Being intelligent doesn't stop you from being wrong. Steve Jobs' choice was indeed his own, but it was a stupid choice and a wrong choice that he himself later admitted was going to kill him. In his case, his arrogance overrode his intelligence, and he admitted as much. Having said that, his knowledge of cancers was probably extremely limited. Intelligence doesn't grant you skills or knowledge, it merely grants you the ability to attain them faster -- within certain constraints. Intelligence is often limited to specific domains in any given person, leaving them average or below-average outside of those domains. Learning won't change that, nor will personal choice. It's a hard-wired limitation and that's what you've got.
It is very unlikely Jobs' form of intelligence would function well in the biological sciences. Biology isn't modular or feature-driven. Pathways are long, complex and highly interactive. The kind of amazing hyper-focus that Jobs was capable of is exactly the wrong way to deal with billion-variable hybrid systems like the human body. It's ideal for engineering, where you can black-box everything you don't want to consider right now, but it's useless where there are no boxes to draw.
We've known about tau protein's involvement in Alzheimers for decades. Specifically, we've known that the protein forms tangles which crush brain cells. That part is beyond old news. What seems to happen is that the tau protein "unzips" from its proper location, resulting in brain cells registering that there is insufficient tau protein in locations where it should be, in turn resulting in a loop that will kill everything in the area.
What is NOT known is why it unzips. My father's work in the late 80s, early 90s, showed that aluminum toxicity can cause the unzipping process. Later studies have shown that this is not the only pathway, but that there is usually something encased in the tau protein.
This has led to me speculating that this may have once been a feature, not a bug, that in early life this might have been an environmental detox mechanism (bind toxic chemicals in the area up in protein which is then ejected). This is based on the fact that the brain is unique amongst cells utilizing tau protein in that it has nowhere to eject bound-up toxins and that you don't see these kinds of tangles forming in other contexts where tau protein exists. It would also explain why Alzheimer's looks like it could be virally caused as it would end up with the same look and feel at the neurological level. On the one hand, I've read the papers, I've been involved in the research, I understand the science extremely well. On the other hand, neuroscience is a jealous discipline - even biochemists have a very tough time getting a hearing and I've far less standing than that in the biological sciences - and thus I do not expect this speculation to get looked at. (And, no, this speculation isn't Wikipedia-based. The original thoughts were written up when Gopher was the protocol of choice and really is based on hard, raw data collected in the field. I was, after all, involved in collecting it.) Nonetheless, this finding convinces me that I will prove to have been far closer to the actual mechanism than most of the recognized theories to date. (Yes I'm an old, arrogant, snobbish fart. Now fetch me a lawn so you can gerroff it!)
Why rewrite it at all? Flash memory is sized in gigabytes and is unlikely to be the expensive part of any embedded device. There are plenty of variants of the standard UNIX utilities - the *BSD ones, the SysV rewrites, etc. There's absolutely no need to go for a single binary on any modern device.
No, but (a) it requires companies to pay lawyers vast sums of money to tell them that because CYA apparently doesn't involve reading the license, and (b) Sony has discovered a way to make money from a truly advanced 'ls' command that provides a Clippy lookalike - blackmail.
Besides, if those trying to re-implement Busy Box actually make a better product and are compelled to keep it a better product (or be out-competed) then one of the key objectives (delivering better code to the users) is met even if the other key objective (delivering greater freedom) has been circumvented.
Ultimately, I'd regard the better code objective as being the Prime Objective, although as the only significant evolutionary pressure for closed-source to be better is open-source, you have to have someone delivering greater freedom with a damn good alternative in order to guarantee the "better code" requirement is met and stays met.
Reasonable, sane, rational enforcement of the GPL is part of what provides that evolutionary pressure.
Agreed, and it now also pays for the World Service (which used to be paid via the Foreign Office), not to mention virtually all local and national radio, not to mention the BBC news service, all royalties owed due to people ordering content via iPlayer, their research division (the Olympics is due to be shown in Ultra-High Definition TV, something for which there is no meaningful off-the-shelf hardware to support, they're having to make it themselves), etc.
For the longest time, it also covered the Radiophonic Workshop and their Costume Department - two exceptionally high-prestige units killed due to previous budget cuts.
The BBC, cost per unit of produce, is incredibly cheap.
