Now we're encouraging kids to inflict pain on animals for their own amusement.
You're overstating your case, given that their intent is presumably to educate, not to amuse, and there is a long precedent for harming animals in the interests of educating humans, continuing to the present day.
Right. They'd never be given access to the cockpit. But nutcases can still do some damage with them. Including killing people.
Unlike everywhere else on earth, where people are invulnerable to knives. After this, you make the argument that there's no medical attention at 30,000 feet, as if there were some spate of airborne knife-related homicides prior to 2001 suggesting that this would be even remotely a problem. Then I observe that if you really wanted to kill someone you wouldn't bring a two-inch non-locking knife like the kind they were considering making legal, you'd just bring a pair of hefty, sharp, six-inch knitting needles. Luckily those, being easily employable to inflict grievous bodily harm, are illegal to carry on planes, right?
How foolish of me to have forgotten that epidemic of oafs bleeding out from self-inflicted pen-knife injuries in the dark decades before those seductive instruments of mayhem had yet ceased to imperil the skies.
This took so long to fix for the same reason pocket knives aren't allowed on planes, despite the fact they're no more useful a tool for mayhem than many implements that are allowed: a relatively small group of people highly motivated to maintain the status quo (in this case a confederacy of hysterical air-hostesses) always wins out over a much larger group of people who are far less motivated to see change.
This is the same reason the tax code is so hard to fix: for every loophole you have a small group of impassioned beneficiaries fighting against a much larger group who collectively aren't much harmed by it, and thus lack sufficient interest in fighting it.
Grandpa went from being a shrewd businessman to being someone we had to keep an eye on at all times (he would fall for every con artist who showed up at his door).
What's his address? I've got some great pills that will help him with that.
OR, they're more worried about fiscal security at the end of their lives, and fear of things like being shoved in a crappy nursing home and having all their possessions sold off frightens them into taking risks they wouldn't otherwise consider.
The study says fogies prefer less risk.
Compared to other age groups, older adults tended to prefer to lock in guaranteed earnings over gambling on a bigger win.
Now you can turn your theory around to make it about how the poor elderly are fearful of losing what little they have etc. etc., should work just as well for you.
Kids and young folks are more motivated to get $5 since they have low resources. If you are retired, why not take the chance on $20 vs a sure $5 you don't need?
Except the study says fogies prefer less risk.
Compared to other age groups, older adults tended to prefer to lock in guaranteed earnings over gambling on a bigger win.
Is like a broken Coke machine . . . maybe if they keep putting one more quarter in it, they'll finally get a cool refreshing drink . ..
To be fair, at least since the 70's you've needed to use the same process to get a Coke from a working machine. I'd say it's more like they jammed a fork in an electrical socket, and when they got shocked they decided they better try turning the fork around first.
Do you really think they wouldn't still be trying to lock out third-party products if no-one had been electrocuted?
if no one had been electrocuted, that would mean the guy at Apple whose job it is to make sure the iPhone electrocutes users of knockoff chargers must have been asleep at the wheel
No, a ground bust is not the worst case scenario. A near ground burst is. My understanding is most nukes are designed to go off a few hundred meters above ground. Still plenty close enough to toss a plume of horrendously radioactive dust and debris all around but also position to expose a large area to the heat and shock of the blast.
this is why it's illegal in 38 states to take a hot air balloon ride after visiting Taco Bell
Killer robots have been used in combat for a long time. Their logic consists of "if pressure applied to unit, explode." Presumably these new models will be at least somewhat less likely to kill the wrong target.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we're encouraging kids to inflict pain on animals for their own amusement.
You're overstating your case, given that their intent is presumably to educate, not to amuse, and there is a long precedent for harming animals in the interests of educating humans, continuing to the present day.
Right. They'd never be given access to the cockpit. But nutcases can still do some damage with them. Including killing people.
Unlike everywhere else on earth, where people are invulnerable to knives. After this, you make the argument that there's no medical attention at 30,000 feet, as if there were some spate of airborne knife-related homicides prior to 2001 suggesting that this would be even remotely a problem. Then I observe that if you really wanted to kill someone you wouldn't bring a two-inch non-locking knife like the kind they were considering making legal, you'd just bring a pair of hefty, sharp, six-inch knitting needles. Luckily those, being easily employable to inflict grievous bodily harm, are illegal to carry on planes, right?
