I don't think anyone is shocked. The shock for me comes when the suggestion is made that we should do a little self-censorship. Yeah, sure... this is just the one taboo we have to respect... this is the only bit of sharia law we infidels have to obey, right?
Stepping on an American flag seems to get quite the response from white Christian America. They really want people to practice some self-censorship there.
They are also not very fond of movies like "Dogma" or "The Last Temptation of Christ" and, though no one has done it that I know of, would respond, I suspect, negatively towards burning crucifixes or the like.
Except it doesn't end there. It can never end there. I mean hell, the hadith have in the past been widely interpreted to forbid all artwork of animals and humans. They've given up that battle... for now. But rest assured, they have not forgotten. None of this barbarous shit in any of the Abrahamic faiths can ever be truly forgotten, because all sitting there in the unalterable book waiting for someone to decide to take it literally again."Respect" for religious insanity is a continuous spectrum of masochistic self-censorship trailing down into an infinite abyss. Or do you really, honestly believe that ISIS's current set of laws is the most extreme interpretation possible?
It's possible to resist the scaremongering of the right (no, neither ISIS nor any of the other bearded fuckwits are in any position to do us significant harm at this very moment ) while still acknowledging that over the long run this is a zero sum game with no possibility of common ground.
We cannot share a planet with these people. So yes, let's keep making the bastards angry.
I've seen many cartoons depicting Jesus, but I can't recall many protests or people getting killed for it.
Perhaps you don't remember "The Last Temptation of Christ" and the related death threats from Christians? Ok. How about "Dogma" and the death threats Kevin Smith's family got.
There aren't protests over drawing Jesus because there's no proscription in the religion that disallows it. To Muslims and very orthidox Jews, drawing something that exists in heaven or Earth is idolotry. "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below" - Exodus 20:4
Though the Muslims doing stuff like this miss the point that it's a commandment *to Muslims*, and someone else doing it has no more effect than someone else eating pork.
For example, at Princeton, the student chapter of Engineers Without Borders has an executive board that is nearly 70 percent female
This seems like a real problem. How can we get more men into Engineers Without Borders? We need a presidential comission and a lot of news articles !?!
Or is it only a problem when women are the minority group?
Because VB brings us such fucking abominations as:
If myVar IsNot Nothing AndAlso myVar = "something" Then ' do something End If
The problem with VB is in it's attempts to be English like it's just ended up requiring you to spout nonsense. No one says "Is not nothing", they say "Is something".
It's too verbose and ends up forcing you to write stuff that's inherently less readable than if it didn't try and fudge English into it's syntax.
Right: because if (myVar != null && myVar == "something") { 'do something }
Yea. That's much closer to English. I routinely say things with more special characters than letters in them.
And that's a terrible line.. since it must be not nothing to be something. You could have cut the entire first part.
I'm a big fan of self-documenting code. If you want to give up readability to gain brevity; then I'd hate to try to follow your variable and function names.
Our public school is a high poverty district and, at one point, we considered private school. Then we saw the cost: $16,000 per year per student (we have 2 kids). They have scholarship programs but we heard from people that accepting the scholarship means you open your finances wide open to their scrutiny. e.g. If you take one family vacation a year, they'll ask you why you're spending money on that versus giving them the money.
We can't afford to move to a wealthier district either so, in the end, we're sending our kids to public school because it's our only option at the moment. Luckily, so far, our schools have been committed to doing the most with what they have (despite our governor's attempts to destroy the public school system).
It seems like you also had the option to apply for a scholarship, open your finances, and not take vacations.
I don't fault you for your choice; but you *did* have a choice.
You can't blame parents for doing whatever they can--moving, paying an arm and a leg for private school, etc--to help their children out. It's really just human nature.
Can you blame (mostly)Mexican immigrants coming to the US for similar reasons?
I know it's phrased passively, in the form of a question; but isn't that inference a straw-man?
I don't blame a bear for wanting to eat me; but I still do what I need to in order to not be eaten.
I believe his point was: "We do what we need to do to give our children the best opportunities. We'd like to see other children do better; but not at the expense of our own."
Fossil fuels are far more important as fertilizer and medicine than they are as energy products. We can, fairly easily, replace them as energy sources with alternatives that may be more expensive but are viable.
We don't have shit for a way to replace the fertilizer supply, which means we'd probably have a great dying due to starvation if we completely abandon fossil fuels.
