If she used a gun to defend against a fist fight, that's called murder and she'll go to prison.
It sounds like your lessons are so dangerous to her, they put her in a dangerous situation where her life is in peril even before she's encountered any sort of threat!
It is really scary the varied bullshit that young people have to overcome in this society. Wowsers.
(Also note that possession of a gun in a robbery or other crime increases your chance of death, it does NOT make you safer, or in any way "protect" you from harm. It gives you the opportunity to increase your danger in order to take a principled stand and fight to the death, but that is a different thing and that is something a child should not be doing, and isn't even old enough to have chosen for themselves. aka child abuse)
When are people going to stop making stupid decisions knowing full well the consequences?
I dunno, but you're right, the doctors already know that it is stupid to keep prescribing the pills. But their patients are whiny, so they just turn them into zombies anyways.
The patients, OTOH, do not know the consequences at all; patients who understood the issues were already not whining about the pain, they already understood it hurts because life is unfair, and the ability to sense pain is an adaptive trait.
I went out of my way to buy a dumb TV, (even had to add my own headphone jack, they assume it is a business wall screen not a real TV these days) and interestingly it supports the same resolutions as other TVs that were for sale.
Although truly, 720p and 1080p are already indistinguishable when watching a good movie. If you're staring at pixels, you need better content. Or a better filter to ensure that if you don't have interesting content, you also don't have the screen turned on. But that said, having wifi and a bunch of insecure, unsecure, vapid, malicious apps doesn't actually increase display resolution. *boggle*
And, are you really sure that DLNA is popular with people who are good at firewalls? Because I'm used to using my firewall skills to make sure it can't live on my network! Maybe other people use it to let that stuff in. Maybe.
There is a long history of this sort of sensor glitch, don't be so airheaded. You know you don't have any idea how likely it is, because you haven't ever looked into it enough detail.
Show me one example...
No, look it up yourself and find out if you're right, or wrong. (Spoiler: Wrong!) Don't ask me to show you stuff, that's exactly why you're full of shit; people talk, you measure their personal Virtue, and if that measurement tells you they're somebody you like, then you believe them and repeat their blah-blah as if it was knowledge you learned. It isn't. It isn't knowledge, it is just rumor. It doesn't make you sciencey, it makes you an idiot.
Don't ask me to show you what I already told you the answer is. You should be able to easily look it up from objective sources, without having to ask me what sources are high quality. If you need to get that meta-data from the same source as the data you're trying to verify, you're just getting taken for a ride, you're not participating in discussions, or even collecting the information necessary to do an analysis before coming to conclusions!
I know that the odds against producing the false object on video are already astronomical from my experience with video editing and data recovery.
No, no, no, no, no, probability is not some blah-blah about Willy and his and his little plays.
There is a long history of this sort of sensor glitch, don't be so airheaded. You know you don't have any idea how likely it is, because you haven't ever looked into it enough detail. You just waving your hands and imagining a probability! But look up past examples, because sensor bugs are a real thing. Little fuckers crawl inside everything eventually, and when they get inside a sensor they die.
In this case it appears the crew just couldn't read their display, and had bumped a knob. But very similar things have happened again and again and again, and yet old Willy never shows up to a local book signing. He'd make a bundle for sure.
As can be learned from Winston Churchill quotes, it doesn't really matter if we might be experienced and wise, we still tried all the other answers out for size before settling on what we knew was Right.
There is absolutely no way to judge from the actions of American military personnel if they are inexperienced, naive, have a clever plan, or are just plain nuts. This is actually by design. It is explained somewhat in the movie The Lost Battalion.
The whole "just anyone" stuff is just pure logical fallacy, though, right?
Pure.
It literally does not matter who they are. Or who you see them as.
If a virtuous person is wrong about what they see, the Universe does not bow to their superior Virtue and change reality to match what they thought they saw. So clearly measuring your perception of the virtue that sticks to them because of their occupation is not going to make any logical difference as to what it was that was pictured on their sensor readout.
I heavily discount all words that all people say. Especially words that describe the person's experience. In cases such as this where I have video, I usually end up thinking they were clueless about what they saw, but made up an explanation anyways!
I do not care if they're purported to be "experts." But in this case, they're not experts in sensor design at all, they're just experienced in a field of endeavor that causes them to sit in from the sensor readouts for long periods of time.
I'd expect them to be full of well-established misunderstandings about the technology, rather than having somehow gained engineering knowledge simply from the radiance off an engineered object.