The other thing the critics "forget" is that the channels that work via advertising still cost them money. The advertisers don't donate cash out of goodwill to viewers, they take it out the pockets of the product manufacturers, who in turn take it out of your pockets by raising the price of their goods. So you are subsidizing ad-based television channels via an invisible tax but a tax nonetheless. And since a lot of companies are global, you're subsidizing those channels in countries you will never visit.
The BBC is at least honest about what they bill you and uses that money in the country in which it is collected. Fox, et al, are not and do not.
I'd rather have an honest bill and know what I'm getting for it than a dishonest one where the produce is given to someone else instead.
The BBC was one of the first websites to actually survive the Slashdot Effect (and report having done so), an achievement worthy of an award at the time. Their tech guys also invented the Dirac format (which they have yet to use for anything). The BBC multicasts at least some of their channels and provides the iPlayer for VoD-ing programs later (pity they don't support PPV for out-of-country, but it's a start).
As such, I'd say their tech guys have defined "forward" for the next decade for everyone else. It's good to see them continuing to experiment as well as adapt to the new medium. Research and development has pretty much died - where it ever existed - amongst many of the major television stations. Given their financial situation, I'm actually very impressed that they're putting money into technical innovation.
That would be meaningful, except that in this case the standards are 99.9% the same -except- that they're all in different namespaces, with the 0.1% difference not being in the use cases supported but in the nomenclature.
There are many RDF-based languages (DublinCore, for example). Microsoft have their own metadata format and Google supports Microformats. The situation is an unholy mess.
OWL may or may not be the way to go, but there needs to be more of an effort to standardize the metadata or it will be impossible to utilize.
I don't see why so many people equate aggression with the thirst for discovery. Aggressive societies don't always do much in the way of exploration (several of the Andeman Island cultures being examples) and have a propensity to self-destruct when they expand too far (the Romans, the Norse, the British and the Americans being examples).
True, passive societies don't always do much in the way of expansion either, but to assume that this is a purely linear spectrum just doesn't match what we know of societies or indeed people.
Even the simplest models of individual behavior need four independent variables (Briggs-Meyers) and these clearly differentiate between tendencies to discover vs. tendencies to control. Politics is usually defined along three additional axes which do not equate to any of the behavioral axes. Aggression-Passivity isn't amongst any of the axes so far, so we need to add that as well. So societies require at least 8 parameters to describe them, probably a great deal more.
We aren't remotely advanced enough to know what ranges of values within what parameters would make for safe vs unsafe contact. 95% of the problems between cultures on Earth are down to that fact alone - and that's with us being 99.5% identical. We certainly can't begin to figure out what the requirements are for safe contact with life that evolved along totally independent paths.
Life on Earth required the tilt of the planet to lie within a very specific range, the wobble to be within an extremely narrow range, the magnetic field to be fairly intense AND come from the primary planet (the moon is almost entirely lighter elements blasted up from the original surface of Proto-Earth and the colliding planetoid, the modern core of Earth is the merging of the two proto-planet cores, and by implication both proto-planets must have been inner planets with large iron cores to start with), collision with enough comets for there to be significant water (which means the evolved body cannot form after the majority of cometary debris has been swept up, implying a very narrow time range) and collision with enough meteorites for there to be heavier elements near the surface rather than at the core. The planet ALSO had to be in the Goldilocks Zone (formerly known as the Habitable Zone), have sufficient gravity to hold an atmosphere and have sufficient background radiation to reduce the stability of complex molecules.
That's a hefty set of requirements.
The second of your points is nearly certain to be true (although I point to Fred Hoyle's "A for Andromeda" as to how to travel interstellar distances without having to use FTL).
There have been at least five hominid species, four of whom have killed themselves off already and the fifth is doing a great job at following suit. If that can be considered representative, your third point is highly likely.
From a science perspective, it was certain other planets were out there - what wasn't certain was whether we could see them, what they'd be like or how common they were. All of those were completely up-in-the-air. (Plenty of stars with accretion disks had been observed, so we knew that the pre-requisites for planet formation were commonplace, but we had no idea how many disks formed just rubble - as with Alpha Centauri - and how many formed actual planets. As it turned out, almost everything theorized about what planets would form where has now been overturned.)
