I deny all knowledge about the epson fx spontaneously catching fire.

The short circuit that blew up two power transformers and an embedded computer had nothing to do with me. And you didn't see me. And I was in disguise anyway.

Nobody saw me insert the radio direction finder valves into the R1155, switch it on and jam all televisions in the neighbourhood.

So, no, I've no knowledge of using technology to get into trouble. None whatsoever.

I didn't mean to imply health from BMI, but rather the general mass to height ratio - were these people who were carrying significantly more or less than average weight for their height?

I could have said body fat percentage, but that's a lot harder to calculate accurately - and if you're going to be inaccurate you may as well make it easy. If the study were packed with people in the 30+ BMI range, maybe the difference in weight loss wasn't really attributable to the specifics of the diet (we're talking a net caloric deficit of 78 calories a day - half a soda or fruit juice drink).

Obesity *is* a problem, as is physical conditioning. But basing dietary recommendations on studies which don't understand the actual mechanics and science of nutrition is a bad idea. It was a bad idea when they used it to create the "food pyramid" and it's still a bad idea today.

It's be nicer if it didn't look like it was styled after a 1970s movie prop. It's one of the biggest problems with most electric cars (and many hybrids) - they look like someone from Disney's Imagineering division was tasked with designing a style that would fit into the World of Tomorrow. Why can't they just look like a car? (and before you claim aerodynamics, the same argument can be made for an ICE car and yet nobody worries about those last few percent on those)

Mutually Assured Destruction is more of a pro than a con when considering certain element of society which are willing to, say, strap explosives to their chest and detonate them in a public venue. Projecting your morality onto others in order to predict behaviors is a dangerous game.

This study allows writing a hypothesis, but doesn't actually provide us much in the way of scientific knowledge.

This study really does tell us very little, except that they don't know how nutrition variables affect health outcomes. They don't have any idea why the one group lost weight over the year of the study, and there is no long term result (i.e. over your lifetime). There also aren't any details about the kind of LDL. The summary is either intentionally misleading or the submitter didn't read the whole article (not surprising) as the article says specifically they didn't test for that.

The study also didn't actually determine how many calories were consumed. It was a "general guidelines" with very little controls or limits. They encouraged lean proteins, but allowed saturated fats in small or moderate amounts, but there was no limit afaict. They also didn't say how overweight the people were at the beginning of the study. I presume they were overweight as both groups lost weight, and these weren't 20-21 BMI people who somehow dropped into the unhealthily underweight range, but - again - hard to tell.

It's interesting, no doubt, as was the recent study tracking the use of reduced vs full fate dairy products (there was, iirc, no statistically significant weight or health change difference in the two groups). Unfortunately, without the "why" we're left with yet another set of potential guidelines which are based on observations but without a compelling reason. Good for religion, not so good for science.

Did you even feel the breeze?

For 3-5% of gross vehicle weight, each drone can have a safety parachute which activates automatically in the event of any stability failure or rapid drop in altitude. Failsafe systems can be engineered to protect the life of anyone who might be on the ground to several nines reliability. A decent drone recovery reward will get the equipment back - either for re-use or for evaluation of failure mechanism - and onboard camera(s) and real-time flight recording will ensure that sabotage is prosecuted ($100k and 20 years in federal prison, currently).

Try $100,000 and 20 years in federal PMITA prison.

That will be one more gun-toting idiot either financially destitute or behind bars. $100,000 and 20 years is the maximum federal penalty for firing on a commercial aircraft. Lock and load, baby!

Jobs machines do are incredibly cheaper than humans doing those same jobs in nearly all cases. Humans are insanely expensive, even mostly untrained ones. A $10,000 drone, especially one purchased quantities in the tens or hundreds of thousands, seems like expensive kit for just doing deliveries. But you could throw it away every 4 months instead of maintaining it and it would still be cheaper than hiring a human.

Those who are dead via saline solution can be told once they're... ummm... undead.

No you don't - just turn off the rockets and let it fall half way there (accelerating) under the other planets gravity, then turn around so that you slow down at the rate of earth's gravity pulling you back for the second half of the trip. All you need is the fuel to get to orbit and you're practically done.