Then of course theres all the medicines we make from oil. If the starvation dying doesn't get you, the lack of medical supplies is going to curb another large portion of our population.
... in the short term
The bigger question is what it would take to get us back to the point where we *can* get to those petrochemicals... where we can build the machines we can build today.
Infrastructure is a big worry, and societal collapse... but if we could magically turn people into a well-organized, forward-thinking group I assert we could get from there to here pretty quickly.
Electricity is quite doable, though not to modern levels, without modern resources. Electricity gives you the ability to make the machines that will make the machines.
Electricity also gives you biodesil (though yes, that will be competing with food crops as, yes, starvation and disease will affect many, many more people).
Wind and hydro-electric production are implamentable without signifigant prerequsite manufacturing. Yes, they are more efficient with high-tech equipment; but if the more basic generators created an "island of power" were more high-tech manufacturing could be performed you could easily kick-start back to a modern system.
Use the low-tech hydro-power for a biofuel plant (power digging or recycling equipment) and the production of better hydro-power generators (or solar-power, etc).
Don't get me wrong: there are some massive hurdles to overcome; but for key infrastructure we could replace oil even in a boot-strap society.
Note: the whole supply-chain is far more complex than most people realize. The dark ages weren't so much about lost knowledge as lost infrastructure. In a "new society", getting the needed resources to the needed location would, I think, be the biggest single problem. You can't just build a microprocessor plant out of the blue; it requires hundreds of other systems to make it go.
The biggest issues on a "global restart" are "population" and "infrastructure / government"... at least in terms of moving back to an industrial society.
That's not exatly true. One of the laws involved, at least here in Florida, prohibits non-utilities from selling power.
See: what has happened in some states is that companies have offered a deal where *they* fund the solar panels on your roof and, in exchange, you pay a certain per kw/h rate for what power they provide that you consume. But that's forbidden by law here in FL.
"The wealthy" are the people putting solar on their roof, and net-metering pushes costs onto people less well off. So at least in this case, "the fossil fuel industry" is acting in the interests of the little guy.
One of the laws involved, at least here in Florida, prohibits non-utilities from selling power.
See: what has happened in some states is that companies have offered a deal where *they* fund the solar panels on your roof and, in exchange, you pay a certain per kw/h rate for what power they provide that you consume. This means that the poor could, indeed, get solar power (and one presumes it's less expensive than grid power or no one would take the deal).
Your conclusion is based on an apparently flawed pre-condition.
What they are actually saying is that ancient and modenr chities can *be described* by the same formula.
Referring to the article: When a modern city doubles its population, it grows 83% in size (ther than 100%); this seems to hold true for ancient cities. When a moden city doubles its population, it's per-capita GDP (and wages) increase 15%. Using the number of monuments per-capita as a guide, the researchers found this also correlated with ancient cities.
It's an interesting article (I'd like more details) but, per Slashdot norms, a lousy title.
When you see gender, or racial, or socio-economic disparity in something you need to ask yourself *why*. If the answer is that there's inequal opportunity, then it needs to be addressed. No one should be held back because of their race, gender, etc.
If, on the other hand, there's just no interest then... well... how come no one is addressing the lack of female garbage collectors?
There's nothing particularly impressive anymore about launching a satellite into space.
I could be wrong: but I'm pretty sure that the ability to place anything into orbit shows considerable technical and engineering skill.
The ability to put even a small payload into orbit implies the ability to put a larger payload on an intercontinental suborbital arc... at least based on my time in Kerbal Space Program.
"We observe that the same objectives cannot be reached with RAID level 6 organizations and would require RAID stripes that could tolerate triple disk failures."
That's true only if you assume that three disk failures occur faster than a single disk can be rebuilt.
If you assume no more than two disk failures *during the length of time it takes to rebuild the array* then RAID 5 or RAID 6 works fine as long as you assign enough hot spares.
The airlines are not charging based on costs (since a flight *through* SF clearly costs more than one *to* SF but the ticket price is lower) The airlines are not charging based on demand on the aircraft (since it's the same aircraft to SF whether you board another/stay on for a second leg or not).
Instead the airlines are charging arbitrary prices based on "what they can get away with" popularity matrixes... and they are upset that their customers are able to do similar manipulations back? Sucks to be them: Public data is public.
there was evidence for it, so more than hypothesis
That *is* the definition of a hypothsis. Without evidence it would be a "wild ass guess"... perhaps even a "scientific wild ass guess".