Last year I had a pilot trying to sound really knowy and insisting he knew all about weather radar, and I realized in less than a minute that he couldn't even identify the minutes vs hours on the timestamp that is printed on the radar animation frames! Even after pointing it out to him, and where you can just look at the screen and verify by the pixel velocity which units would even be reasonable, he was still unable to admit the error. Why? Because pilots are really really macho. This guy didn't even know the difference between the raw sensor data and the "qualified precipitation data." He flies in airplanes that have proprietary realtime weather radar, which is great, but he's so clueless about the difference between the different products he doesn't even realize that they're different; the realtime one shows rain that doesn't even get to the ground, because it is designed for pilots, and the weather service product shows a map where the precipitation is probably getting to the ground. But if you don't know the difference, having the extra data doesn't actually help you to plan. He can't comprehend that there are different products, because when he thinks about radar he only has room for "better" or "worse" types of thinking. He can't hold it in his brain that they're both better for different uses, and the proprietary one for pilots is expensive simply because there are very few people who benefit from knowing about rain that is falling from the clouds but not reaching the ground. The government doesn't do that measurement, so pilots pay for it. Duh. But he can only see, "me have expensive data, me better, gubermind dunt no bout wethur."
Yes, they are inexperienced at sensor engineering, and yes, they are naive about the realities of quality control. See, being pilots doesn't give them magical knowledge of other fields, even fields that build tools for use by pilots!
Uh, you know, it all depends on if you've already narrowed it down or not.
Like, at first you don't think of any good explanation at all, so everything seems unlikely, both common reasons and uncommon reasons.
If you then have a bunch of circumstantial evidence that points at uncommon reasons, (for example, in the past lots of things of this nature have turned out to be insects stuck inside an oil lense in the sensor, or something like that) then that uncommon reason to have a problem is the most likely that you know of. It does not matter if the average sensor never gets a bug stuck in it. Totally irrelevant.
Just like, demographically some person might have some probably of getting cancer that is greater than 0%, and less than 100%. But an actual individual at a particular time doesn't have that % chance; they either have it or they don't. It is either 0%, or 100%. All the time. The probability being in between only represents a lack of knowledge about both current and future events and states. So in the story, you can know that all the different types of sensor ghosting are uncommon or rare problems to have with the sensor, and yet they might still be the most likely explanation for the observation.
Just because you're bigoted against people with disabilities doesn't make you smawt or knowy or whatever, man.
It also obviously doesn't even imply you can read, since you didn't comprehend any of the points I made. I can tell because you said a bunch of weird stuff about "can't be" blah blah, and I wasn't using absolutes at all. In fact the points I did make were highly critical of that sort of attitude.
It shouldn't really be any surprise, as soon as you use language of bigotry it is obvious you're an idiot.
You know you don't understand the basics of programming when you say that stuff.
Yes, there is a single bit that stores the boolean value about if the current state is "locked" or "not locked."
It didn't lock on to nothing.
Yeah, says who, Harry Potter? It locked onto something, and that something might very well have been nothing! Do you comprehend any of your own words? Waving your hands doesn't cause you to have knowledge of why the target lock indicator was or wasn't on you nincompoop.
I know how to industrial design a portable computer system with an LCD, so I wouldn't bother to worry about what specific training they might give people in repair depots.
Repair people are not experts at how the devices they repair actually work. If they're expert at their job, then they're an expert at deciphering the excuses people make when they break something, and can figure out what really happened well enough to guess which subsystem to test first. They know what the replacement parts are, and how to install them. There is no reason at all to think that they know why the engineers designing a system chose part A instead of part B. What they know is only if the part number is supposed to fit on a particular model, and if it does in practice.
You can work your whole life with protected screens without ever needing to know anything about the properties of the double-sided adhesive foam that you place between the front glass and the other parts of the assembly. You would never, in 30 years or 300 years, need to know about that, because the design engineer is the one who chooses the type of foam to use. You're only replacing it. You have no need to know what the words "fully sealed" would mean, or if that double-sided foam fully seals it. It doesn't, that's the whole point! But a repair person doesn't get that feedback. The engineer who seals the case completely and then loses his job, well guess what that product might not have even made it to production, or if it did, few units of that model were sold before the problem became apparent and there was a recall. The repair guy doesn't know about that. Even if he knows there is a recall and knows it is from condensation, that's all he knows, the words "design flaw."
