And more likely to take longer to subdue a suspect. Plus if you swing wrong you could easily do major damage, especially a head blow. Then there's broken bones, internal bleeding, whole list of things that can happen from repeated blunt force trauma. Then different officers likely have different strengths. I'm certain Hightower could do more damage with a baton than Steve Guttenberg, then we have the adrenaline factor.
This is, of course, assuming that the suspect doesn't block your attacks and make some of their own. With a switchblade in their back pocket. Into the officer's chest.
I'd rather that suspect go down and not have the lives of people sworn to protect me endangered simply because the media has a facination with the statistically insignificant.
"Countless"? You mean, 334 per Amnesty International isn't countable? Seems well within the range of countable numbers to me. Heck, even seems like something I could count to in a little under 6 minutes.
Re:Why the focus on "Lethality"? What about "pain"
on
A Tour of Taser HQ
·
· Score: 1
There's also less control over the output from fists. In the heat of the moment, with adrenaline pumping, you might start swinging too hard, or swing too much. Do you have karate training? Those fists could really be lethal weapons.
Tasers give a precalculated amount of damage. There's less ambiguity over what a taser can do than what fists can do.
at least 334 people died after taser shocks between 2001 and 2008.
Tasers less lethal than swine flu!
Re:The Most Deadly Non-Lethal
on
A Tour of Taser HQ
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Because it's the exception.
People die in car crashes daily and regularly (one cite I saw said 115), but at best they're mentioned on traffic reports. "Fatal car accident on I-5, traffic backed up for miles..." You'll never hear about those outside of the local area unless someone famous is involved.
But a plane crash that results in fatailites gets reported nationwide for a good week.
The more statistically improbable a fatal incident is, the more probable it will be reported on.
Too many times to count I've received calls and I've told them how to go about troubleshooting the problem for me. They'll him and haw and say this and that, making excuses. When they FINALLY get around to doing what I ask, nearly every time the problem gets fixed.
I'll never understand it. You called me for help. I'm TRYING to actually give you help, yet now you actively refuse it.
Classic case of did not RTFA. People keep forgetting to include the first part of that sentence when they quote it:
While everyone would like to work for a nice person who is always right, IT pros will prefer a jerk who is always right over a nice person who is always wrong.
It's basically a matrix. We have [Nice/Right] which everyone likes, and [Jerk/Wrong] which no one likes. I guess the author stayed away from those because he assumed people would already have those classifications so he instead focuses on the other two cases.
After that it's down to preference. In the IT world, in general, the author says there is a preference for [Jerk/Right] over [Nice/Wrong]. Sales or Customer Service might prefer [Nice/Wrong] because personality counts for a lot more. In hiring [Nice/...] counts for more than [.../Right] because the people hiring tend to lack the background to judge someone's breadth and depth of IT.
The key point though is IT values [.../Right] over [.../Wrong], rather than [Jerk/...] over [Nice/...]
Definatly. It's like, "Oh, look, I found an error. If I had done this, that error wouldn't be there!!" And to that I respond, then do it yourself. YOU go tack metadata onto the 100 million books they have, you smug egocentric bastard.
And, of course, he completely ignores the 999,999 proper entries compared to the 1 error. Google seems to know there's lots of problems here, and they're not going to get it right the first pass. But having a first pass at all is better than nothing.
And since they are right that the number turned out to be bigger in other studies, slightly. It seems a reasonable adaptation. It's easy to say it's unreasonable, of course. But they are absolutely correct that the number is most likely smaller. So how much should they adjust it ? Like I said, it seems a reasonable adjustment. Not absurdly high, not absurdly low.
Here's where I find a major problem. You do not fudge your data. Period. These other studies may show higher numbers, but do we have proof they weren't fudged as well?
There's too many stories about companies performing pharmecutical trials and then throwing the data away because it didn't present a positive light.
If you're going to adjust numbers, you better have a damn sound reasoning for it rather than "we have a hunch people lied, so..."
Sorry, you've got radio buttons, pull downs, images (the little red and blue bullets).
I wouldn't confuse Google with Metacrawler circa 1996. There's just a lot more going on at Metacrawler.
Coke had a design patent on their glass bottle apperance. That doesn't stop other people from making glass bottles, only ones that look like the Coke bottle.
See, there's so much wrong with the OP that it's not even worth trying to correct him.