*ducks*

Yeah, I can see you do great on statistics, too.

Death stopped being binary some years back (suggest you read medical news) but this isn't about that. This is simple numbers. If device X kills N times out of 100 and device Y kills M times out of 100, where N != M, the lethality of the devices is not the same.

Cops are not doing a good job. Estimates range from 400-1000 unjustified deaths a year. To put it into context, since 9/11, there may well have been 4 times as many unjustified deaths by cops in America as unjustified deaths by Al Queda.

That isn't acceptable by any standards.

Or perhaps if you'd like, I can put it another way. There have been three times as many incidents of manslaughter and murder by American cop per capita of population than there have been incidents of manslaughter or murder in Britain in total.

That number is WAY unacceptable.

Cops carrying guns confer no benefit to those in the area (80% of bullets fired by police handguns miss their target, they don't vanish and they do hit passers-by, sound crew, hostages, etc).

Cops carrying guns confer no benefits to law and order, since alternatives from stun guns to pain rays (microwave stimulation of nerve endings, if you prefer) to teargas (which isn't great but is less lethal than a lump of lead) already exist and criminals are less likely to carry when running is a more practical option than a shoot-out. That has always been the British experience, which is why you now get regular shoot-outs where British cops are stupid enough to carry where you'd previously have had maybe one a decade versus an armed response unit.

Cops carrying guns confer no benefits to the cop, since dead weight can result a cop becoming dead, accidental shootings are very likely to produce retaliation, and "utility" belts stop utilizing when they terrify locals, intimidate visitors, but bolster thugs who gain greater mobility and dexterity from not wearing them.

Look, this is all very simple. Too simple for nutters, perhaps, but simple nonetheless.

First, preventing crime by eliminating prime environmental and psychological causes is a good start. If there's no crime, there's nobody to shoot and nobody shooting back.

Second, preventing cops turning bad by preventing them developing a "them vs us" attitude is essential and you don't achieve that by giving them scrutineering powers and not those they are scrutinizing. It has to be a two-way street to prevent that kind of mindset.

But that requires one additional ingredient to work properly:

Third, preventing cops turning bad by preventing them from being have-a-go heros. They should work with the community, be a part of the community, guard it from within. And, like all good guards, they should NOT be on constant alert. They should be constantly engaging on a social level, not a paramilitary one. If a crime happens, let the criminal go somewhere where there ISN'T a huge danger to others. Inanimate objects can look after themselves, people need a bit more effort.

It is better to let a gang "get away" from the scene, with no bullets fired, be tracked safely and then be apprehended INTACT when it is safe to do so. Going in there guns blazing will cause excessive damage, risk the lives of those supposedly protected and served, and for what? Some carcases. No trial, no determination of the chain of events, no proof even that the dead body is the guilty party. It can't exactly answer questions in the dock, can it?

No, disarm the cops, give them high-res cameras (and maybe girls gone wild t-shirts, I dunno), and let them be what cops should be - good citizens. They are NOT the army, they should NEVER be allowed military-grade weapons, they should deal with matters calmly, quietly and sensibly.

If they're not capable of that, they're incapable of good. Of any kind.

Then it wasn't an accident. Simple as that. People seem to forget that you can build these devices to withstand any force a cop's skull is likely to take, and more besides.

Storage is a non-issue because you don't need to store a lot locally. Local storage can be limited to the time the cop is outside of radio contact plus the time to clear enough buffer that no information is lost. So unless the cop is riding a motorbike in a cage, it's just not enough to create serious issues.

Battery will be a bigger issue. It'll take a lot of batteries to keep transmitting at a decent resolution. However, as cops with guns cause more trouble than they prevent, that's also easy to fix. Sufficient batteries will consume no more weight than a sidearm plus extra ammunition.

Actually, it might not be that bad. With the proposed mandate for vehicle-to-vehicle communication, a cop radio could turn the entire road network into a gigantic adhoc wireless network. You don't need as much power for a short-range transmission. Might as well get some value out of these stupid ideas.