Until very recently, direct observation has been impossible. We've relied on star wobble and variation in the frequencies being observed from the star. Even now, direct observation is extremely hard and extremely rare.
Re:What does the hell does NP Hard mean?
on
Pac-Man Is NP-Hard
·
· Score: 3, Informative
What is the ideal level of complexity?
on
Pac-Man Is NP-Hard
·
· Score: 1
Assuming that this method of measuring complexity is actually useful, is there an ideal level of theoretical complexity in a computer game?
(This is not necessarily the same as the complexity of play - Doom is, after all, very easy to play but PSPACE-hard problems are extremely difficult problems to solve.)
Any retro-gamers here want to determine the theoretical complexity of Wizardry, Atic Atac, Knightlore, Citadel or Cholo?
Is there any correlation between the complexity and how long the game stuck in people's minds?
Perhaps the person who modded my post a troll would like to explain how stupidity and ignorance make for sound judgement or competent oversight. You can't? Oh, what a surprise THAT is. By modding it so, you have only demonstrated WHY stupidity and ignorance are unacceptable. Since the cure is never less oversight, the only cure is better education and more of it.
In the case of Slashdot, you can see that clearly. Back when the majority were intelligent, moderation was also intelligent. Now that it is a haven for morons, moderation has become moronic. This is not the fault of the moderation system, since it works fine when people think and act rationally. The only problem is to get to that point. The more Slashdot goes downhill (remember, the posters here are representative of the creme-a-la-creme of the geek world) the more I'm convinced that civilization is hell-bent on becoming an idiocracy.
In politics, the infinitely thin blade of knowledge that is left after everything else is cut.
Seriously, this should not come as any great surprise. Politicians have a vested interested in not publishing anything that could be embarrassing. Civil servants have a vested interest in not publishing anything that might threaten their careers. On top of that, there is a tradition of security through obscurity and we live in a time when the appearance of security is considered of paramount importance, trumping all other considerations, because to not do so would create irrational fear and possibly panic. (The average person cannot judge risk well and even highly intelligent people often make a mess of it.)
Because nobody in a position of responsibility has any motivation to be open (there's no benefit to them and there's provable harm to the average person), all we will get is the illusion of openness.
The solution adopted by most of the West is the principle of need-to-know. It's not a very good principle, it limits scrutiny and it inhibits improvement. Most alternatives have operated on some similar split-brain approach. The only way to eliminate the need for a split-brain is, as I've said before, to fix the underlying cause - irrationality born of ignorance. (Sure, there's irrationality amongst the knowledgeable, too, but you can't fix that so there's no point in considering it.) You have to have an educational system that raises the minimum standard high enough that people can intelligently and rationally deal with the facts before them. If you do that, then you're not going to get panic reactions but deliberations, nobody is going to get sacrificed on any altars, and people will respect the need to balance requirements.
In other words, open government is not only safe but desirable when you have a sensibly-educated populace. The problem is that neither an open nor a non-open government are particularly safe with an uneducated populace. Gaps will ALWAYS be filled with spin (the modern-day form of superstition) and that is never a good thing. Having fewer gaps can help, but not always. Incorrectly used, facts and/or science merely allow one to be wrong with authority. Correctness requires you to go beyond merely filling in the holes.
The vaccine example in the summary suggests the designer can be exempt from all liability - even for genuine defects introduced by them, no matter how or why. I dislike blanket immunity. When there is an arguable case for genuinely defective design AND it would be reasonable for the manufacturer to know this (not all defects are knowable/identifiable in advance, but that doesn't mean all are) then there should be no automatic immunity.
It may require a special court of experts to properly determine if it was reasonably knowable, and there is no system for that at present, but that's a defect in the politics of high technology. Just because a system designed for farming communities doesn't work well for ultra-specialized professions doesn't mean we should exempt such professionals from scrutiny. It just means we need to devise a system capable of scrutinizing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes there is. The pathway from scrapie to BSE to vCJD is well-established.
Being intelligent doesn't stop you from being wrong. Steve Jobs' choice was indeed his own, but it was a stupid choice and a wrong choice that he himself later admitted was going to kill him. In his case, his arrogance overrode his intelligence, and he admitted as much. Having said that, his knowledge of cancers was probably extremely limited. Intelligence doesn't grant you skills or knowledge, it merely grants you the ability to attain them faster -- within certain constraints. Intelligence is often limited to specific domains in any given person, leaving them average or below-average outside of those domains. Learning won't change that, nor will personal choice. It's a hard-wired limitation and that's what you've got.
