- We since launched robotic missions to every planet (including Pluto) in the Solar System
We haven't sent any missions to Uranus and Neptune since the 70s. It's just that the probes that were launched in the 70s took until the 80s to actually get there. And none of them were there for a long-term science mission á la Galileo or Cassini.
Why not consider enforcing laws already on the books?
What an absurd idea. That wouldn't get anyone elected. Besides, law enforcment is expensive and would be a drain on the governments finances. Making a couple of laws is so much cheaper and demonstrates activity to the voters.
Selling old issues of computer magazines that came with CDs/DVDs might land you in prison if they contain, like, and old linux distro.
Don't laugh. The same thing happened when they outlawed CD/DVD copying software. Sell a stack of old magazines, get slapped with a hefty lawsuit and probably put on trial.
First of all, breathalyzers are only accurate to within.02. So that.08 reading could be.1, but could also just as easily be.06.
That would be one interesting bit of information to glean from the breathalyzer firmware - does it account for measurement errors and give a "minimum" value, as in "this guy has _at least_ x% BAC" ? Or does it merely output what the raw measurement says ?
Over here, at least speed traps work this way. If you get caught, they always send you the measured speed, but you get fined as if you had driven (measured speed - maximum error). Of course, the maximum error is rather low (3 km/h), so if you're doing 30 km/h over the limit you're screwed anyways.
What happens if you belong to a religion (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) which regards blood as sacred, and refuse to allow the blood test on this ground?
I would assume exactly the same thing that happens when you get convicted and sent to prison, but you refuse because your religion does not allow it.
At some point, these measures become mandatory and your consent is no longer required.
20 percent? I wouldn't call that "unfortunate" -- I'd call that broken.
Not really. If the calculation itself has an error of +/- 20%, and the device reports the -20% value, then the DUI suspect should call himself "lucky".
It's just like the guy who wanted to challenge a radar gun speed measurement. The dialogue went something like this:
Guy: Is the reading of the device always accurate ?
A: No. It gives wrong values if the measurement is taken at an angle.
Guy: In what way will these measurements be wrong ?
A: They will always be too low.
I do however have a tiny dead spot on my right retina from a laser blast according to vision fields tests and retina photos, but I am certainly not blind.
I'd take completely undamaged vision over an even slightly damaged one every day.
The kinds of damage that are permanent and irreparable are best avoided completely.
Someone will realize something bad is happening with a laser when the first person gets shot with it, possibly in the eye, and starts screaming.
Retinas do not have pain receptors. People who are not familiar with the symptoms will not realize what exactly has happened (and that their vision is going to be irreparably damaged) for quite a while.
It's an interesting double standard. Think about it.
The laser toy would allow you to leave several people crippled for life _and_ get away before anyone realizes what has happened.
It's pretty obvious that a laser that can light a match is seriously dangerous if miss-used.
No, it's not. If you don't know about the properties of laser light (monochromatic, coherent, low divergence) and what happens when laser light passes through a lens, you will seriously underestimate how dangerous this stuff is. This is a few steps above using the sun and a magnifying glass.
Not just that - laser light is also monochromatic, coherent and has a very low divergence (things that don't apply to sunlight). This means that it will be focused into an extremely small spot by a lens (such as the one in your eye, which will ideally focus it into an extremely small spot directly on your fscking retina).
That's bogus. I've gone for minutes, with or without a lung full of air, for many minutes.
Please repeat the experiment with zero partial pressure of oxygen in your lungs (lacking a vacuum, a deep breath of pure N2 might do the trick).
You cannot stay conscious for more than 20 seconds (the time it takes for the blood from your lungs to reach your brain) if your blood gets deoxygenated in your lungs. Period.
Only if you cherry-pick your group of people with >30 BMI to contain muscular types only.
If you pick a _completely random_ group of people with >30 BMI, then you'll get a lot of obese couch potatoes (with the associated health problems) with the occasional extremely muscular type mixed in as collateral damage.
Actually, not painful at all, because you're unconscious
One person accidentially exposed to a near vacuum stated that he felt the saliva in his mouth sizzle before passing out.
I wonder how much good a small bottle of oxygen for breathing would do you.
Not much at all, because you cannot get the oxygen pressure in your lung high enough for oxygen to pass into your blood instead of out of it without damaging your lung tissue.
Put the money that you pay as insurance into something like property or in stock in some fast growing market and you may infact have more money to deal with medical emergencies than what your insurance company would pay out.
