Your employer generally doesn't care about what you do in private unless you bring it to work with you.
I don't think they need to get a grip at all. As long as society at large condemns excess of sex, drugs or guns and finds events including those news worthy any boss worth their salt is going to want to distance themselves from people who practice those. Because at the end of the day, if the company ends up being in the news for one of their employees putting up pictures of their weekend sex orgy on the company Facebook account, its the companies reputation, not just the individuals that ends up getting trashed.
If you don't sack the individual pretty quick you might lose reputation and business, and have to sack other people etc...
Its not Employers that need to get a grip, its everyone else, who watches the news.
A bit of advice for you, if you are "Self-Employed" avoid using the word "Employer" to describe people who pay you. They are clients. If you call them Employer, you are not Self-Employed. In UK the above can be used to sue you for tax evasion.
Getting lots of smart people together yields cool technology. Doesn't mean that original goal that got them together has economic value, though.
Yes... It really does...
Everything we have today, when converted to your "economic value" was derived by some people doing something they didn't originally thought was going to give them "economic value".
Everything...
The human race literally benefits from any new and seemingly useless activity that it attempts to undertake. Someone much later eventually finds out how to make money out of that idea.
Let me give you a small example... The magazine "New Scientist" is only economically viable because people like reading about new non economically viable (yet) research. So particle physics is already generating revenue for some people.
This site is generating revenue from your visit because you chose to read about this story. Especially as you are anonymous and can see adverts.
It's already economical. In fact it's even better that it's done with public money because private industry (the only industry that generates a little thing called TAX) can just use the useful bits without spending huge amounts on R&D.
So the original goal of sating ones curiosity always has economic value. Even if you just watch other people do it on TV or read about it on Slashdot.
All actual criminal acts provide value to someone. You need a better argument than that if you want to actually come across as rational and not just a lawyer.
As for heat, not terribly sure if that would be effective as you would have to heat up then cool down the device so it can be touched. All that in less than 90 sec? Put your oven to 100 C then stick a metal object in it for 90 sec, then take out and touch it with bare hands.... Not to mention some would survive.
UV remains the most viable killing method in this day and age, other than employing some sort of Star-Trek like tech....
But you know what, I can see private hospitals buying into this big time. There are no issues with money and if they can show their clients the level of commitment this shows to the layman, im sure they can pass on the cost quite easily while making a profit.
I can come up with more, but I'm lazy and its Saturday.
As for "The right thing to do". It was, but that was not the reason the US Government at the time (not the people so much as always) had gone to war.
"It is a popular misconception among Americans that the US voluntarily entered WW2, at least against the Germans. In fact, the US didn't. The US entered the general war as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the US entered against Japan and did not, repeat not, declare war on Germany." http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_2
That was my "quick Google" attempt.
Don't get me wrong, Americans are a good people in my book, but they blow their own trumpet a bit too much. All governments on earth are screwed up to some degree, America is one of the better ones.
I agree with you that US only entered WW2 due to pearl harbour, but I'm curious, would you prefer a Russian or German Europe to what it is now? And if anything Japan showed US that it is not untouchable.
US profited big time from WW2 in various ways, I'd say that European countries (UK included) have more than paid their debt to the US by now.
What I'm trying to say is that the world of politics is a little bit more complicated than "I helped you, be grateful". There are a lot of fingers in the same pie, I'm absolutely sure than the US gets more than their fair share.
I'd also be careful what you wish for. Despite appearances, European economy is a lot larger than US Economy. US needs Europe more than Europe needs US. And we all need China and Russia more than most people realise.
So how about we all try and get along without bickering about who helped who 70 years ago. It's starting to sound almost as bad as complaining about the crusade.
Did you actually look up the keyboard or do you think its back-lit with UV???
As per the article you linked, "significantly higher" could just mean x2 or x3 more than a regular cell which is designed to cope with little to no UV at all. The article you mentioned a maximum sample height of 41km, which is still inside the ozone layer (right about at the point UV-C is absorbed) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer . I think 2 lamps designed to pump out UV-C is going to beat our sun at that height within the atmosphere (I could be wrong).
Also, life evolving to survive in such hazardous conditions rarely does anything other than survive. Meaning if it is put in a different environment it dies. These colonies may actually need some ozone within the cells to survive and reproduce (after all, they swim in the stuff), something that does not naturally occur in hospitals.
