Somehow I doubt that all the computing machines in the word combined have the necessary processing power to computationally simulate *everything* that happens on the planet, even when if we try to limit the variables. So I'll just go ahead and assume the science team will compromise on a flawed model which produces equally flawed results.
Every model is flawed according to that definition.
They'll try to simplify the earth, and model it... and hopefully it can predict future events with a certain degree of certainty.
I agree that the word "everything" is too strong... but it's just sad and silly that the entire Slashdot forum attacks these guys because they said this.
There is some value in this exercise. Just like you can model an ant colony, you can probably model the world. We're all awfully predictable anyway.
So, the primary question should still be: Is wikileaks considered the leak itself, or is Wikileaks considered journalism which doesn't fit in the standard state propaganda (but should still be legal under the freedom of speech laws).
Why would that be the primary question? It would seem to me that would be a tangential concern at best to the CIA.
Because the CIA only upholds the law. They do not make the laws.
If publishing leaked materials in mainstream media is considered harmful to a society, then your lawmaking organization (i.e. the president, congress - basically all politicians) should do that. Once there is no more Separation of Powers, you're in trouble.
Given that its expanded version is usually an expression of extreme disbelief, perhaps the term is apt for the CIA's investigation.
This really shouldn't surprise anybody. An organization aids a person in obtaining classified documents and the CIA investigates? Preposterous!
So, the primary question should still be: Is wikileaks considered the leak itself, or is Wikileaks considered journalism which doesn't fit in the standard state propaganda (but should still be legal under the freedom of speech laws). I thought that the leak was in the US army, not outside hackers... Anyway, they might as well broaden the investigation to all media?
CIA launches MTF, Media Task Force, to investigate the impact of a well-informed population.
This will make electric cars more expensive. And in addition, it will make them sound annoying and stupid, especially if lawmakers get involved in choosing the beeping sound.
I don't know which lobby was involved, but I don't think that the regular petrol engine car industry opposes this silly new proposal.
I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in. Buying a newspaper is definitely opt-in.
I have seen boobies in English newspapers. And I found them just there, on a chair, on the underground train. My only "opt-in" was turning the first page. You can't possibly call that "opt-in".
Logically, the strings came from the first crappy but mandatory attempt to visualize the science for a documentary or a magazine. Science must be cool (says management), and therefore, we need full-color pictures - preferably moving pictures. Since 26-dimensional calculations are very difficult to visualize (see for example the end of Space Odyssey 2001), and you can't show the actual calculations either... Voila: strings.
But other than some intergalactic engineers, and of course astronomers, I don't think that any engineer will care. The earth was so properly blended when it was made that it's safe to assume that the isotope mixtures are a constant.
Hell, if incest is bad... what about murder? I think they should take down all books with murder, violence, incest, fraud, drug offenses, adultery, etc.
In fact, why sell fiction books? It's all blasphemy anyway. We should devote our lives to studying the state-propaganda. If that's good enough for the state, it is good enough for us.
A computer will be much better at facts. So it's mostly a question of grammar. And the hardest problem is likely figuring out wordplay, which occasionally comes up in jeopardy.
Depends. Is the computer allowed to use wikipedia (during the show, or somewhere in the past)?
Otherwise, the computer knows only as much as the programmers have taught it.
"And with that infinite wisdom, politicians are able to take appropriate measures."
How is this going to suddenly and magically change the way politicians behave?
I admit that it's unlikely that politicians will change soon. But at least it gives them the necessary information to be more rational about terrorism (rather than the standard "OMG!! They come to kill us all!" kind of emotional response when someone farts on an airplane). With the information, it's up to them if they are populist emotional idiots, or rational statesmen (and women).
They will be able to compare the risk of terrorism to other risks.
Right now, they estimate budget for disaster relief and prevention from incidents in traffic, storms, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters as (1) a function of the severity of the incident and (2) as a function of the chance it happens. Trust me, they do that. It's practical and standard risk assessment (you can look up "risk assessment" on wikipedia for more info).
You may have noticed that the budget for terrorism has sort of grown out of hand lately... the amount of money available to prevent a few deaths is huge, while other budgets (hurricane Caterina) are a little small.
The observation of scale invariance in this kind of data tells you nothing about the short term relationship between low level and high level attacks. Physicists really shouldn't be doing statistics...
You're right... it's the bloody politicians who should be doing the statistics. After all, they govern a millions of people. They face problems which should be approached by statistics, and nothing else. But since they don't, someone else has got to do it, right?
Politicians are too busy with incident-management.
or rather, as soon as it starts to work, and stops terrorist attacks...
well then it stops working, doesn't it?