It is very unlikely Jobs' form of intelligence would function well in the biological sciences. Biology isn't modular or feature-driven. Pathways are long, complex and highly interactive. The kind of amazing hyper-focus that Jobs was capable of is exactly the wrong way to deal with billion-variable hybrid systems like the human body. It's ideal for engineering, where you can black-box everything you don't want to consider right now, but it's useless where there are no boxes to draw.
We've known about tau protein's involvement in Alzheimers for decades. Specifically, we've known that the protein forms tangles which crush brain cells. That part is beyond old news. What seems to happen is that the tau protein "unzips" from its proper location, resulting in brain cells registering that there is insufficient tau protein in locations where it should be, in turn resulting in a loop that will kill everything in the area.
What is NOT known is why it unzips. My father's work in the late 80s, early 90s, showed that aluminum toxicity can cause the unzipping process. Later studies have shown that this is not the only pathway, but that there is usually something encased in the tau protein.
This has led to me speculating that this may have once been a feature, not a bug, that in early life this might have been an environmental detox mechanism (bind toxic chemicals in the area up in protein which is then ejected). This is based on the fact that the brain is unique amongst cells utilizing tau protein in that it has nowhere to eject bound-up toxins and that you don't see these kinds of tangles forming in other contexts where tau protein exists. It would also explain why Alzheimer's looks like it could be virally caused as it would end up with the same look and feel at the neurological level. On the one hand, I've read the papers, I've been involved in the research, I understand the science extremely well. On the other hand, neuroscience is a jealous discipline - even biochemists have a very tough time getting a hearing and I've far less standing than that in the biological sciences - and thus I do not expect this speculation to get looked at. (And, no, this speculation isn't Wikipedia-based. The original thoughts were written up when Gopher was the protocol of choice and really is based on hard, raw data collected in the field. I was, after all, involved in collecting it.) Nonetheless, this finding convinces me that I will prove to have been far closer to the actual mechanism than most of the recognized theories to date. (Yes I'm an old, arrogant, snobbish fart. Now fetch me a lawn so you can gerroff it!)
Why rewrite it at all? Flash memory is sized in gigabytes and is unlikely to be the expensive part of any embedded device. There are plenty of variants of the standard UNIX utilities - the *BSD ones, the SysV rewrites, etc. There's absolutely no need to go for a single binary on any modern device.
No, but (a) it requires companies to pay lawyers vast sums of money to tell them that because CYA apparently doesn't involve reading the license, and (b) Sony has discovered a way to make money from a truly advanced 'ls' command that provides a Clippy lookalike - blackmail.
Agreed.
Besides, if those trying to re-implement Busy Box actually make a better product and are compelled to keep it a better product (or be out-competed) then one of the key objectives (delivering better code to the users) is met even if the other key objective (delivering greater freedom) has been circumvented.
Ultimately, I'd regard the better code objective as being the Prime Objective, although as the only significant evolutionary pressure for closed-source to be better is open-source, you have to have someone delivering greater freedom with a damn good alternative in order to guarantee the "better code" requirement is met and stays met.
Reasonable, sane, rational enforcement of the GPL is part of what provides that evolutionary pressure.
Agreed, and it now also pays for the World Service (which used to be paid via the Foreign Office), not to mention virtually all local and national radio, not to mention the BBC news service, all royalties owed due to people ordering content via iPlayer, their research division (the Olympics is due to be shown in Ultra-High Definition TV, something for which there is no meaningful off-the-shelf hardware to support, they're having to make it themselves), etc.
For the longest time, it also covered the Radiophonic Workshop and their Costume Department - two exceptionally high-prestige units killed due to previous budget cuts.
The BBC, cost per unit of produce, is incredibly cheap.
The other thing the critics "forget" is that the channels that work via advertising still cost them money. The advertisers don't donate cash out of goodwill to viewers, they take it out the pockets of the product manufacturers, who in turn take it out of your pockets by raising the price of their goods. So you are subsidizing ad-based television channels via an invisible tax but a tax nonetheless. And since a lot of companies are global, you're subsidizing those channels in countries you will never visit.