Swine Flu has existed for, likely, thousands of years although we only have proof of it since 1930. To say that a vaccine existed before the outbreak, therefore, is ignoring nature's years and years of work on influenza.
Second, the whole 300% baloney. Obviously, numbers like '25 vaccine related deaths to 1 influenza related death' doesn't exactly have shock factor. And 2500% mortality compared to the flu...well, that'll set off even more bullshit alarms.
In fact, even 25 deaths from a vaccine seems downright tame considering the regular flu outbreak takes out ten thousand annually (well, it's either 10 or 20 thou, but either way, we're talking magnitudes of difference. Another point ALWAYS overlooked by fearmongers).
It's just it's not worth trying to point out the flaws in their pseudologic; they're like birthers or moon landing hoax believers. A divine being could materialize in front of them with whatever evidence they want to disprove the outlandish belief, basically flat out go "Look, you're just wrong," and still nothing would change.
So, in the long term, better to just go for the +Funny
that there was a Swine Flu vaccine back in the 1970's that caused a 300% mortality rate on all the "volunteers,"
This alleged vaccine killed the subject, revived them, killed them a second time, revived them again, and finally killed them off (for good) a third time?
FTFA: As you can see, we have 'GAA' coding for 'E' (Glutamic acid). To modify this genome to be more deadly, we simply need to replace 'GAA' with one of the codes for Lysine ('K'), which is either of 'AAA' or 'AAG'.
Article author points out that TWO triplets both translate into Lysine. OP's ability to RTFA is bunk. Learn to not troll.
Slashdot Mirror
And more likely to take longer to subdue a suspect. Plus if you swing wrong you could easily do major damage, especially a head blow. Then there's broken bones, internal bleeding, whole list of things that can happen from repeated blunt force trauma. Then different officers likely have different strengths. I'm certain Hightower could do more damage with a baton than Steve Guttenberg, then we have the adrenaline factor.
This is, of course, assuming that the suspect doesn't block your attacks and make some of their own. With a switchblade in their back pocket. Into the officer's chest.
I'd rather that suspect go down and not have the lives of people sworn to protect me endangered simply because the media has a facination with the statistically insignificant.
+1 Internets, sir. I only hope someone comes across with mod points and gives this the Funny it so richly deserves.
"Countless"? You mean, 334 per Amnesty International isn't countable? Seems well within the range of countable numbers to me. Heck, even seems like something I could count to in a little under 6 minutes.
There's also less control over the output from fists. In the heat of the moment, with adrenaline pumping, you might start swinging too hard, or swing too much. Do you have karate training? Those fists could really be lethal weapons.
Tasers give a precalculated amount of damage. There's less ambiguity over what a taser can do than what fists can do.
And what about a rubber bullet to the neck? The face? The groin?
The same downsides people bring up regarding the needle equipped one apply the same to the rubber bullet one.
at least 334 people died after taser shocks between 2001 and 2008.
Tasers less lethal than swine flu!
Because it's the exception.
People die in car crashes daily and regularly (one cite I saw said 115), but at best they're mentioned on traffic reports. "Fatal car accident on I-5, traffic backed up for miles..." You'll never hear about those outside of the local area unless someone famous is involved.
But a plane crash that results in fatailites gets reported nationwide for a good week.
The more statistically improbable a fatal incident is, the more probable it will be reported on.
Fully agree.
Too many times to count I've received calls and I've told them how to go about troubleshooting the problem for me. They'll him and haw and say this and that, making excuses. When they FINALLY get around to doing what I ask, nearly every time the problem gets fixed.
I'll never understand it. You called me for help. I'm TRYING to actually give you help, yet now you actively refuse it.
Classic case of did not RTFA. People keep forgetting to include the first part of that sentence when they quote it:
While everyone would like to work for a nice person who is always right, IT pros will prefer a jerk who is always right over a nice person who is always wrong.
It's basically a matrix. We have [Nice/Right] which everyone likes, and [Jerk/Wrong] which no one likes. I guess the author stayed away from those because he assumed people would already have those classifications so he instead focuses on the other two cases.
After that it's down to preference. In the IT world, in general, the author says there is a preference for [Jerk/Right] over [Nice/Wrong]. Sales or Customer Service might prefer [Nice/Wrong] because personality counts for a lot more. In hiring [Nice/...] counts for more than [.../Right] because the people hiring tend to lack the background to judge someone's breadth and depth of IT.