When that hypothesis makes predictions capable of falsifying the model, and those predictions are tested and shown accurate... then we can discuss "theory".
Do you want your children to be the ones dead so that the US can go avenge them? Or would you prefer they not die in the first place?
Our freedoms are, by far, our most important possession. They are more important than my life, my children's lives, your life. After 9/11, there was quite a bit of talk about us going on with our lives, still living them as we would have months earlier. If not, the terrorists get to define us. If we grant them that power, they win. This time, the terrorists won, and not because our government caved, but ball-less corporate concerns about liability. Sony was put into a bad place though; the bullshit Aurora, Colorado lawsuit is STILL ongoing. Sony didn't have a good decision to make.
That's rhetorical; unless you basically never avoid any area ever and don't want your children to either for reasons of safety.
Send your 8 year old wandering the city at night? Sure, someone may kidnap him: but his freedom is more important than his life. I suspect you are very brave on the internet. I suspect when the gun gets pointed at you, you start doing what the guy with the gun says despite it not being "free".
It's easy to sit back and arm-chair the decision when a) you don't believe it's a real threat, b) you won't be proven wrong because what you advocate will not have been tried and c) you have nothing at all on the line.
It's also a straw man. No freedom has been taken.
But of course, this is getting into rhetorical realms. Nothing would have happened. It was your usual amount of pointless North Korean bluster.
This is literally the first time I've ever discussed North Korea on Slashdot. I don't have a *usual* anything.
When Iran and Lybia were both state sponsors of terrorism against the US, what did we do?
Well in the case of Iran we funded a major war against them that killed hundreds of thousands.
How will this apply to N.Korea?
We've harmed them diplomatically and hemmed them in. We've also backed other enemies in the region like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. As for Libya we hit them with sanctions weakened their influence and then just recently helped flip the government.
We are already doing all of that against N.Korea. So if that's our response: it's the same as saying "we will do nothing".
Where is our response to capture of the USS Pueblo? Or their shoot down of the American EC-121? Or their 1969 killing of four US soldiers? Or the December 1994 shoot-down of a US Army helicopter?
What do you imagine we will do against (nuclear armed and sitting on the border of China right next to Russia) Korea?
They have no enemies to give support to... unless you count S.Korea and we already do that. They have no insurgency to support (as Syria did). Do you honestly think we will engage in a major military campaign on Russia's border? We wouldn't even do that to defend Ukrane.
We'd blame them and condemn them and attempt to get sanctions. We already do all those things so it's an empty threat.
I don't know why the Japanese are so blase about North Korea. I don't know why the South Koreans are. But I do know I don't want the USA to be if they are going to start that nonsense here.
I'd love to know where you got that knowledge. When Iran and Lybia were both state sponsors of terrorism against the US, what did we do? How about Saudi Arabia's support of Al Quieda? How about Pakistan's ongoing support of the Taliban? All of these actors kill Americans.
How about the Americans killed by the Russian military on KAL 007? How about MH17?
How about the N.Korean capture of the USS Pueblo? Or their shoot down of the American EC-121? Or their 1969 killing of four US soldiers? Or the December 1994 shoot-down of a US Army helicopter?
N.Korea has a long history of attacking foreign assets (mostly S.Korean ships, but also some land targets) and killing people. They are known to have Japanese captives. They have taken Americans traveling abroad captive. They sold nuclear technology to places like Iran.
Do you want your children to be the ones dead so that the US can go avenge them? Or would you prefer they not die in the first place?
More to the point: the OP is based on flawed assumptions.
Is the nation-state of North Korea capable of setting off a single bomb in a single (basically public) location in the US?
If we knew that 5 theaters were going to be attacked, but didn't know which, does that mean we should go forward with the opening?
While I agree with the concern over bending to threats, I think it's a straw man to claim that the issue is whether 18,000 locations can be attacked and so I think the claim of "incapable" is actually wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah!
Everthing below "like." is quote I failed to remove. Doesn't look like I can still edit.
I don't think anyone is shocked. The shock for me comes when the suggestion is made that we should do a little self-censorship. Yeah, sure... this is just the one taboo we have to respect... this is the only bit of sharia law we infidels have to obey, right?
Stepping on an American flag seems to get quite the response from white Christian America. They really want people to practice some self-censorship there.