The BBC is at least honest about what they bill you and uses that money in the country in which it is collected. Fox, et al, are not and do not.
I'd rather have an honest bill and know what I'm getting for it than a dishonest one where the produce is given to someone else instead.
Maybe it's a very advanced mouse.
Three alternatives to RDF used by Google:
http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/index.html
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/05/introducing-rich-snippets.html
http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/05/12/google-support-rdfa-and-microformats/
http://schema.org/
Microsoft uses OData as well as Schema:
http://www.odata.org/
OWL is a way to write schemas, making the logical alternative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDF_Schema
Popular schemas include everything in this list. Schemas are not necessarily compatible and tools are usually written for a specific schema.
http://139.91.183.30:9090/RDF/Examples.html
The BBC was one of the first websites to actually survive the Slashdot Effect (and report having done so), an achievement worthy of an award at the time. Their tech guys also invented the Dirac format (which they have yet to use for anything). The BBC multicasts at least some of their channels and provides the iPlayer for VoD-ing programs later (pity they don't support PPV for out-of-country, but it's a start).
As such, I'd say their tech guys have defined "forward" for the next decade for everyone else. It's good to see them continuing to experiment as well as adapt to the new medium. Research and development has pretty much died - where it ever existed - amongst many of the major television stations. Given their financial situation, I'm actually very impressed that they're putting money into technical innovation.
The whitespace is so that they can add whatever content or images they like whilst leaving network transfer times the same.
That would be meaningful, except that in this case the standards are 99.9% the same -except- that they're all in different namespaces, with the 0.1% difference not being in the use cases supported but in the nomenclature.
There are many RDF-based languages (DublinCore, for example). Microsoft have their own metadata format and Google supports Microformats. The situation is an unholy mess.
OWL may or may not be the way to go, but there needs to be more of an effort to standardize the metadata or it will be impossible to utilize.
I don't see why so many people equate aggression with the thirst for discovery. Aggressive societies don't always do much in the way of exploration (several of the Andeman Island cultures being examples) and have a propensity to self-destruct when they expand too far (the Romans, the Norse, the British and the Americans being examples).
True, passive societies don't always do much in the way of expansion either, but to assume that this is a purely linear spectrum just doesn't match what we know of societies or indeed people.
Even the simplest models of individual behavior need four independent variables (Briggs-Meyers) and these clearly differentiate between tendencies to discover vs. tendencies to control. Politics is usually defined along three additional axes which do not equate to any of the behavioral axes. Aggression-Passivity isn't amongst any of the axes so far, so we need to add that as well. So societies require at least 8 parameters to describe them, probably a great deal more.
We aren't remotely advanced enough to know what ranges of values within what parameters would make for safe vs unsafe contact. 95% of the problems between cultures on Earth are down to that fact alone - and that's with us being 99.5% identical. We certainly can't begin to figure out what the requirements are for safe contact with life that evolved along totally independent paths.
The first of those is known to be true.
Life on Earth required the tilt of the planet to lie within a very specific range, the wobble to be within an extremely narrow range, the magnetic field to be fairly intense AND come from the primary planet (the moon is almost entirely lighter elements blasted up from the original surface of Proto-Earth and the colliding planetoid, the modern core of Earth is the merging of the two proto-planet cores, and by implication both proto-planets must have been inner planets with large iron cores to start with), collision with enough comets for there to be significant water (which means the evolved body cannot form after the majority of cometary debris has been swept up, implying a very narrow time range) and collision with enough meteorites for there to be heavier elements near the surface rather than at the core. The planet ALSO had to be in the Goldilocks Zone (formerly known as the Habitable Zone), have sufficient gravity to hold an atmosphere and have sufficient background radiation to reduce the stability of complex molecules.
That's a hefty set of requirements.
The second of your points is nearly certain to be true (although I point to Fred Hoyle's "A for Andromeda" as to how to travel interstellar distances without having to use FTL).
There have been at least five hominid species, four of whom have killed themselves off already and the fifth is doing a great job at following suit. If that can be considered representative, your third point is highly likely.
Well, no, the oceans are not considered a part of the surface as far as planetary science is concerned.