You reply suggests that you misunderstood. The power law doesn't suggest where and when an attack happens, so it can't stop a single one from happening. Statistics doesn't predict that just like statistical climate laws won't predict whether it rains tomorrow or not. The power law only says how many attacks will probably happen in the next period of time in a certain large area - within a certain degree of freedom.
And with that infinite wisdom, politicians are able to take appropriate measures. That's the whole point of it. Today, politicians scream the loudest so that all voters can hear they take the strongest measures against terrorism of all. That may not be necessary when terrorism can be regarded with the same statistics as traffic deaths, plane crashes, diseases and other causes of death.
Maybe in the future politicians will say that it is indeed a little pointless to allocate 20% of the annual governmental budget to prevent 3000 terror-deaths, while the same money could save 100,000 in hospitals if it were to be spent on medicine rather than anti-terror measures. (But maybe that's just my wishful thinking).
Besides, I don't think you can't stop terrorism. You can only motivate people not to be a terrorist in the first place. Once people cross a line, and decide they want to hurt our society, they will. Somehow.
The Wikipedia page on Microbial Corrosion shows the Titanic... so either this is nothing new at all (just sensation), or wikipedia was updated really fast.
Anyway, microbial corrosion is nothing new, and certainly already present everywhere.
I know it happens all the time.. but I strongly believe that business shouldn't get involved in politics, and politics should not get involved in business.
Because of the strong opposition from especially the USA, Wikileaks has become a political faction (rather than just media)... the line between media and politics is thin anyway.
so, it's a good decision for Amazon to break all ties with Wikileaks. It's just that the timing makes it a political decision in itself. The USA growled so loudly about wikileaks that a lot of organisations that wouldn't care about it now chose that it's wiser to be against wikileaks.
I never tried to type quickly on any touchscreen, but I am sure I can learn it.
I'd be more worried about no mouse. What if my task is to drag and drop stuff on the vertical part for 2 hrs (assuming I cannot automate the process)? Then I end up with my arm stretched in front of me for 2 hrs. I think I'll be tired before that time.
Right, because you don't have any embarrassing secrets. You don't tell friends things in confidence.
Thanks to this leak (and to the idiotic flubbing of security in the first place), it will be at least a little bit harder for American diplomats to make friends who will tell them things in confidence.
We all have secrets that we only tell our partner, or best friends... that's not the point. We don't care if the diplomats are visiting prostitutes or cheating on their wives. But as soon as those diplomats start representing me, or my country, they better behave. And if they use official lines, their message should be decent enough anyway.
If you like an analogy, the people can be called a shareholders assembly, and the government a management. This has nothing to do with the personal sphere... it's business. At a shareholders meeting, you do not have the right to know who the management is having sex with, but you do have the right to know why the company is or is not making any profit. And you do get a big annual report... again, it contains all relevant information, and no "secrets". And wikileaks may have leaked some juicy relational secrets - that's not necessary imho, but harmless too - but all the rest compares to that annual report that we have been missing all those years.
If you were talking about communications between private citizens I would agree, but these leaks are about our own government. This is supposed to be a representative democracy, and our government should have as few secrets as possible.
Completely agree. The government represents the people they govern. Transparency shouldn't be a problem.
I'm not talking about the little issues where it's being disclosed that some people cheat on their wives... that indeed wasn't necessary to disclose (and it'll be forgotten soon).
But I am talking about the way deals are being made behind all our backs. The reasons why governments don't keep their promises.
We either accept websites and media that try to disclose the tricks of the governments... or we just accept that we all get screwed by big institutions such as a government.
The main reason why governments are so displeased now is because they misbehaved all those years, and we can now find out about it. And I'm sorry if a few lives are at risk now. Millions die in wars which are going to be discussed because of these leaks. A few lives are a small price in the big scheme of things.
no to big-bang-centricity ! your universe is not the center of the multiverse !
You bastard! You're trying to make us humans even more insignificant than we already are??
We already admitted that Europe isn't the center of the world. We already admitted that the world isn't the center of the solar system/universe We already admitted that the sun isn't the center of the galaxy We already admitted that our galaxy isn't the center of the universe
You're trying to make us admit that even our universe isn't the center of the multiverses?
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow I doubt that all the computing machines in the word combined have the necessary processing power to computationally simulate *everything* that happens on the planet, even when if we try to limit the variables. So I'll just go ahead and assume the science team will compromise on a flawed model which produces equally flawed results.
Every model is flawed according to that definition.
They'll try to simplify the earth, and model it... and hopefully it can predict future events with a certain degree of certainty.
I agree that the word "everything" is too strong... but it's just sad and silly that the entire Slashdot forum attacks these guys because they said this.
There is some value in this exercise. Just like you can model an ant colony, you can probably model the world. We're all awfully predictable anyway.
So, the primary question should still be: Is wikileaks considered the leak itself, or is Wikileaks considered journalism which doesn't fit in the standard state propaganda (but should still be legal under the freedom of speech laws).
Why would that be the primary question? It would seem to me that would be a tangential concern at best to the CIA.
Because the CIA only upholds the law. They do not make the laws.
If publishing leaked materials in mainstream media is considered harmful to a society, then your lawmaking organization (i.e. the president, congress - basically all politicians) should do that.
Once there is no more Separation of Powers, you're in trouble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
Given that its expanded version is usually an expression of extreme disbelief, perhaps the term is apt for the CIA's investigation.
This really shouldn't surprise anybody. An organization aids a person in obtaining classified documents and the CIA investigates? Preposterous!
So, the primary question should still be: Is wikileaks considered the leak itself, or is Wikileaks considered journalism which doesn't fit in the standard state propaganda (but should still be legal under the freedom of speech laws).
I thought that the leak was in the US army, not outside hackers... Anyway, they might as well broaden the investigation to all media?
CIA launches MTF, Media Task Force, to investigate the impact of a well-informed population.
This will make electric cars more expensive. And in addition, it will make them sound annoying and stupid, especially if lawmakers get involved in choosing the beeping sound.
I don't know which lobby was involved, but I don't think that the regular petrol engine car industry opposes this silly new proposal.
I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in. Buying a newspaper is definitely opt-in.
I have seen boobies in English newspapers. And I found them just there, on a chair, on the underground train. My only "opt-in" was turning the first page. You can't possibly call that "opt-in".
Logically, the strings came from the first crappy but mandatory attempt to visualize the science for a documentary or a magazine. Science must be cool (says management), and therefore, we need full-color pictures - preferably moving pictures. Since 26-dimensional calculations are very difficult to visualize (see for example the end of Space Odyssey 2001), and you can't show the actual calculations either... Voila: strings.
Ok. I admit... my version isn't much better.
But other than some intergalactic engineers, and of course astronomers, I don't think that any engineer will care. The earth was so properly blended when it was made that it's safe to assume that the isotope mixtures are a constant.
But what if the state-propaganda is a work of fiction?
The state never lies to you. Therefore it is impossible to call the state publications "fiction".
Also, you never heard the word "propaganda". The word does not exist. And you never used it. The State only tells you the Truth.
Hell, if incest is bad... what about murder?
I think they should take down all books with murder, violence, incest, fraud, drug offenses, adultery, etc.
In fact, why sell fiction books? It's all blasphemy anyway. We should devote our lives to studying the state-propaganda. If that's good enough for the state, it is good enough for us.
A computer will be much better at facts. So it's mostly a question of grammar. And the hardest problem is likely figuring out wordplay, which occasionally comes up in jeopardy.
Depends. Is the computer allowed to use wikipedia (during the show, or somewhere in the past)?
Otherwise, the computer knows only as much as the programmers have taught it.
How is this going to suddenly and magically change the way politicians behave?
I admit that it's unlikely that politicians will change soon. But at least it gives them the necessary information to be more rational about terrorism (rather than the standard "OMG!! They come to kill us all!" kind of emotional response when someone farts on an airplane). With the information, it's up to them if they are populist emotional idiots, or rational statesmen (and women).
They will be able to compare the risk of terrorism to other risks.
Right now, they estimate budget for disaster relief and prevention from incidents in traffic, storms, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters as (1) a function of the severity of the incident and (2) as a function of the chance it happens. Trust me, they do that. It's practical and standard risk assessment (you can look up "risk assessment" on wikipedia for more info).
You may have noticed that the budget for terrorism has sort of grown out of hand lately... the amount of money available to prevent a few deaths is huge, while other budgets (hurricane Caterina) are a little small.
Terrorist = "someone opposing any government who should be dead"
Calling someone a terrorist is just a lame excuse to place them outside the law.
The observation of scale invariance in this kind of data tells you nothing about the short term relationship between low level and high level attacks. Physicists really shouldn't be doing statistics...
You're right... it's the bloody politicians who should be doing the statistics. After all, they govern a millions of people. They face problems which should be approached by statistics, and nothing else. But since they don't, someone else has got to do it, right?
Politicians are too busy with incident-management.
I applaud the attempt.
or rather, as soon as it starts to work, and stops terrorist attacks...
well then it stops working, doesn't it?
You reply suggests that you misunderstood.
The power law doesn't suggest where and when an attack happens, so it can't stop a single one from happening. Statistics doesn't predict that just like statistical climate laws won't predict whether it rains tomorrow or not.
The power law only says how many attacks will probably happen in the next period of time in a certain large area - within a certain degree of freedom.
And with that infinite wisdom, politicians are able to take appropriate measures. That's the whole point of it.
Today, politicians scream the loudest so that all voters can hear they take the strongest measures against terrorism of all. That may not be necessary when terrorism can be regarded with the same statistics as traffic deaths, plane crashes, diseases and other causes of death.
Maybe in the future politicians will say that it is indeed a little pointless to allocate 20% of the annual governmental budget to prevent 3000 terror-deaths, while the same money could save 100,000 in hospitals if it were to be spent on medicine rather than anti-terror measures. (But maybe that's just my wishful thinking).
Besides, I don't think you can't stop terrorism. You can only motivate people not to be a terrorist in the first place.
Once people cross a line, and decide they want to hurt our society, they will. Somehow.
The Wikipedia page on Microbial Corrosion shows the Titanic... so either this is nothing new at all (just sensation), or wikipedia was updated really fast.
Anyway, microbial corrosion is nothing new, and certainly already present everywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_corrosion
At some point, they have enough conventional weapons that they can guarantee each other's destruction even without the need of nukes.
Apologies for stereotyping... but you must be American...
Civilized countries arrest someone, then try him. People are not guilty until proven guilty... and you certainly won't get shot until proven guilty.
Remember carefully that some speech is more free than others.
Does the bid include free shipping?
Get it? shipping? eh, nevermind...
Yes. It is delivered at your door in 15,000 standard containers.
I know it happens all the time.. but I strongly believe that business shouldn't get involved in politics, and politics should not get involved in business.
Because of the strong opposition from especially the USA, Wikileaks has become a political faction (rather than just media)... the line between media and politics is thin anyway.
so, it's a good decision for Amazon to break all ties with Wikileaks. It's just that the timing makes it a political decision in itself.
The USA growled so loudly about wikileaks that a lot of organisations that wouldn't care about it now chose that it's wiser to be against wikileaks.
I never tried to type quickly on any touchscreen, but I am sure I can learn it.
I'd be more worried about no mouse. What if my task is to drag and drop stuff on the vertical part for 2 hrs (assuming I cannot automate the process)? Then I end up with my arm stretched in front of me for 2 hrs. I think I'll be tired before that time.
At least isn't that what the government tells us?
Right, because you don't have any embarrassing secrets. You don't tell friends things in confidence.
Thanks to this leak (and to the idiotic flubbing of security in the first place), it will be at least a little bit harder for American diplomats to make friends who will tell them things in confidence.
We all have secrets that we only tell our partner, or best friends... that's not the point. We don't care if the diplomats are visiting prostitutes or cheating on their wives.
But as soon as those diplomats start representing me, or my country, they better behave. And if they use official lines, their message should be decent enough anyway.
If you like an analogy, the people can be called a shareholders assembly, and the government a management. This has nothing to do with the personal sphere... it's business. At a shareholders meeting, you do not have the right to know who the management is having sex with, but you do have the right to know why the company is or is not making any profit. And you do get a big annual report... again, it contains all relevant information, and no "secrets". And wikileaks may have leaked some juicy relational secrets - that's not necessary imho, but harmless too - but all the rest compares to that annual report that we have been missing all those years.
If you were talking about communications between private citizens I would agree, but these leaks are about our own government. This is supposed to be a representative democracy, and our government should have as few secrets as possible.
Completely agree.
The government represents the people they govern. Transparency shouldn't be a problem.
I'm not talking about the little issues where it's being disclosed that some people cheat on their wives... that indeed wasn't necessary to disclose (and it'll be forgotten soon).
But I am talking about the way deals are being made behind all our backs. The reasons why governments don't keep their promises.
We either accept websites and media that try to disclose the tricks of the governments... or we just accept that we all get screwed by big institutions such as a government.
The main reason why governments are so displeased now is because they misbehaved all those years, and we can now find out about it. And I'm sorry if a few lives are at risk now. Millions die in wars which are going to be discussed because of these leaks. A few lives are a small price in the big scheme of things.
Once again, weapons technology is used in civil applications to make the world a little better. We've seen that countless times in history already.
Pity that weapons and "defensive" technology so often are used to kill people and to reduce freedom...
no to big-bang-centricity ! your universe is not the center of the multiverse !
You bastard! You're trying to make us humans even more insignificant than we already are??
We already admitted that Europe isn't the center of the world.
We already admitted that the world isn't the center of the solar system/universe
We already admitted that the sun isn't the center of the galaxy
We already admitted that our galaxy isn't the center of the universe
You're trying to make us admit that even our universe isn't the center of the multiverses?
Damn you!