomber trying to kill The President has placed an explosive device along his route which can be triggered by a phone call and it's up to two cops to track down the bad guy before he sets it off.
I mean, okay, in that scenario, you just say, "Why not just shut down the cell-towers? The phone attached to the bomb can't receive a signal." The President is safe and the two cops can leisurely go about trying to find the bad guy.
The problem comes up, though, that if it's such a good idea, why not just shut down the cell service along The President's route as Standard Operating Procedure. After all, we can't count on the Evil Bomber notifying the police. There could be one out there, so this will prevent it from detonating. Oh, and we should shut it off around whatever place The President is staying, too. For as long as he's staying. After all, it's for his safety. Suddenly, there is no threat--imminent or otherwise. But because you have the capability, why not use it?
What about other situations where there might be a danger? Protesters are known to have bombs. There's a protest planned for tomorrow at City Hall. Maybe it'd be a good idea to shut down cell-phone service--y'know, just in case. After all, we're talking about safety here--you can't be too safe. And, as a by-product, it'll keep them hippy kids from tweetin' and uploading images and videos when the cops go in with their clubs. But that's not what it's about, of course. It's about safety.
Actually, as I understand it, it doesn't necessarily have to do with the "beauty" of the models, it has to do with how the shape of a skinny person shows off the clothing. Basically, they want walking coat-hangers.
People back over other people because they aren't looking behind them [...]
Mostly when driving big hulking SUVs. I have no problem seeing small children behind me in my little roadster--especially with the top down.
Seems kind of silly to put a rear camera on that vehicle...
I rather like the remastered episodes that I've seen on broadcast television. At a minimum, it reduces some of the uglier special effects shots. At best, it gives you some interesting views. I rather liked what they did with "The Doomsday Machine." That said, I was sorry that they didn't do more with "The Ultimate Computer" (though maybe the scenes got cut)...
Probably not that often.
On the other hand, go visit an AA meeting sometime to hear what some people will do for alcohol.
On a global scale, you may well discover that you are the 1%.
You probably are.
Good point. I suppose I should put it this way:
To me, though, there's a difference because "I hate someone because they're gay, so I killed them." and "I hate someone because they're a jerk who happens to be gay, so I killed them."
What if it was a married woman being filmed having sex with her illicit lover who killed herself afterwards?
1: it does not have the person killing themselves because they release of the footage.
Uh, yes, his scenario seems to imply that.
But let's take it a bit further. There's this total bitch who completely pisses me off. I discover she's having an affair and I surreptitiously film her having sex. I figure I'll send it to the husband just to fuck up her life. She discovers this and commits suicide.
Is that there then a hate crime?
Random aside: While writing this, I was suddenly struck by an old George Carlin bit:
[...] you'd take a very simple sin and surround it with the most bizarre circumstances you could imagine...to try to, y'know, relieve the guilt in the sin. We'd usually end up with the, uh, statement, "Would that then be a sin then, Father?"
Like, here, this is an example. There was one sin- not receiving communion during Easter time. You had to perform your "Easter duty". You had to receive once between Ash Wednesday and Pentecost Sunday and if you didn't do it, it was a mortal sin. [...] "Oh, sorry Father. Anyways, Father. Suppose that you didn't make your Easter duty...and it's Pentecost Sunday...the last day...and you're on a ship at sea...and the chaplain goes into a coma...but you wanted to receive. And then it's Monday, too late...but then you cross the International Date Line!"
"Yes, I'm sure God will take that into account. Sit down, Woozie."
I mean, I can come up with a bunch of scenarios--and they don't have to be as odd as George Carlin's--and ask "Would that then be a hate crime then?" So the system is working--we're going to let a jury decide the parameters of a hate crime because a law cannot account for all possible occurrences.
To me, though, there's a difference between "I hate someone because they're gay" and "I hate someone who happens to be gay." One is a hate crime and one is not.
It's a good point: You don't get charged for data overages or the like.
Part of the issue is that, while T-Mobile is clear about what will happen, AT&T is not. You purchase Unlimited Data on your 3G plan, you expect an unlimited amount of data at 3G speeds. To suddenly get a note saying, "Guess what? You use too much data so we're slowing you down" is a bit off. There isn't even a, "We're going to start throttling your speed when you download 5GB, 3GB, or whatever." It's completely arbitrary.
This concerns people who contracted into the unlimited data plan while they were selling it.
Then why do they let people keep it?
I had an iPhone 3GS with AT&T's Unlimited plan for about two-and-a-quarter years. When I decided to upgrade to the iPhone 4S, I figured I'd have to forgo my Unlimited plan. "Nope," according to the AT&T person--they were quite happy to give me my old plan with the new phone.
