So your point is, that because only few people become novelists, we should skip teaching reading and writing in school?
We have tried the public execution thing.
We even put the bodies of the executed on the walls of cities, or next to the roads leading into the city.
Did not seem to have that much of an effect. There was never a shortage of delinquents to execute. It's like they did not expect to be caught or something.
Are you trying to say that if the death penality would have been an option, then these crimes would not have happened?
Because that would be the only argument of any importance given the whole reason we have a punishing justice system at all is to prevent crime. Not to exact revenge.
I really doubt these people willingly accepted 20+ years in prison, but would have reconsidered in fear of a death penality.
The punishment which acts as the best deterrant while still being reasonable is the most appropriate one. Not the one that 'feels' most appropriate.
As there is apparently (by looking at past data in countries switching from one form to another) little difference in the deterrant effect between long jail time and death penality on hard crime, it makes no sense to apply the latter one, which is riddled with all kinds of problems for society, both economic and ethical.
I agree that it may make sense to make the jail time itself more of a deterrant, but it is hard to get this factor to influence someone BEFORE they end up in jail, ie before they do the crime, which is what we really want.
In end to end encryption, my end point is my computing device, not my provider.
I guess it would be nice if they also encrypted everything within their network (would maybe hide some routing information from listeners?), but that would not be sufficient.
To be fair, the topics they get to speak about are usually very basic, so if they are related to their fields at all, I guess they DO know those things.
For me, this is why I can't really stand watching them:
I have never seen them talk about anything really new, or interesting.
In every TV segment, they start off from zero and never get very far, or into much detail.
I guess as actual scientists they do have their own research projects, or at least interests in more advanced topics. It would be interesting to hear them talk about that once in while. Or in general focus more on the open questions where the current science is done.
The whole cancer discussion aside, infrared sensors are passive.
Warm objects radiate infrared by themselves. You don't shower houses in infrared... that's the sun's job. And I doubt it would help you looking through walls much.
pew pew pew
So, the expensive parts of a drone are not the motors, electronics, battery, camera... but the chunk of plastics holding it all together?
Well, given we know the isotope ratios for at least these two planets in the solar system, it seems we do not have to assume.
If you have a camera which can record 360, then there is no need for a second camera to get 3D, provided your camera's point of view moves around in a circle about the size of a human head.
While rotating a head 360 (do not try at home), there is no point of view which is exclusive to one eye. At some point your left eye will see the same thing your right eye saw a couple degrees of rotation earlier (or later).
So you should have all the visual information you need from a single 360 recording.
But he produced a first post!
A human standing upright is made up of a lot of parts stacked upon each other.
If you increase the size of any of the parts, the human's overall height increases.
For each part, there should be at least some individual genes.
From this thought, 700 seems like a pretty low number.
Seems like this is another one of those random english quirks as it's not even consistent. Why is there no 'Identication' for example?
Considering the print itself can take hours, it hardly matters if the initial calculation takes a couple milliseconds, or minutes...