Even using the high estimate of 10, and assuming their all passengers (unlikely since the TSA agents are near the machines for 40 hours a week, not seconds, so their dose is going to be higher - that's why doctors leave the X-ray room when you get one), that means if it stops one 9/11 attack more often than every 300 years it is a net win for passengers and people on the ground.
You don't have a right to fly. If you get put on the No Fly list you will be banned from the air, period!
Assuming that they can stop an attack is itself extremely implausible since the TSA fails more than 70% of the penetration tests, only scans about 10% of cargo, and doesn't scan all airport workers. It's also a huge fallacy to assume attackers would attempt the same tactic of using airliners, or that they would succeed in killing 3000. The attempts since 2011 have been stopped by passengers and crew. What has made flights safer are reinforced cockpit doors, air marshals, and crew and passengers who aren't willing "appease" hijackers. Your argument is complete nonsense based upon unsupportable assumptions and fallacies.
But most importantly, you completely ignore the fact that the x-ray scanners don't work. They do not make flying one bit safer. They are 100% unnecessary. The radiation exposure is 100% unnecessary.
Quoting a law preventing discrimination against handicapped people doesn't prove you have an unalienable right to fly!
Your misinterpretation of the law doesn't mean I don't have a right. Read the first sentence of the clause. No qualifiers. The rest of the clause is an extrapolation of that right as inticated by the phrase "To further that right,...".
And that is rarely applied, can be appealed. It's a a very difficult ruling to defend, especially if the jury found no compensable offense occurred. It's mostly used to reduce large awards, or when the jury finds and offense did occur and the finding is not supported by the evidence presented.
Which puts us back to, in the instance of jury nullification (jury finds no offense occurred), there is nothing the judge can do about it.
If the jury finds there was no violation (regardless of why they find that way), then there is nothing the judge can do to overrule it. Jury nullification is possible whenever there is a jury, IF there is at least one person on the jury who knows they have that option.
Ever heard of jury nullification? Despite what most judges, lawyers, law enforcement, and lawmakers want you to believe, in the US, the jury has the right to decide the facts and whether on not the law applies (or is just) in this situation.
Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.
A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.
1. They claim that LNT applies to prolonged exposure, and that the risks are actually higher than the single exposure data from Hiroshima. Examine Figure 2 in the PDF report and you'll see that while the data is within 1 sigma of LNT for the range of exposures shown, it actually appears to follow a quadratic curve, with lower ERR up to 0.25-0.3Gy, 2.5x-3x the "low-level" dose, then the risk is higher than LNT with higher cumulative exposure. From that chart, prolonged exposure to low-level (cumulative) is indeed a lower risk than a single equivalent dose. Prolonged exposure to high-level (cumulative) may be greater than a single equivalent dose. They're using a limited subset of the data that falls within 1 sigma in order to support their claim that LNT applies to prolonged doses, yet an analysis of the data doesn't really support that claim.
2. While they mention locations with higher than average natural background radiation, they don't ever address the facts about those locations. Namely, that they have ~ average cancer rates and longer average life spans, even though the cumulative lifetime dose significantly exceeds 0.1sv. A quote from that site:
From BEIR V, National Research Council report on Health Effects of Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation:
In areas of high natural background radiation, an increased frequency of chromosome aberrations has been noted repeatedly. The increases are consistent with those seen in radiation workers and in persons exposed at high dose levels, although the magnitudes of the increases are somewhat higher than predicted. No increase in the frequency of cancer documented in populations residing in areas of high natural background radiation.
While MS and the WinPhone proponents will jump all over this, it's not that big of a deal. Woz is a tech geek, his technical abilities are/were top notch. But I've used the UIs he designed/implemented. Frankly, his opinion on a UI doesn't carry much weight.
He has also praised things about Android in the past.
What does all that mean? Simply that the iPhone doesn't get every detail "perfect", other phones do some things better.
But rather than take my word for it, here are Woz' words (from TFA):
“The iPhone has a lot of beauty and simplicity, and you don’t get lost as much in it, but it is more awkward to use (than Windows Phone 7.5 Mango). ... “iPhone is my favourite phone. I did give my opinion that the Windows Phone had superior visual appearance and operation cues that were also more attractive. In my opinion, it sets the mark for user interface. I would recommend it over my Android phones, given that it doesn’t yet have the breadth of apps,...”
...are assigned companies to promote to their circle of online friends.
What a load of crap. "Go promote this crap you may or may not have used or like, and we'll pay you".
I know not everyone shares my belief on this, but the only way I'll endorse or promote your product is if I believe it's a good product and a good value. Mostly, that means I personally use your product and like it, but there are some cases where I know a product is good and popular, but doesn't serve my needs. In that case, I'll still recommend it to people I think will benefit from it. If I don't know your product, or I don't think it's a good product, or I don't think it's a good value, then I won't promote it, period.