From a science perspective, it was certain other planets were out there - what wasn't certain was whether we could see them, what they'd be like or how common they were. All of those were completely up-in-the-air. (Plenty of stars with accretion disks had been observed, so we knew that the pre-requisites for planet formation were commonplace, but we had no idea how many disks formed just rubble - as with Alpha Centauri - and how many formed actual planets. As it turned out, almost everything theorized about what planets would form where has now been overturned.)
Until very recently, direct observation has been impossible. We've relied on star wobble and variation in the frequencies being observed from the star. Even now, direct observation is extremely hard and extremely rare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSPACE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSPACE-complete
Assuming that this method of measuring complexity is actually useful, is there an ideal level of theoretical complexity in a computer game?
(This is not necessarily the same as the complexity of play - Doom is, after all, very easy to play but PSPACE-hard problems are extremely difficult problems to solve.)
Any retro-gamers here want to determine the theoretical complexity of Wizardry, Atic Atac, Knightlore, Citadel or Cholo?
Is there any correlation between the complexity and how long the game stuck in people's minds?
Perhaps the person who modded my post a troll would like to explain how stupidity and ignorance make for sound judgement or competent oversight. You can't? Oh, what a surprise THAT is. By modding it so, you have only demonstrated WHY stupidity and ignorance are unacceptable. Since the cure is never less oversight, the only cure is better education and more of it.
In the case of Slashdot, you can see that clearly. Back when the majority were intelligent, moderation was also intelligent. Now that it is a haven for morons, moderation has become moronic. This is not the fault of the moderation system, since it works fine when people think and act rationally. The only problem is to get to that point. The more Slashdot goes downhill (remember, the posters here are representative of the creme-a-la-creme of the geek world) the more I'm convinced that civilization is hell-bent on becoming an idiocracy.
In politics, the infinitely thin blade of knowledge that is left after everything else is cut.
Seriously, this should not come as any great surprise. Politicians have a vested interested in not publishing anything that could be embarrassing. Civil servants have a vested interest in not publishing anything that might threaten their careers. On top of that, there is a tradition of security through obscurity and we live in a time when the appearance of security is considered of paramount importance, trumping all other considerations, because to not do so would create irrational fear and possibly panic. (The average person cannot judge risk well and even highly intelligent people often make a mess of it.)
Because nobody in a position of responsibility has any motivation to be open (there's no benefit to them and there's provable harm to the average person), all we will get is the illusion of openness.
The solution adopted by most of the West is the principle of need-to-know. It's not a very good principle, it limits scrutiny and it inhibits improvement. Most alternatives have operated on some similar split-brain approach. The only way to eliminate the need for a split-brain is, as I've said before, to fix the underlying cause - irrationality born of ignorance. (Sure, there's irrationality amongst the knowledgeable, too, but you can't fix that so there's no point in considering it.) You have to have an educational system that raises the minimum standard high enough that people can intelligently and rationally deal with the facts before them. If you do that, then you're not going to get panic reactions but deliberations, nobody is going to get sacrificed on any altars, and people will respect the need to balance requirements.
In other words, open government is not only safe but desirable when you have a sensibly-educated populace. The problem is that neither an open nor a non-open government are particularly safe with an uneducated populace. Gaps will ALWAYS be filled with spin (the modern-day form of superstition) and that is never a good thing. Having fewer gaps can help, but not always. Incorrectly used, facts and/or science merely allow one to be wrong with authority. Correctness requires you to go beyond merely filling in the holes.
The vaccine example in the summary suggests the designer can be exempt from all liability - even for genuine defects introduced by them, no matter how or why. I dislike blanket immunity. When there is an arguable case for genuinely defective design AND it would be reasonable for the manufacturer to know this (not all defects are knowable/identifiable in advance, but that doesn't mean all are) then there should be no automatic immunity.
It may require a special court of experts to properly determine if it was reasonably knowable, and there is no system for that at present, but that's a defect in the politics of high technology. Just because a system designed for farming communities doesn't work well for ultra-specialized professions doesn't mean we should exempt such professionals from scrutiny. It just means we need to devise a system capable of scrutinizing them.
What's wrong with rocket launchers?
Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?
http://kimvention2012.com/
Because it's closer to being the least bit interesting than your waffle.