They are also not very fond of movies like "Dogma" or "The Last Temptation of Christ" and, though no one has done it that I know of, would respond, I suspect, negatively towards burning crucifixes or the like.
Except it doesn't end there. It can never end there. I mean hell, the hadith have in the past been widely interpreted to forbid all artwork of animals and humans. They've given up that battle... for now. But rest assured, they have not forgotten. None of this barbarous shit in any of the Abrahamic faiths can ever be truly forgotten, because all sitting there in the unalterable book waiting for someone to decide to take it literally again."Respect" for religious insanity is a continuous spectrum of masochistic self-censorship trailing down into an infinite abyss. Or do you really, honestly believe that ISIS's current set of laws is the most extreme interpretation possible?
It's possible to resist the scaremongering of the right (no, neither ISIS nor any of the other bearded fuckwits are in any position to do us significant harm at this very moment ) while still acknowledging that over the long run this is a zero sum game with no possibility of common ground.
We cannot share a planet with these people. So yes, let's keep making the bastards angry.
I've seen many cartoons depicting Jesus, but I can't recall many protests or people getting killed for it.
Perhaps you don't remember "The Last Temptation of Christ" and the related death threats from Christians? Ok. How about "Dogma" and the death threats Kevin Smith's family got.
There aren't protests over drawing Jesus because there's no proscription in the religion that disallows it. To Muslims and very orthidox Jews, drawing something that exists in heaven or Earth is idolotry.
"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below" - Exodus 20:4
Though the Muslims doing stuff like this miss the point that it's a commandment *to Muslims*, and someone else doing it has no more effect than someone else eating pork.
A fair desire. I don't have data on all such councils; but I do have a study for offering STEM tenure to identical resumes by gender.
http://sciencecareers.sciencem...
And unlike simple correlation issues ("hey: there's more men than women here") this study shows actual bias based on gender.
For example, at Princeton, the student chapter of Engineers Without Borders has an executive board that is nearly 70 percent female
This seems like a real problem. How can we get more men into Engineers Without Borders? We need a presidential comission and a lot of news articles !?!
Or is it only a problem when women are the minority group?
Because VB brings us such fucking abominations as:
If myVar IsNot Nothing AndAlso myVar = "something" Then
' do something
End If
The problem with VB is in it's attempts to be English like it's just ended up requiring you to spout nonsense. No one says "Is not nothing", they say "Is something".
It's too verbose and ends up forcing you to write stuff that's inherently less readable than if it didn't try and fudge English into it's syntax.
Right: because if (myVar != null && myVar == "something") {
'do something
}
Yea. That's much closer to English. I routinely say things with more special characters than letters in them.
And that's a terrible line.. since it must be not nothing to be something. You could have cut the entire first part.
I'm a big fan of self-documenting code. If you want to give up readability to gain brevity; then I'd hate to try to follow your variable and function names.
Modern (.NET) VB is nearly C# with more english-like syntax. I don't understand all the hate for the language.
Gonna agree with SharePoint though. :)
Our public school is a high poverty district and, at one point, we considered private school. Then we saw the cost: $16,000 per year per student (we have 2 kids). They have scholarship programs but we heard from people that accepting the scholarship means you open your finances wide open to their scrutiny. e.g. If you take one family vacation a year, they'll ask you why you're spending money on that versus giving them the money.
We can't afford to move to a wealthier district either so, in the end, we're sending our kids to public school because it's our only option at the moment. Luckily, so far, our schools have been committed to doing the most with what they have (despite our governor's attempts to destroy the public school system).
It seems like you also had the option to apply for a scholarship, open your finances, and not take vacations.
I don't fault you for your choice; but you *did* have a choice.
You can't blame parents for doing whatever they can--moving, paying an arm and a leg for private school, etc--to help their children out. It's really just human nature.
Can you blame (mostly)Mexican immigrants coming to the US for similar reasons?
I know it's phrased passively, in the form of a question; but isn't that inference a straw-man?
I don't blame a bear for wanting to eat me; but I still do what I need to in order to not be eaten.
I believe his point was: "We do what we need to do to give our children the best opportunities. We'd like to see other children do better; but not at the expense of our own."
Without them for energy? Yes.
Fossil fuels are far more important as fertilizer and medicine than they are as energy products. We can, fairly easily, replace them as energy sources with alternatives that may be more expensive but are viable.