Yes, if you're lucky. "Try to be lucky", in general, isn't such a great strategy when it comes to insurance. It fails more often that you'd think.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but the when was very important. The circumstances that allowed Voyager 2 to travel to Uranus and Neptune only happen once every 176 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Grand_Tour
The mission extension to the two outer planets only took place because of a lucky coincidence.
I guess you're not talking about building a laser from a DVD writer and a flashlight.
GP was talking about the members of a jury, I assume.
We haven't sent any missions to Uranus and Neptune since the 70s. It's just that the probes that were launched in the 70s took until the 80s to actually get there. And none of them were there for a long-term science mission á la Galileo or Cassini.
What an absurd idea. That wouldn't get anyone elected. Besides, law enforcment is expensive and would be a drain on the governments finances. Making a couple of laws is so much cheaper and demonstrates activity to the voters.
Don't laugh. The same thing happened when they outlawed CD/DVD copying software. Sell a stack of old magazines, get slapped with a hefty lawsuit and probably put on trial.
That would be one interesting bit of information to glean from the breathalyzer firmware - does it account for measurement errors and give a "minimum" value, as in "this guy has _at least_ x% BAC" ? Or does it merely output what the raw measurement says ?
Over here, at least speed traps work this way. If you get caught, they always send you the measured speed, but you get fined as if you had driven (measured speed - maximum error). Of course, the maximum error is rather low (3 km/h), so if you're doing 30 km/h over the limit you're screwed anyways.
Whoa ! How strong is the beer where you live, or is it served in kegs instead of glasses ? 0.08 is two or three beers where I live.
You're supposed to spit it out after rinsing your mouth, not swallow it.
Nope. The DA just doesn't want his "certain conviction" to be delayed. After all, the number of convictions per month looks good on the resume.
I would assume exactly the same thing that happens when you get convicted and sent to prison, but you refuse because your religion does not allow it.
At some point, these measures become mandatory and your consent is no longer required.
It's just like the guy who wanted to challenge a radar gun speed measurement. The dialogue went something like this:
Guy: Is the reading of the device always accurate ?
A: No. It gives wrong values if the measurement is taken at an angle.
Guy: In what way will these measurements be wrong ?
A: They will always be too low.
What if the device had a hardware bug or malfunction ?
That's still harmless. Back then, "vengeance" usually included the (extended) family, too. Which lead to long, bloody feuds.
I'd take completely undamaged vision over an even slightly damaged one every day.
The kinds of damage that are permanent and irreparable are best avoided completely.
Retinas do not have pain receptors. People who are not familiar with the symptoms will not realize what exactly has happened (and that their vision is going to be irreparably damaged) for quite a while.
It's an interesting double standard. Think about it.
The laser toy would allow you to leave several people crippled for life _and_ get away before anyone realizes what has happened.
Where did you get this information ? Did you pull it out of ... no, I don't want to know.
You will likely close your eyes or look away way before any real permanent damage is done.
Good luck closing your eye in less than 10 milliseconds.
The blinking reflex will only protect your eyes if the lasers power is less than 1 mW.
No, it's not. If you don't know about the properties of laser light (monochromatic, coherent, low divergence) and what happens when laser light passes through a lens, you will seriously underestimate how dangerous this stuff is. This is a few steps above using the sun and a magnifying glass.
Visible means little when you're blind.
Not just that - laser light is also monochromatic, coherent and has a very low divergence (things that don't apply to sunlight). This means that it will be focused into an extremely small spot by a lens (such as the one in your eye, which will ideally focus it into an extremely small spot directly on your fscking retina).
The window is already cracking due to some previous abuse, they merely use the fire extinguisher to punch it out completely.
Please repeat the experiment with zero partial pressure of oxygen in your lungs (lacking a vacuum, a deep breath of pure N2 might do the trick).
You cannot stay conscious for more than 20 seconds (the time it takes for the blood from your lungs to reach your brain) if your blood gets deoxygenated in your lungs. Period.
Only if you cherry-pick your group of people with >30 BMI to contain muscular types only.
If you pick a _completely random_ group of people with >30 BMI, then you'll get a lot of obese couch potatoes (with the associated health problems) with the occasional extremely muscular type mixed in as collateral damage.
One person accidentially exposed to a near vacuum stated that he felt the saliva in his mouth sizzle before passing out.
I wonder how much good a small bottle of oxygen for breathing would do you.
Not much at all, because you cannot get the oxygen pressure in your lung high enough for oxygen to pass into your blood instead of out of it without damaging your lung tissue.
Yes, if you're lucky. "Try to be lucky", in general, isn't such a great strategy when it comes to insurance. It fails more often that you'd think.