Chris: So, if there's anything I can do for you, or, more to the point, to you, you just let me know. Susan: Can you hammer a six-inch spike through a board with your penis? Chris: Not right now. Susan: A girl's gotta have her standards.
It's easy to look these thing up on wikipedia. You should try it rather than making a terrible estimate. The military is actually slightly over 20% of the US government spending.
If corporations are people, then this is a suicide note from Hulu. I recommend mandatory confinement to a mental ward of a hospital for 72 hours of observation. Since Hulu, as a corporation is actually a gestalt entity of the board of directors and officers, they must all be placed in the same mental ward so that the gestalt entity can be observed.
However Prof Zhou pointed out the most extreme changes were just at night and the overall changes may be smaller.
Also, it is much smaller than the estimated change caused by other factors such as man made global warming.
“Overall, the warming effect reported in this study is local and is small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature changes,” he added. ... “This makes sense, since at night the ground becomes much cooler than the air just a few hundred meters above the surface, and the wind farms generate gentle turbulence near the ground that causes these to mix together, thus the ground doesn't get quite as cool. This same strategy is commonly used by fruit growers (who fly helicopters over the orchards rather than windmills) to combat early morning frosts.”
Which is precisely the reason individuals and companies should take all the deductions they can, and keep that money out of the hands of politicians.
We need government, and government needs taxes to operate. But the legitimate purpose of government is national defense, implementing a legal/court system, promoting the welfare of the people (actual people, not corporations), promoting the development of infrastructure and standards, and protecting the resources and environment. When you give them more money, they just find more ways to spend it, usually wastefully or for the benefit of a few friends/donors.
Slashdot Mirror
Valid point, but a minor correction. AF1 is not the plane. It's only AF1 when the Pres is on board. There are in fact at least two planes used as AF1.
Apparently, you didn't read the comments. No, it's not true, not even close.
Even using the high estimate of 10, and assuming their all passengers (unlikely since the TSA agents are near the machines for 40 hours a week, not seconds, so their dose is going to be higher - that's why doctors leave the X-ray room when you get one), that means if it stops one 9/11 attack more often than every 300 years it is a net win for passengers and people on the ground.
You don't have a right to fly. If you get put on the No Fly list you will be banned from the air, period!
Assuming that they can stop an attack is itself extremely implausible since the TSA fails more than 70% of the penetration tests, only scans about 10% of cargo, and doesn't scan all airport workers. It's also a huge fallacy to assume attackers would attempt the same tactic of using airliners, or that they would succeed in killing 3000. The attempts since 2011 have been stopped by passengers and crew. What has made flights safer are reinforced cockpit doors, air marshals, and crew and passengers who aren't willing "appease" hijackers. Your argument is complete nonsense based upon unsupportable assumptions and fallacies.
But most importantly, you completely ignore the fact that the x-ray scanners don't work. They do not make flying one bit safer. They are 100% unnecessary. The radiation exposure is 100% unnecessary.
Quoting a law preventing discrimination against handicapped people doesn't prove you have an unalienable right to fly!
Your misinterpretation of the law doesn't mean I don't have a right. Read the first sentence of the clause. No qualifiers. The rest of the clause is an extrapolation of that right as inticated by the phrase "To further that right, ...".
Geez, you'd think that high profile public failures would be a lesson to all the developers and testers.
And it's not even the first time MS has made that mistake. They did in with the Zune in 2008, then made the same mistake with Azure.
In other news, MS announced that they've terminates all their shills.
And that is rarely applied, can be appealed. It's a a very difficult ruling to defend, especially if the jury found no compensable offense occurred. It's mostly used to reduce large awards, or when the jury finds and offense did occur and the finding is not supported by the evidence presented.
Which puts us back to, in the instance of jury nullification (jury finds no offense occurred), there is nothing the judge can do about it.
Yes, but I'm a solid Cancer. What does this alignment mean about my future?
If the jury finds there was no violation (regardless of why they find that way), then there is nothing the judge can do to overrule it. Jury nullification is possible whenever there is a jury, IF there is at least one person on the jury who knows they have that option.
Ever heard of jury nullification? Despite what most judges, lawyers, law enforcement, and lawmakers want you to believe, in the US, the jury has the right to decide the facts and whether on not the law applies (or is just) in this situation.
Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.
A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.
I think it's more of a hypergolic headline.