Behold, someone so wedded to his own point of view he cannot conceive of why anyone would take an object on a plane except to use it on the plane.
Even they themselves allow that such knives could not be used to hijack a plane again.
How foolish of me to have forgotten that epidemic of oafs bleeding out from self-inflicted pen-knife injuries in the dark decades before those seductive instruments of mayhem had yet ceased to imperil the skies.
This took so long to fix for the same reason pocket knives aren't allowed on planes, despite the fact they're no more useful a tool for mayhem than many implements that are allowed: a relatively small group of people highly motivated to maintain the status quo (in this case a confederacy of hysterical air-hostesses) always wins out over a much larger group of people who are far less motivated to see change.
This is the same reason the tax code is so hard to fix: for every loophole you have a small group of impassioned beneficiaries fighting against a much larger group who collectively aren't much harmed by it, and thus lack sufficient interest in fighting it.
Remember the Kin?
Microsoft missed a great marketing opportunity when, following the demise of the Kin, they failed to call their next mobile offering "The Next of Kin"
The price strikes me as surprisingly reasonable, too: about $550.
Sure it does, until you realize that's for their "Space-Shuttle Challenger" package.
If anything, a good marketer is worth her weight in gold.
If that's so, why aren't the morbidly obese more employable?
Tesla has the same Achilles heal!
wow, a self-repairing battery
that's more encouraging than if they trademarked Half-Life Forever
so it would seem that younger people are less susceptible to loss aversion
Grandpa went from being a shrewd businessman to being someone we had to keep an eye on at all times (he would fall for every con artist who showed up at his door).
What's his address? I've got some great pills that will help him with that.
OR, they're more worried about fiscal security at the end of their lives, and fear of things like being shoved in a crappy nursing home and having all their possessions sold off frightens them into taking risks they wouldn't otherwise consider.
The study says fogies prefer less risk.
Compared to other age groups, older adults tended to prefer to lock in guaranteed earnings over gambling on a bigger win.
Now you can turn your theory around to make it about how the poor elderly are fearful of losing what little they have etc. etc., should work just as well for you.
Did they correct for income?
Kids and young folks are more motivated to get $5 since they have low resources. If you are retired, why not take the chance on $20 vs a sure $5 you don't need?
Except the study says fogies prefer less risk.
Compared to other age groups, older adults tended to prefer to lock in guaranteed earnings over gambling on a bigger win.
"Travellers"
if saying you got gypped is now socially unacceptable, is it OK instead to say you got traveled?
In the Netherlands rats (and dogs) as well as their training are paid in Euros, not Pounds...
if I were a dog, I would be pretty miffed if a pound was my reward after years of faithful service
So no girlfriends or wives then?
You can have either, but not both.
fair enough. I'll limit myself to wives only.
I did put a fair number of rats through opioid withdrawal
were any of them able to stay clean?
Is like a broken Coke machine . . . maybe if they keep putting one more quarter in it, they'll finally get a cool refreshing drink . . .
To be fair, at least since the 70's you've needed to use the same process to get a Coke from a working machine. I'd say it's more like they jammed a fork in an electrical socket, and when they got shocked they decided they better try turning the fork around first.
sooner or later the bubble will burst and all the chickens will come home to roost
is that all that's holding back the chickens? a bubble?
Do you really think they wouldn't still be trying to lock out third-party products if no-one had been electrocuted?
if no one had been electrocuted, that would mean the guy at Apple whose job it is to make sure the iPhone electrocutes users of knockoff chargers must have been asleep at the wheel
No, a ground bust is not the worst case scenario. A near ground burst is. My understanding is most nukes are designed to go off a few hundred meters above ground. Still plenty close enough to toss a plume of horrendously radioactive dust and debris all around but also position to expose a large area to the heat and shock of the blast.
this is why it's illegal in 38 states to take a hot air balloon ride after visiting Taco Bell
Sure, three out of four of them failed - that's why there were four.
Little known fact: the same guy who came up with this safety plan was responsible for decades of US education policy.
Killer robots have been used in combat for a long time. Their logic consists of "if pressure applied to unit, explode." Presumably these new models will be at least somewhat less likely to kill the wrong target.