Even a hard disk isn't fully sealed. It wouldn't work long if it was. And a computer repair person in 1000 years on the job would never have been asked to repair a hard disk vent, so they may or may not have ever even bothered to learn what that part was.
The summary is also faulty, it provides a link and says you can test the tool there, but following the link it says no, it is not the same tool at all, it is a worse tool that is also slower.
I guess we can assume that whatever translation tool the editors are using to write the stories, it was unable to round-trip this story!
So you're saying if they sounded like stoned jocks playing a videogame, it would somehow be impossible to notice, because Freedom Fries? Did I get your complaint right?
Wait, so you're saying that because something happens, it must be common? And if it isn't common, it must not be a known thing?
Wouldn't it make more sense that if it a mundane sensor occurrence, then it is uncommon or rare, because the pilots are exited by it?
Notice how far off of logical your answer is? You have evidence that it is uncommon or rare, and you take that to mean that if it was the most likely explanation, it would have to be common instead. Because the pilots have more experience with common readings. There is no reason to think that at all.
I see UFOs all the time, usually they turn out to be insects. Sometimes birds.
Personally, I'm not even convinced they saw an object other than their sensor readout screens. And if an object was involved, it might only be "flying" in the sense that it is inside a sensor and the sensor is flying.
I mean, seriously, the computer flipped a bit. This is evidence that the computer flipped a bit.
It tells nothing about if an object was even detected.
Sensors are useful when they're reporting information in their expected and well-calibrated regions. Odd-looking data does not imply an important observation, though it is certainly possible. Odd-looking sensor results imply a sensor problem.
Slashdot Mirror
If she used a gun to defend against a fist fight, that's called murder and she'll go to prison.
It sounds like your lessons are so dangerous to her, they put her in a dangerous situation where her life is in peril even before she's encountered any sort of threat!
It is really scary the varied bullshit that young people have to overcome in this society. Wowsers.
(Also note that possession of a gun in a robbery or other crime increases your chance of death, it does NOT make you safer, or in any way "protect" you from harm. It gives you the opportunity to increase your danger in order to take a principled stand and fight to the death, but that is a different thing and that is something a child should not be doing, and isn't even old enough to have chosen for themselves. aka child abuse)
When are people going to stop making stupid decisions knowing full well the consequences?
I dunno, but you're right, the doctors already know that it is stupid to keep prescribing the pills. But their patients are whiny, so they just turn them into zombies anyways.
The patients, OTOH, do not know the consequences at all; patients who understood the issues were already not whining about the pain, they already understood it hurts because life is unfair, and the ability to sense pain is an adaptive trait.
Every time my wife goes to the doctor, I warn her: "Don't let them give you any zombie pills!"
They often try.
I went out of my way to buy a dumb TV, (even had to add my own headphone jack, they assume it is a business wall screen not a real TV these days) and interestingly it supports the same resolutions as other TVs that were for sale.
Although truly, 720p and 1080p are already indistinguishable when watching a good movie. If you're staring at pixels, you need better content. Or a better filter to ensure that if you don't have interesting content, you also don't have the screen turned on. But that said, having wifi and a bunch of insecure, unsecure, vapid, malicious apps doesn't actually increase display resolution. *boggle*
And, are you really sure that DLNA is popular with people who are good at firewalls? Because I'm used to using my firewall skills to make sure it can't live on my network! Maybe other people use it to let that stuff in. Maybe.
There is a long history of this sort of sensor glitch, don't be so airheaded. You know you don't have any idea how likely it is, because you haven't ever looked into it enough detail.
Show me one example...
No, look it up yourself and find out if you're right, or wrong. (Spoiler: Wrong!) Don't ask me to show you stuff, that's exactly why you're full of shit; people talk, you measure their personal Virtue, and if that measurement tells you they're somebody you like, then you believe them and repeat their blah-blah as if it was knowledge you learned. It isn't. It isn't knowledge, it is just rumor. It doesn't make you sciencey, it makes you an idiot.
Don't ask me to show you what I already told you the answer is. You should be able to easily look it up from objective sources, without having to ask me what sources are high quality. If you need to get that meta-data from the same source as the data you're trying to verify, you're just getting taken for a ride, you're not participating in discussions, or even collecting the information necessary to do an analysis before coming to conclusions!
I know that the odds against producing the false object on video are already astronomical from my experience with video editing and data recovery.