1. They claim that LNT applies to prolonged exposure, and that the risks are actually higher than the single exposure data from Hiroshima. Examine Figure 2 in the PDF report and you'll see that while the data is within 1 sigma of LNT for the range of exposures shown, it actually appears to follow a quadratic curve, with lower ERR up to 0.25-0.3Gy, 2.5x-3x the "low-level" dose, then the risk is higher than LNT with higher cumulative exposure. From that chart, prolonged exposure to low-level (cumulative) is indeed a lower risk than a single equivalent dose. Prolonged exposure to high-level (cumulative) may be greater than a single equivalent dose. They're using a limited subset of the data that falls within 1 sigma in order to support their claim that LNT applies to prolonged doses, yet an analysis of the data doesn't really support that claim.
2. While they mention locations with higher than average natural background radiation, they don't ever address the facts about those locations. Namely, that they have ~ average cancer rates and longer average life spans, even though the cumulative lifetime dose significantly exceeds 0.1sv. A quote from that site:
From BEIR V, National Research Council report on Health Effects of Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation:
In areas of high natural background radiation, an increased frequency of chromosome aberrations has been noted repeatedly. The increases are consistent with those seen in radiation workers and in persons exposed at high dose levels, although the magnitudes of the increases are somewhat higher than predicted. No increase in the frequency of cancer documented in populations residing in areas of high natural background radiation.
While MS and the WinPhone proponents will jump all over this, it's not that big of a deal. Woz is a tech geek, his technical abilities are/were top notch. But I've used the UIs he designed/implemented. Frankly, his opinion on a UI doesn't carry much weight.
He has also praised things about Android in the past.
What does all that mean? Simply that the iPhone doesn't get every detail "perfect", other phones do some things better.
But rather than take my word for it, here are Woz' words (from TFA):
“The iPhone has a lot of beauty and simplicity, and you don’t get lost as much in it, but it is more awkward to use (than Windows Phone 7.5 Mango).
...
“iPhone is my favourite phone. I did give my opinion that the Windows Phone had superior visual appearance and operation cues that were also more attractive. In my opinion, it sets the mark for user interface. I would recommend it over my Android phones, given that it doesn’t yet have the breadth of apps,...”
...are assigned companies to promote to their circle of online friends.
What a load of crap. "Go promote this crap you may or may not have used or like, and we'll pay you".
I know not everyone shares my belief on this, but the only way I'll endorse or promote your product is if I believe it's a good product and a good value. Mostly, that means I personally use your product and like it, but there are some cases where I know a product is good and popular, but doesn't serve my needs. In that case, I'll still recommend it to people I think will benefit from it. If I don't know your product, or I don't think it's a good product, or I don't think it's a good value, then I won't promote it, period.
Chris: So, if there's anything I can do for you, or, more to the point, to you, you just let me know.
Susan: Can you hammer a six-inch spike through a board with your penis?
Chris: Not right now.
Susan: A girl's gotta have her standards.
It's easy to look these thing up on wikipedia. You should try it rather than making a terrible estimate. The military is actually slightly over 20% of the US government spending.
But first, may I compliment you on you choice of footwear.
"Sorry, gentlemen your minerals are no good here."
"Now, show these fine gentlemen our pet sharks"
P.S. IANAL, nor a psychiatrist.
If corporations are people, then this is a suicide note from Hulu. I recommend mandatory confinement to a mental ward of a hospital for 72 hours of observation. Since Hulu, as a corporation is actually a gestalt entity of the board of directors and officers, they must all be placed in the same mental ward so that the gestalt entity can be observed.
But no one has asked the really important question. How do you pronounce silicene?
...reports that Microsoft's have invested...
Can we please have some editing before posting articles?
From TFA:
However Prof Zhou pointed out the most extreme changes were just at night and the overall changes may be smaller.
Also, it is much smaller than the estimated change caused by other factors such as man made global warming.
“Overall, the warming effect reported in this study is local and is small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature changes,” he added.
...
“This makes sense, since at night the ground becomes much cooler than the air just a few hundred meters above the surface, and the wind farms generate gentle turbulence near the ground that causes these to mix together, thus the ground doesn't get quite as cool. This same strategy is commonly used by fruit growers (who fly helicopters over the orchards rather than windmills) to combat early morning frosts.”
Which is precisely the reason individuals and companies should take all the deductions they can, and keep that money out of the hands of politicians.
We need government, and government needs taxes to operate. But the legitimate purpose of government is national defense, implementing a legal/court system, promoting the welfare of the people (actual people, not corporations), promoting the development of infrastructure and standards, and protecting the resources and environment. When you give them more money, they just find more ways to spend it, usually wastefully or for the benefit of a few friends/donors.
Seriously, it's a stealth ship in a ghost fleet. If it can be found, I think it's safe to call it a failed experiment.