Oops, I meant to write that "Jane seems to be saying he isn't lecturing scientists about what scientists think."

Lecturing scientists about science is Jane's other hobby.

For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

Since you consider yourself to be a scientist, maybe I can use you for an example of how scientists think? You have VERY frequently demonstrated that you appear to think repeating the same false thing in public over and over again somehow makes it more true. I assure you, it's not. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-26]

Good grief. When have I ever said false things? Since Jane claims this happens "VERY frequently" it should be easy to link to a single, solitary example.

Jane seems to be saying he isn't lecturing scientists about science. That's absurd, Jane. You're lecturing me about what scientists think right here! In fact, you just accused me of knowingly lying because I've pointed out that your baseless accusations about what scientists think are... baseless accusations.

Jane seems to be stuck in a recursive loop where his baseless accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies spawn more baseless accusations of lying.

The ironic icing on this cake is the fact that Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.

Many fewer than Russia, I'm quite sure.

It's a descriptive dictionary. It reflects how people use the word, based on copious surveys of usage. Thus, it reflects the highest probability estimate of how he used the word in question. BTW, I wasn't looking up either "describe" or "prescribe". I looked up the word in question. If the quotations are to be believed, it's overwhelmingly loaded in the direction I hinted at.

Me? "PC"? You'd be surprised. :-p In the region where I live, we don't have these things in an amount that is anywhere close to what is common in the US.

America is a nation of prudes. That's why they have such words as "slutty" in the first place. Then they blame people for dressing in a certain way instead of leaving them alone, as any normal person would. It's almost halfway to Saudi Arabia.

I didn't, my dictionary did.

Described what? Like this? "Esp. of a woman: sexually promiscuous or provocative, esp. in a manner regarded as vulgar or distasteful.". So you're injecting your subjective views into what looks mean and attaching a value judgement into that. How is saying that someone looks distasteful not prescribing is beyond me.

Unless the thieves and liars are the government, right?

I think the one viable metrics is the statistics of car deaths per vehicle per year. Deaths are generally difficult to cover up.

MIT already has an "integer overflow debugger" decades ago. It was called Lisp.

Now multiply the two probabilities with respective probabilities of said people being in the cabin and in control to get a more meaningful number. In case of depressed pilots, it's the probability of being depressed times 100% probability of being in control.

"Slutty"? How dare you prescribe how other people should dress and feel about themselves...

Which, to me, is a horrible way of looking at things. If that were the only criterion, we could easily end up with ten times more car deaths simply because we're more comfortable with putting blame at people, even at the expense of lives.

Sounds to me like the solution to the problem in question - a computer could quickly periodically recompute the envelope of possible scenarios and never drive in the phase space into points from which it can't recover without hitting someone or something.

Humanpedia deletionists are fine with that.