I suppose that 66% is automated, after every user.
As opposed to the user having to remember to throw the disposable top away after use. You may as well make nurses type in latex gloves that are binned every time you walk away from the computer. That's even cheaper, but few will do it, making it less than 66% effective in the end...
However I see you point about the expense, but from a different angle. Now that the keyboard is 66% "safer" should they be investing electrical appliance switches that are bathed in UV after every press? Or door handles? Or anything else that a nurse will touch after/before using the computer.... The keyboard is not the only thing different people constantly touch.
I suppose you have to fight it somehow, but I don't see how you can 'win'.
And only UV-A reaches earth and gives you sun burn.
The Earth's ozone layer blocks 99% UV. Of that, 99% is UVA.
Its the UV-B (0.001% of UV that hits earth and reaches the surface) that causes damage on a molecular level. This is bad for big molecules like DNA.
Cells already evolved a repair mechanism for dealing with UV-B to deal with the meagre levels that does reach the surface.
UV-C is even more nasty than UV-B and none of that reaches the Earth's surface at all
These lamps are pumping out UV-C and UV-B to disinfect. So the cells ability to repair is completely overwhelmed... A bit like having a fire extinguisher to fight a pyroclastic flow...
So, no we don't have to worry about cells evolving, but not because the human-produced lamps are 'meager'.
Slashdot Mirror
2 words for ya:
Transmission Losses
Citation needed
The Queen still drives. You can see her taking the family Volvo out of Windsor occasionally.
Are you suggesting we get nukes to drive themselves?
Your employer generally doesn't care about what you do in private unless you bring it to work with you.
I don't think they need to get a grip at all. As long as society at large condemns excess of sex, drugs or guns and finds events including those news worthy any boss worth their salt is going to want to distance themselves from people who practice those. Because at the end of the day, if the company ends up being in the news for one of their employees putting up pictures of their weekend sex orgy on the company Facebook account, its the companies reputation, not just the individuals that ends up getting trashed.
If you don't sack the individual pretty quick you might lose reputation and business, and have to sack other people etc...
Its not Employers that need to get a grip, its everyone else, who watches the news.
A bit of advice for you, if you are "Self-Employed" avoid using the word "Employer" to describe people who pay you. They are clients. If you call them Employer, you are not Self-Employed. In UK the above can be used to sue you for tax evasion.
I don't understand. What does a flu jab have to do with egg allergy?
Is it made using eggs?
1. They are done on both.
2. Races wouldn't be very fun to watch if the participants get stuck in a traffic jam.
No one is forcing you to pay taxes. So get back on your high horse and ride it to the nearest homeless shelter.
Leave those clever enough to discern a benefit to continue to improve my quality of life (for which I gladly pay tax).
Getting lots of smart people together yields cool technology. Doesn't mean that original goal that got them together has economic value, though.
Yes... It really does...
Everything we have today, when converted to your "economic value" was derived by some people doing something they didn't originally thought was going to give them "economic value".
Everything...
The human race literally benefits from any new and seemingly useless activity that it attempts to undertake. Someone much later eventually finds out how to make money out of that idea.
Let me give you a small example... The magazine "New Scientist" is only economically viable because people like reading about new non economically viable (yet) research. So particle physics is already generating revenue for some people.
This site is generating revenue from your visit because you chose to read about this story. Especially as you are anonymous and can see adverts.
It's already economical. In fact it's even better that it's done with public money because private industry (the only industry that generates a little thing called TAX) can just use the useful bits without spending huge amounts on R&D.
So the original goal of sating ones curiosity always has economic value. Even if you just watch other people do it on TV or read about it on Slashdot.
All actual criminal acts provide value to someone. You need a better argument than that if you want to actually come across as rational and not just a lawyer.
Since the US has no lift capacity any more the weapons would have to be civilian.
I used to write apps that could have made me a couple of million, but then I took an arrow in the knee...
How about soothing music and images of cute furry animals to ease that road rage instead? Have a nice day...
Wow....
You mean to tell me there are roughly 70 000 people on Earth who have figured out how to avoid the physical laws?
What is this cult called and how can I join?
An expensive gimmick...
As for heat, not terribly sure if that would be effective as you would have to heat up then cool down the device so it can be touched. All that in less than 90 sec? Put your oven to 100 C then stick a metal object in it for 90 sec, then take out and touch it with bare hands.... Not to mention some would survive.