The key point though is IT values [.../Right] over [.../Wrong], rather than [Jerk/...] over [Nice/...]
Definatly. It's like, "Oh, look, I found an error. If I had done this, that error wouldn't be there!!" And to that I respond, then do it yourself. YOU go tack metadata onto the 100 million books they have, you smug egocentric bastard.
And, of course, he completely ignores the 999,999 proper entries compared to the 1 error. Google seems to know there's lots of problems here, and they're not going to get it right the first pass. But having a first pass at all is better than nothing.
Yes. This is a followup including a link now to the Google blog addressing the metadata issues with the original links there for reference.
Did you not read the last line of the summary?
It's not Spyware. You agreed to install it.
And if you agree to install AntiVirus Pro 2009 it doesn't count as spyware either?
Except that's not the windmill causing that, it's the coal dust.
Although I probably should've gone with 'wind farm' which is what I meant, it just didn't pop into mind at the time.
There's people out there who will sign petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide and swear up and down that windmills cause cancer.
Science is hard.
And since they are right that the number turned out to be bigger in other studies, slightly. It seems a reasonable adaptation. It's easy to say it's unreasonable, of course. But they are absolutely correct that the number is most likely smaller. So how much should they adjust it ? Like I said, it seems a reasonable adjustment. Not absurdly high, not absurdly low.
Here's where I find a major problem. You do not fudge your data. Period. These other studies may show higher numbers, but do we have proof they weren't fudged as well?
There's too many stories about companies performing pharmecutical trials and then throwing the data away because it didn't present a positive light.
If you're going to adjust numbers, you better have a damn sound reasoning for it rather than "we have a hunch people lied, so..."
How much higher?
Keep in mind, before you answer, note the UK only has a population of 60 mil, so try to pick a number below that.
Sorry, you've got radio buttons, pull downs, images (the little red and blue bullets).
I wouldn't confuse Google with Metacrawler circa 1996. There's just a lot more going on at Metacrawler.
Coke had a design patent on their glass bottle apperance. That doesn't stop other people from making glass bottles, only ones that look like the Coke bottle.
There aren't two buttons underneath the search bar and there's a LOT more text on the page.
The patent is very specific about the layout. Try again.
See, there's so much wrong with the OP that it's not even worth trying to correct him.
Swine Flu has existed for, likely, thousands of years although we only have proof of it since 1930. To say that a vaccine existed before the outbreak, therefore, is ignoring nature's years and years of work on influenza.
Second, the whole 300% baloney. Obviously, numbers like '25 vaccine related deaths to 1 influenza related death' doesn't exactly have shock factor. And 2500% mortality compared to the flu...well, that'll set off even more bullshit alarms.
In fact, even 25 deaths from a vaccine seems downright tame considering the regular flu outbreak takes out ten thousand annually (well, it's either 10 or 20 thou, but either way, we're talking magnitudes of difference. Another point ALWAYS overlooked by fearmongers).
It's just it's not worth trying to point out the flaws in their pseudologic; they're like birthers or moon landing hoax believers. A divine being could materialize in front of them with whatever evidence they want to disprove the outlandish belief, basically flat out go "Look, you're just wrong," and still nothing would change.
So, in the long term, better to just go for the +Funny
Yes, troll feeding is bad, but honestly,
that there was a Swine Flu vaccine back in the 1970's that caused a 300% mortality rate on all the "volunteers,"
This alleged vaccine killed the subject, revived them, killed them a second time, revived them again, and finally killed them off (for good) a third time?
Math is hard, clearly.
I dont think Ive ever seen a flea outside the woods.
You've never had outdoor pets, have you?
Advantage is a wonderful thing...
Umm, I'm confused by this ranting.
FTFA: As you can see, we have 'GAA' coding for 'E' (Glutamic acid). To modify this genome to be more deadly, we simply need to replace 'GAA' with one of the codes for Lysine ('K'), which is either of 'AAA' or 'AAG'.
Article author points out that TWO triplets both translate into Lysine. OP's ability to RTFA is bunk. Learn to not troll.
I'm not exactly worried about being robbed at cannon-point...
And they have a whole new lineup to work with:
Princess Mary Jane
Princess Sue Storm
Princess Elektra
Princess Dark Phoenix
Actually...I'd watch that last one.
Because following due process requires money. The media companies have no money because people keep downloading their stuff illegally.