In an old defense industry job I had, they still had cold war era security warnings around the buildings. They were printed two-tone on posterboard with war propaganda cartoons and obnoxious fonts... one had pictures comparing our shuttle to theirs, and the F-15 to the Mig-29, etc, with the heading "Somebody Talked!" Since they were propaganda sheets, I don't know if there was any truth behind the idea that the Russians actually spied to get ideas for their shuttle, or just copied the basic airframe by looking at it. Looks pretty damning superficially, at least.
Basically the way I've approached this is by doing things myself that involve being outdoors, in the hope that he will emulate to some degree. He isn't terribly interested in team sports, but he seems to enjoy martial arts and running, two things that I do regularly. Mileage varies by kid, I imagine, but I think that like everything else, setting an example works best.
> But now, there are hundreds of channels with thousands of shows. > The internet is high speed and in the kids' bedrooms. Soccer moms > spend every waking minute taking their kids from activity to activity. > Kids just aren't interested in Star Trek.
Mine thinks of nothing else. I'm lucky if I can convince him to go out for a run or a bike ride - he'd rather play starship creator or throw in a DVD and watch episodes. When he flips through the hundred channels, guess where he stops? Trek Uncut. When he's not staring at his SETI@home screen, he's searching google for a Zephram Cochrane birth announcement. His last class project was about his visit to Vegas, and he spent a disproportionate amount of his energy on the side trip to see Trek at the Hilton... in spite of the impact of seeing the strip, GameWorks, In-and-Out, the Hoover Dam, Grand Canyon, and Zion. It's not just another video game to him. He just gets it.
Trek hasn't really changed. It's always been about flashing some scandalous bits to attract general viewership. The spoils (occasional good bits of sci-fi, ideas, imaginary worlds and histories) go to the geeks. The difference now is that many older geeks have tired of their dependence on the general viewers and want to divorce the real meaty center of star trek from the filler that keeps Joe Sixpack in his seat and, by the way, the shows on the air. Well, I say that the only way you can really ever divorce yourself from the filler is by creating something on your own. Geek kids understand this intuitively. Some start with Trek as a base and some start something new, but by the end, Trek just whets one's appetite and does not sate it. That's why my son isn't happy only to sit and watch episodes or wait idly for the next movie. He's building ships, coming up with his own stories and characters, and looking for signs of trek-like progress in the real world.
There is also the argument that there is too much popular filler and Trek has become diluted, but that's another thread...
Agreed, on the grounds that the difference between P and NP is not the same as conventional vs. non-conventional computing... worth saying, since I think it might be quite natural to assume that there must be such a correlation.
Shor's algorithm doesn't necessarily have anything to do with complexity theory. It's simply an exploitation of our existing knowledge of quantum mechanics, whereas the article is talking about exploitation of potential advancements in mathematics.
Re:Quantum Computers / Shor's Algorithm
on
The End of Encryption?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
> Or a quantum computer is made that can break all these passwords.
No. To put in plain language: there are forms of encryption more advanced than those that employ difficult math problems. Quantum computing does not pose a threat to a OTP system that employs quantum key exchange. Sorry.
> perhaps the brutality of their peers will cause them to begin to question > societal norms, and begin to think for themselves.
First, this phenomenon is not unique to the "American ethos" (talk about a moving conceptual target). Second, there must be a better way than trial by fire... because I would wager that for every person who emerges stronger from brutal abuse, there is at least one other who emerges completely screwed up, or worse, indoctrinated into the cycle of abuse, ready to bully someone else when the time comes (i.e. when they have smaller friends, siblings, kids, or a spouse).
How about teaching our kids how not to bully, protecting them from others who do bully, and providing the opportunity for treatment of those who exhibit bullying behavior? This goes regardless of the medium - physical or verbal abuse can both be devastating to a vulnerable person.
Moreover, thanks to being immersed in a culture that rewards heterosexual coupling over all other forms of intimate relationships, many gays or heavily gay bisexuals can explore their heterosexual side without fear of repression.
Using similar genetic logic to gp poster (IANAG) - consider the generational effects of the prejudice against homosexuality coupled with the marriage+kids reward cycle. If there is a "gay" gene, the obligatory culture of hetero pairing combined with the demonization of homosexual tendencies may actually be enabling the spread of such a gene, where before it may have been somewhat more limited. Extreme oppression may have caused very gay people to become breeders, where otherwise they would not have.
While I don't think it makes sense to lump people under over-broad monikers like "conservatives" or "liberals," it is a good point to make that there are fear-based politics in all areas of the political gamut. Some people exploit these fears as the basis for evangelism for their politics. Examples by issue:
gay rights - fear of God, fear of ostracision and oppression, fear of unfamiliar civil liberties - fear of police state, fear of terrorism foreign policy - fear of other races, nations, ideologies, responsibility, terrorism free/fair trade - fear of slavery, marginalization, money, corruption gun control - fear of tyranny, fear of gun violence abortion - fear of God, fear of loss of paternal control, responsibility welfare - fear of abandonment, helplessness, government, unjust loss, responsibility environmentalism - fear of apocalypse/wasteland dystopia/social darwinism
There are many other faces to these issues, but fear is often evoked to gain support for the less sensational bits.
like anyone, the site admins don't respond well to whining criticism... at least that's been my impression of malda and co. during the last/. irc orgy.
being a subscriber might give the complaint more weight, as well.
FYI - it is itself fallacious to disregard all slippery slope arguments as fallacious without disproving them individually. There is such a thing as a valid slippery slope argument.
I used to hate buttsex. Couldn't stand it. Made me sick. Well one day I decided to try it even though I didn't like it. Felt like I had wasted my time. Know what I did? I had more buttsex. After about 5 buttsex sessions I was startin' to dig it. Now I really like buttsex. Sometimes you have just to grin and bare (sic) it until your body adjusts. