I think that unfortunately that's ultimately what's going to happen. The latency between approval of road-going self-driving cars and ban on human driving is going to be a few years at most. In the name of safety we will lose whatever freedoms we still have.
Except most speed limits are complete bullshit, at least in the US.
There are highways in NYC that have a 40mph minimum and a 45 mph maximum. Think that has anything to do with the ability to fine pretty much anyone at any time?
Roads have pretty natural speed limits regardless of the imposed limit, and it would be trivial to figure them out by simply taking an average over the course of a few days. I would venture a guess for the majority of the highways it would be substantially higher than the posted limit.
Remember - speed doesn't kill... a line of courteous drivers, observing correct leading distance and allowing free merges can probably go 100+ on a modern road in modern cars. Recklessness, carelessness, and needless maneuvers is what kills, not to mention distraction and intoxication. Observe Germany's autobahns for an example,
I've been routinely photographing my rental cars pre- and post- rental. Haven't had the scam tried on me yet, but looking forward to suing the shit out of them when they do.
Actually, we'll just outlaw hobby drones. We can add that to outlawed real chemistry kits and outlawed lasers.
Is ist just me or is anyone else actually concerned that a have-a-go engineer can apparently quite easily achieve significantly bettr results than a team of so-called expert doctors in their own field?
The description does indeed try to imply that the above is the case. But it's far from the truth, as much as internet armchair experts would like to believe.
The article itself appears to state that the problem was that 1) the initial advice was to wait, which after (appropriately) consulting with a number of experts they had done, and a followup showed progression. Even the first advice was not totally misplaced. Then what happened was that he suggested that the neurosurgeons basically invent a procedure specifically for him, and used 3D printing to create a model for them. The result was he did find someone willing to try (my guess is they refused the conventional approach) a less invasive procedure that removed 95% of the tumor. Now that may sound revolutionary, but neurosurgery is a tricky business, and depending on the tumor 95% may be equivalent to buying a little time while doing nothing at all, especially since they already knew that the tumor was growing aggressively. If the conventional approach would have had more of a chance of removing more of the tumor, possibly all of it with negative margins, that would be a far more definitive approach. Doctors aren't always right, but if you get a sufficiently experienced expert opinion, it'll usually reflect what is possible to do currently, with a reasonable margin of both safety and success.
When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
So, yeah, as soon as people figure out what it is that is being measured, expect them to alter their behavior to make that measure useless.
Tell that to Obamacare.
MDs and institutions now get less money when they take care of sicker patients whose socioeconomic status causes them to be less compliant and have more adverse outcomes. Congratulations, now no one wants those patients doubly. Oh, and they still can't pay for health insurance.
It is a FACT that ebola is ONLY CONTAGIOUS when symptoms are present.
Only if you ignore the last fifteen years of established science. Many people get Ebola and never show symptoms at all. We know this because they test positive for the antibodies to Ebola. Those people are believed to have had the virus in their blood at some point during the course of the disease. Therefore, under the right circumstances, it is possible for someone not showing symptoms of Ebola to spread the disease. It is highly unlikely, and has not been documented to occur in the wild so far (that we know of), but claiming that it is impossible based solely on limited anecdotal evidence is downright terrifyingly bad science.
I'd be happy to dig up the citations again if you really want me to, or you can just Google it yourself.
That's just patently wrong. Having antibodies to Ebola doesn't mean you had the disease, it means you were exposed to the virus. There was a study in 2000 Lancet which looked at seroconversion in close contacts of individuals ill with ebola, which showed that 11/24 people seroconverted in the absence of symptoms. However, the scientists were unable to isolate virus from these patients. This suggests that there are people who have either a defect in the ability of Ebola to infect them, or their innate immune response is able to deal with Ebola. There is no evidence from the last 30 years that there any asymptomatic individual acts as a carrier.
That's not insightful.
If you cannot isolate infectious virus or amplify its genetic material from someone's bodily fluids, they are not infectious.
Making assertions based on panic is not reasonable. Maybe if the nurse wasn't treated like a criminal leper on coming home, she wouldn't be lashing out and would stay home.
Are you kidding be. Would be stupid to do that. The whole point is that many of not most H1B ers are working for less because they'd much rather be in this country. The threat of losing the visa it's what keeps them indentured servants. Just look at the biomedical research industry. No one will ever give them citizenship ebb masse... it would destroy the system by which having a PhD became about as profitable as being on welfare.
These poor 3rd-worlders have unique talents that could never be found locally, don'tcha know!?!?
You mean someone who spent 7 years getting a PhD being abused and working 6-7 day 80+ hour weeks, then working as a post-doc with no hope of ever being faculty, at 60+ hour weeks and being paid $40k or less until their retirement without any benefits?
It's a talent all right.
I'm not sure that really gets to the heart of the matter, which is a metaphysical argument about origins.
But the question is "does it matter"?
This is obviously not news to Christians outside of the US. But this statement making the news in the US is a step in the right direction.
Nuclear still exists. People seem to forget.
You are making a fundamentally flawed assumption that the government cares about false positives. I think our no-fly lists, jails, and police militarization are a pretty good indicator that a low false positive rate does not figure into calculations as far as the NSA, TSA, DHS or other TLAs are concerned. A cynical man (or woman) may also wonder about whether true positive rate figures into their calculations at all as well, or whether a power grab is the sole purpose of these agenices.
It is impossible to enforce the laws when you can catch all the violations
You're asking the wrong question - the correct question is this - how have we wound up in a situation where he have so many offenders, of so many laws, that there's not enough resources to lock them all up even if we knew every last one of them.
The answer is simple - if you create a job which comes with money and power, and where the job description is writing laws - you are going to have more laws. It's inevitable. And in a society where as a lawmaker you are rewarded for being "tough on crime", each subsequent law will be nitpickier and more punishing than the last.
That's it - our own system is going to bury us all in petty crime.
Freedom is the ability to break little rules. Rule of law is when you get caught when you break the big rules. A police state is when everyone is guilty, and it's up the police to decide who gets caught at what time.
As someone who was born behind the Iron Curtain, I promise you that the latter is very very scary.
So what the enemy needs to do to win is to get disable codes?
Given Pentagon's contractor efficiency and reporting requirements, the choices will probably be in a plaintext file accessible from the internet, in a budget report.