If they're trying to get people off these plans, why are they still offering them to holdover people?
Largest, yes. Most reliable? Undoubtedly. Fastest? No.
Verizon's 4G is awesome. No doubt. But it's a real shock when you have to go back down to 3G.
With gas prices the way they are, I'm not sure I'd buy the "cheaper" argument.
Figure that gas here in LA is $4.11. Assuming you're heading to Santa Monica beach, that's about 17 miles. So figure you'll use half to three-quarters of a gallon of gasoline to get there. Assuming you're planning on returning, you'll use 1 to 1.5 gallons of gasoline. So figure you'll spend anywhere from $4.11 to $6.17 to get to the beach. This doesn't include parking, etc.
Now I can take the "Rapid 10" Blue Bus from downtown to Santa Monica for, I'm guessing, $2.00 each way (I thought Google gave fare info, but I guess not). So figure that's $4.00 round-trip. So unless your car gets better than 34 MPG, you're spending less money taking the bus than driving a car.
As for "convenience," well, that's up to individual taste. I'd submit that driving to the beach is much more convenient for the beginning of the trip (just hop in and go versus waiting around for the bus to show up) but far less convenient at the end of trip (try to find parking versus stepping off the bus at the beach). So it sort of depends on when you want your hassle--beginning or end.
Not yet. But it's the Chinese--whoops, North Koreans--that are doing the invading.
Especially if the brakes are bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30,000_Pounds_of_Bananas#Incident
But what if they weren't?! Then we'd all die! Including the children!
Dear God, won't somebody think of the children!
I did mention that you should make it smart enough to avoid falling rocks on its own.
Where is the dividing line between "telepresence" and "remote control"?
I would submit that telepresence is where the "robot" (for lack of better term) is completely and utterly controlled by you--the robot is merely a collection of sensors that are fed to you. So, for example, if the robot touches something hot, it will communicate it to you by applying heat to your fingers and you will pull back your hand. The robot will not decide for itself that what it touched is hot and pull back the hand for you.
Now this is arguable, I'll admit. I mean, given the above example, it's not like I'm actually thinking, "Gee, that's really hot--I should pull back my hand before I get burned." The act of pulling my hand back is an autonomic response. If I want to walk someplace, I figure out how to get there and start walking in that direction. I'm not really thinking about putting one foot in front of the other and maintaining my balance and all of that stuff. So why couldn't I instruct a "telepresence" to walk over to that crater and leave the driving to it?
I would argue that the act of doing the walking and reacting to the conditions is part of the "presence" and, the more you remove it, the less "present" you are. But it is a somewhat philosophical debate as to the nature of "presence." The correct answer, I suppose, would be a combination of the two. As you suggested, for planetary exploration, the delays involved are such that the robot has to have more of a brain.
Yes. But you need a tinfoil hat. :^D
Eventually Jim Kirk will come along and destroy the computers that run the war.
You have similar situations today with Drone attacks, not to mention the cruise missile strikes against "terrorist targets" in the 1990s.
The issue is "telepresence" requires more of a real-time feed, IMHO, than what you'll get even earth-to-moon.
For example, "avoid falling rocks." Figure that it takes a radio signal 1.25 seconds to get from the Earth to the Moon. So you're watching a rock falling towards you. What you're seeing was 1.25 seconds ago. So you immediately jump to the right to avoid it. By the time the robot gets the signal to jump to the right, it's been another 1.25 seconds. So assuming your robot was just standing there, by the time the robot got the signal to jump, 2.5 seconds have gone by and it's likely been hit by the rock.
I suppose we should also stop counting iPhone 3GS sales because they're given away with plans from AT&T.
Thanks for playing.
The next question is "How dangerous is the outcome and what are the chances of it occuring?"
From the original post:
Now, I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on television. So the question is, what are these "violent reactions"?
A quick trip to the Mayo Clinic points out that the symptoms of egg allergies can include Skin Inflammation or Hives, Nasal Inflamation, cramps, nausea, vomiting, and Asthma symptoms. The article also points out the possibility of an anaphylactic reaction--which is very serious if not treated.
Now, Hives is pretty uncomfortable, I'll agree. And it might depend on what you're immunizing against, but I'd say if the side effect of the shot is hives, it's probably better to give him the shot and accept some discomfort for a few days. If we're talking a possibility of an anaphylactic reaction...well, I might leave out the flu shot but I'd probably consider it for polio or tuberculosis but I'd keep the car warmed up for a trip to the emergency room.
Sure they would.
...and, yet, when someone wants to make an airport bigger or extend a railway for commuter service, all those people who complain are denounced as NIMBYs.
What's next? Banning [...] outdoor recess?
Yes. Recess is dangerous.