We don't have shit for a way to replace the fertilizer supply, which means we'd probably have a great dying due to starvation if we completely abandon fossil fuels.
Then of course theres all the medicines we make from oil. If the starvation dying doesn't get you, the lack of medical supplies is going to curb another large portion of our population.
... in the short term
The bigger question is what it would take to get us back to the point where we *can* get to those petrochemicals... where we can build the machines we can build today.
Infrastructure is a big worry, and societal collapse... but if we could magically turn people into a well-organized, forward-thinking group I assert we could get from there to here pretty quickly.
Electricity is quite doable, though not to modern levels, without modern resources. Electricity gives you the ability to make the machines that will make the machines.
Electricity also gives you biodesil (though yes, that will be competing with food crops as, yes, starvation and disease will affect many, many more people).
Wind and hydro-electric production are implamentable without signifigant prerequsite manufacturing. Yes, they are more efficient with high-tech equipment; but if the more basic generators created an "island of power" were more high-tech manufacturing could be performed you could easily kick-start back to a modern system.
Use the low-tech hydro-power for a biofuel plant (power digging or recycling equipment) and the production of better hydro-power generators (or solar-power, etc).
Don't get me wrong: there are some massive hurdles to overcome; but for key infrastructure we could replace oil even in a boot-strap society.
Note: the whole supply-chain is far more complex than most people realize. The dark ages weren't so much about lost knowledge as lost infrastructure. In a "new society", getting the needed resources to the needed location would, I think, be the biggest single problem. You can't just build a microprocessor plant out of the blue; it requires hundreds of other systems to make it go.
The biggest issues on a "global restart" are "population" and "infrastructure / government"... at least in terms of moving back to an industrial society.
Nothing is stopping anyone from using solar.
That's not exatly true. One of the laws involved, at least here in Florida, prohibits non-utilities from selling power.
See: what has happened in some states is that companies have offered a deal where *they* fund the solar panels on your roof and, in exchange, you pay a certain per kw/h rate for what power they provide that you consume. But that's forbidden by law here in FL.
"The wealthy" are the people putting solar on their roof, and net-metering pushes costs onto people less well off. So at least in this case, "the fossil fuel industry" is acting in the interests of the little guy.
One of the laws involved, at least here in Florida, prohibits non-utilities from selling power.
See: what has happened in some states is that companies have offered a deal where *they* fund the solar panels on your roof and, in exchange, you pay a certain per kw/h rate for what power they provide that you consume. This means that the poor could, indeed, get solar power (and one presumes it's less expensive than grid power or no one would take the deal).
Your conclusion is based on an apparently flawed pre-condition.
The article is vague on the details but, to me, the most likely error in your assumptions is "suberbs aren't cities".
Or, another variation: "Suberbs are seperate cities".
Do you believe that the population of London is less dense now than it was 200 years ago? How tall do you think the buildings were then?
What they are actually saying is that ancient and modenr chities can *be described* by the same formula.
Referring to the article: When a modern city doubles its population, it grows 83% in size (ther than 100%); this seems to hold true for ancient cities.
When a moden city doubles its population, it's per-capita GDP (and wages) increase 15%. Using the number of monuments per-capita as a guide, the researchers found this also correlated with ancient cities.
It's an interesting article (I'd like more details) but, per Slashdot norms, a lousy title.
I think it's a step farther than that.
When you see gender, or racial, or socio-economic disparity in something you need to ask yourself *why*. If the answer is that there's inequal opportunity, then it needs to be addressed. No one should be held back because of their race, gender, etc.
If, on the other hand, there's just no interest then... well... how come no one is addressing the lack of female garbage collectors?
There's nothing particularly impressive anymore about launching a satellite into space.
I could be wrong: but I'm pretty sure that the ability to place anything into orbit shows considerable technical and engineering skill.
The ability to put even a small payload into orbit implies the ability to put a larger payload on an intercontinental suborbital arc... at least based on my time in Kerbal Space Program.
"We observe that the same objectives cannot be reached with RAID level 6 organizations and would require RAID stripes that could tolerate triple disk failures."
That's true only if you assume that three disk failures occur faster than a single disk can be rebuilt.
If you assume no more than two disk failures *during the length of time it takes to rebuild the array* then RAID 5 or RAID 6 works fine as long as you assign enough hot spares.