LMFAO! No. Just, no.
No, no, no, no, no, probability is not some blah-blah about Willy and his and his little plays.
There is a long history of this sort of sensor glitch, don't be so airheaded. You know you don't have any idea how likely it is, because you haven't ever looked into it enough detail. You just waving your hands and imagining a probability! But look up past examples, because sensor bugs are a real thing. Little fuckers crawl inside everything eventually, and when they get inside a sensor they die.
In this case it appears the crew just couldn't read their display, and had bumped a knob. But very similar things have happened again and again and again, and yet old Willy never shows up to a local book signing. He'd make a bundle for sure.
Quantum doesn't add anything but "I don't know," and you should already be sorting based on that.
Nope, they have strict liability. Legally they can hammer as hard as they want.
The reason they don't always do it is that the person deciding isn't really a cop, or a lawyer.
As can be learned from Winston Churchill quotes, it doesn't really matter if we might be experienced and wise, we still tried all the other answers out for size before settling on what we knew was Right.
There is absolutely no way to judge from the actions of American military personnel if they are inexperienced, naive, have a clever plan, or are just plain nuts. This is actually by design. It is explained somewhat in the movie The Lost Battalion.
The whole "just anyone" stuff is just pure logical fallacy, though, right?
Pure.
It literally does not matter who they are. Or who you see them as.
If a virtuous person is wrong about what they see, the Universe does not bow to their superior Virtue and change reality to match what they thought they saw. So clearly measuring your perception of the virtue that sticks to them because of their occupation is not going to make any logical difference as to what it was that was pictured on their sensor readout.
I heavily discount all words that all people say. Especially words that describe the person's experience. In cases such as this where I have video, I usually end up thinking they were clueless about what they saw, but made up an explanation anyways!
I do not care if they're purported to be "experts." But in this case, they're not experts in sensor design at all, they're just experienced in a field of endeavor that causes them to sit in from the sensor readouts for long periods of time.
I'd expect them to be full of well-established misunderstandings about the technology, rather than having somehow gained engineering knowledge simply from the radiance off an engineered object.
Last year I had a pilot trying to sound really knowy and insisting he knew all about weather radar, and I realized in less than a minute that he couldn't even identify the minutes vs hours on the timestamp that is printed on the radar animation frames! Even after pointing it out to him, and where you can just look at the screen and verify by the pixel velocity which units would even be reasonable, he was still unable to admit the error. Why? Because pilots are really really macho. This guy didn't even know the difference between the raw sensor data and the "qualified precipitation data." He flies in airplanes that have proprietary realtime weather radar, which is great, but he's so clueless about the difference between the different products he doesn't even realize that they're different; the realtime one shows rain that doesn't even get to the ground, because it is designed for pilots, and the weather service product shows a map where the precipitation is probably getting to the ground. But if you don't know the difference, having the extra data doesn't actually help you to plan. He can't comprehend that there are different products, because when he thinks about radar he only has room for "better" or "worse" types of thinking. He can't hold it in his brain that they're both better for different uses, and the proprietary one for pilots is expensive simply because there are very few people who benefit from knowing about rain that is falling from the clouds but not reaching the ground. The government doesn't do that measurement, so pilots pay for it. Duh. But he can only see, "me have expensive data, me better, gubermind dunt no bout wethur."
Yes, they are inexperienced at sensor engineering, and yes, they are naive about the realities of quality control. See, being pilots doesn't give them magical knowledge of other fields, even fields that build tools for use by pilots!
Uh, you know, it all depends on if you've already narrowed it down or not.
Like, at first you don't think of any good explanation at all, so everything seems unlikely, both common reasons and uncommon reasons.
If you then have a bunch of circumstantial evidence that points at uncommon reasons, (for example, in the past lots of things of this nature have turned out to be insects stuck inside an oil lense in the sensor, or something like that) then that uncommon reason to have a problem is the most likely that you know of. It does not matter if the average sensor never gets a bug stuck in it. Totally irrelevant.
Just like, demographically some person might have some probably of getting cancer that is greater than 0%, and less than 100%. But an actual individual at a particular time doesn't have that % chance; they either have it or they don't. It is either 0%, or 100%. All the time. The probability being in between only represents a lack of knowledge about both current and future events and states. So in the story, you can know that all the different types of sensor ghosting are uncommon or rare problems to have with the sensor, and yet they might still be the most likely explanation for the observation.