UV remains the most viable killing method in this day and age, other than employing some sort of Star-Trek like tech....
But you know what, I can see private hospitals buying into this big time. There are no issues with money and if they can show their clients the level of commitment this shows to the layman, im sure they can pass on the cost quite easily while making a profit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm
I can come up with more, but I'm lazy and its Saturday.
As for "The right thing to do". It was, but that was not the reason the US Government at the time (not the people so much as always) had gone to war.
"It is a popular misconception among Americans that the US voluntarily entered WW2, at least against the Germans. In fact, the US didn't. The US entered the general war as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the US entered against Japan and did not, repeat not, declare war on Germany." http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_2
That was my "quick Google" attempt.
Don't get me wrong, Americans are a good people in my book, but they blow their own trumpet a bit too much. All governments on earth are screwed up to some degree, America is one of the better ones.
I agree with you that US only entered WW2 due to pearl harbour, but I'm curious, would you prefer a Russian or German Europe to what it is now? And if anything Japan showed US that it is not untouchable.
US profited big time from WW2 in various ways, I'd say that European countries (UK included) have more than paid their debt to the US by now.
What I'm trying to say is that the world of politics is a little bit more complicated than "I helped you, be grateful". There are a lot of fingers in the same pie, I'm absolutely sure than the US gets more than their fair share.
I'd also be careful what you wish for. Despite appearances, European economy is a lot larger than US Economy. US needs Europe more than Europe needs US. And we all need China and Russia more than most people realise.
So how about we all try and get along without bickering about who helped who 70 years ago. It's starting to sound almost as bad as complaining about the crusade.
Did you actually look up the keyboard or do you think its back-lit with UV???
As per the article you linked, "significantly higher" could just mean x2 or x3 more than a regular cell which is designed to cope with little to no UV at all. The article you mentioned a maximum sample height of 41km, which is still inside the ozone layer (right about at the point UV-C is absorbed) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer . I think 2 lamps designed to pump out UV-C is going to beat our sun at that height within the atmosphere (I could be wrong).
Also, life evolving to survive in such hazardous conditions rarely does anything other than survive. Meaning if it is put in a different environment it dies. These colonies may actually need some ozone within the cells to survive and reproduce (after all, they swim in the stuff), something that does not naturally occur in hospitals.
I suppose that 66% is automated, after every user.
As opposed to the user having to remember to throw the disposable top away after use. You may as well make nurses type in latex gloves that are binned every time you walk away from the computer. That's even cheaper, but few will do it, making it less than 66% effective in the end...
However I see you point about the expense, but from a different angle. Now that the keyboard is 66% "safer" should they be investing electrical appliance switches that are bathed in UV after every press? Or door handles? Or anything else that a nurse will touch after/before using the computer.... The keyboard is not the only thing different people constantly touch.
I suppose you have to fight it somehow, but I don't see how you can 'win'.
Heh, that made me chuckle.
But if you think UK is bad, go try another county (and not just for holiday)...
Still no excuse though...
Not fit for purpose.
The application here is designed to kill MRSA type bugs within 90 seconds and be ready for use.
The lights it comes with will make you blind very quickly, hence the enclosure.
If this is meant for bacteria free environments why not use a touchscreen to type and wipe/flash it with UV afterwards?
You could make a grooved one (a little pit for every key) to make it easier to touch type on.
And only UV-A reaches earth and gives you sun burn.
The Earth's ozone layer blocks 99% UV. Of that, 99% is UVA.
Its the UV-B (0.001% of UV that hits earth and reaches the surface) that causes damage on a molecular level. This is bad for big molecules like DNA.
Cells already evolved a repair mechanism for dealing with UV-B to deal with the meagre levels that does reach the surface.
UV-C is even more nasty than UV-B and none of that reaches the Earth's surface at all
These lamps are pumping out UV-C and UV-B to disinfect. So the cells ability to repair is completely overwhelmed... A bit like having a fire extinguisher to fight a pyroclastic flow...
So, no we don't have to worry about cells evolving, but not because the human-produced lamps are 'meager'.
irrational fear about things there don't bother to understand
Fearing things we don't understand is how we managed to avoid extinction up until now. Why would that be irrational?