The airlines are not charging based on costs (since a flight *through* SF clearly costs more than one *to* SF but the ticket price is lower)
The airlines are not charging based on demand on the aircraft (since it's the same aircraft to SF whether you board another/stay on for a second leg or not).
Instead the airlines are charging arbitrary prices based on "what they can get away with" popularity matrixes... and they are upset that their customers are able to do similar manipulations back? Sucks to be them: Public data is public.
there was evidence for it, so more than hypothesis
That *is* the definition of a hypothsis. Without evidence it would be a "wild ass guess"... perhaps even a "scientific wild ass guess".
When that hypothesis makes predictions capable of falsifying the model, and those predictions are tested and shown accurate... then we can discuss "theory".
Do you want your children to be the ones dead so that the US can go avenge them? Or would you prefer they not die in the first place?
Our freedoms are, by far, our most important possession. They are more important than my life, my children's lives, your life. After 9/11, there was quite a bit of talk about us going on with our lives, still living them as we would have months earlier. If not, the terrorists get to define us. If we grant them that power, they win. This time, the terrorists won, and not because our government caved, but ball-less corporate concerns about liability. Sony was put into a bad place though; the bullshit Aurora, Colorado lawsuit is STILL ongoing. Sony didn't have a good decision to make.
That's rhetorical; unless you basically never avoid any area ever and don't want your children to either for reasons of safety.
Send your 8 year old wandering the city at night? Sure, someone may kidnap him: but his freedom is more important than his life. I suspect you are very brave on the internet. I suspect when the gun gets pointed at you, you start doing what the guy with the gun says despite it not being "free".
It's easy to sit back and arm-chair the decision when a) you don't believe it's a real threat, b) you won't be proven wrong because what you advocate will not have been tried and c) you have nothing at all on the line.
It's also a straw man. No freedom has been taken.
But of course, this is getting into rhetorical realms. Nothing would have happened. It was your usual amount of pointless North Korean bluster.
This is literally the first time I've ever discussed North Korea on Slashdot. I don't have a *usual* anything.
Well in the case of Iran we funded a major war against them that killed hundreds of thousands.
How will this apply to N.Korea?
We've harmed them diplomatically and hemmed them in. We've also backed other enemies in the region like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. As for Libya we hit them with sanctions weakened their influence and then just recently helped flip the government.
We are already doing all of that against N.Korea. So if that's our response: it's the same as saying "we will do nothing".
Where is our response to capture of the USS Pueblo?
Or their shoot down of the American EC-121?
Or their 1969 killing of four US soldiers?
Or the December 1994 shoot-down of a US Army helicopter?
What do you imagine we will do against (nuclear armed and sitting on the border of China right next to Russia) Korea?
They have no enemies to give support to... unless you count S.Korea and we already do that.
They have no insurgency to support (as Syria did).
Do you honestly think we will engage in a major military campaign on Russia's border? We wouldn't even do that to defend Ukrane.
We'd blame them and condemn them and attempt to get sanctions. We already do all those things so it's an empty threat.
I don't know why the Japanese are so blase about North Korea. I don't know why the South Koreans are. But I do know I don't want the USA to be if they are going to start that nonsense here.
I'd love to know where you got that knowledge. When Iran and Lybia were both state sponsors of terrorism against the US, what did we do? How about Saudi Arabia's support of Al Quieda? How about Pakistan's ongoing support of the Taliban? All of these actors kill Americans.
How about the Americans killed by the Russian military on KAL 007? How about MH17?
How about the N.Korean capture of the USS Pueblo?
Or their shoot down of the American EC-121?
Or their 1969 killing of four US soldiers?
Or the December 1994 shoot-down of a US Army helicopter?
So tell me. What is it you know we would do?
N.Korea has a long history of attacking foreign assets (mostly S.Korean ships, but also some land targets) and killing people. They are known to have Japanese captives. They have taken Americans traveling abroad captive. They sold nuclear technology to places like Iran.
Do you want your children to be the ones dead so that the US can go avenge them? Or would you prefer they not die in the first place?
More to the point: the OP is based on flawed assumptions.
Is the nation-state of North Korea capable of setting off a single bomb in a single (basically public) location in the US?
If we knew that 5 theaters were going to be attacked, but didn't know which, does that mean we should go forward with the opening?
While I agree with the concern over bending to threats, I think it's a straw man to claim that the issue is whether 18,000 locations can be attacked and so I think the claim of "incapable" is actually wrong.