Just because you're bigoted against people with disabilities doesn't make you smawt or knowy or whatever, man.
It also obviously doesn't even imply you can read, since you didn't comprehend any of the points I made. I can tell because you said a bunch of weird stuff about "can't be" blah blah, and I wasn't using absolutes at all. In fact the points I did make were highly critical of that sort of attitude.
It shouldn't really be any surprise, as soon as you use language of bigotry it is obvious you're an idiot.
Yeah. Dude. That's not even English.
Some sort of unnamed Creole.
You know you don't understand the basics of programming when you say that stuff.
Yes, there is a single bit that stores the boolean value about if the current state is "locked" or "not locked."
It didn't lock on to nothing.
Yeah, says who, Harry Potter? It locked onto something, and that something might very well have been nothing! Do you comprehend any of your own words? Waving your hands doesn't cause you to have knowledge of why the target lock indicator was or wasn't on you nincompoop.
I know how to industrial design a portable computer system with an LCD, so I wouldn't bother to worry about what specific training they might give people in repair depots.
Repair people are not experts at how the devices they repair actually work. If they're expert at their job, then they're an expert at deciphering the excuses people make when they break something, and can figure out what really happened well enough to guess which subsystem to test first. They know what the replacement parts are, and how to install them. There is no reason at all to think that they know why the engineers designing a system chose part A instead of part B. What they know is only if the part number is supposed to fit on a particular model, and if it does in practice.
You can work your whole life with protected screens without ever needing to know anything about the properties of the double-sided adhesive foam that you place between the front glass and the other parts of the assembly. You would never, in 30 years or 300 years, need to know about that, because the design engineer is the one who chooses the type of foam to use. You're only replacing it. You have no need to know what the words "fully sealed" would mean, or if that double-sided foam fully seals it. It doesn't, that's the whole point! But a repair person doesn't get that feedback. The engineer who seals the case completely and then loses his job, well guess what that product might not have even made it to production, or if it did, few units of that model were sold before the problem became apparent and there was a recall. The repair guy doesn't know about that. Even if he knows there is a recall and knows it is from condensation, that's all he knows, the words "design flaw."
Even a hard disk isn't fully sealed. It wouldn't work long if it was. And a computer repair person in 1000 years on the job would never have been asked to repair a hard disk vent, so they may or may not have ever even bothered to learn what that part was.
Whichever bit stores your conclusion about "is the tracking system locked on?"
What a silly question. You clearly don't understand what a "bit" is on a computer, or how it is used, or what flipping one means.
There was a single correct interpretation, and it was also the most obvious one.
The summary is also faulty, it provides a link and says you can test the tool there, but following the link it says no, it is not the same tool at all, it is a worse tool that is also slower.
I guess we can assume that whatever translation tool the editors are using to write the stories, it was unable to round-trip this story!
Its funny, we've both been users for a long time, and you used to sound like a native English speaker.
Now you speak some sort of weird political creole.
Let this serve as a cautionary tale about what happens when you sink too deep into the echo-pit.
Can you link us to one of your edits that was reverted that you feel is a good example?
That way we could judge for ourselves, instead of just reading your insistence that you are Virtuous and that others are not.
So you're saying if they sounded like stoned jocks playing a videogame, it would somehow be impossible to notice, because Freedom Fries? Did I get your complaint right?
Wait, so you're saying that because something happens, it must be common? And if it isn't common, it must not be a known thing?
Wouldn't it make more sense that if it a mundane sensor occurrence, then it is uncommon or rare, because the pilots are exited by it?
Notice how far off of logical your answer is? You have evidence that it is uncommon or rare, and you take that to mean that if it was the most likely explanation, it would have to be common instead. Because the pilots have more experience with common readings. There is no reason to think that at all.
I see UFOs all the time, usually they turn out to be insects. Sometimes birds.
Personally, I'm not even convinced they saw an object other than their sensor readout screens. And if an object was involved, it might only be "flying" in the sense that it is inside a sensor and the sensor is flying.
Or just a bug.
I mean, seriously, the computer flipped a bit. This is evidence that the computer flipped a bit.
It tells nothing about if an object was even detected.
Sensors are useful when they're reporting information in their expected and well-calibrated regions. Odd-looking data does not imply an important observation, though it is certainly possible. Odd-looking sensor results imply a sensor problem.
Maybe we can convince them to only eat right-handed proteins.
Don't let those hippies control your mind with left-food, only eat right-food.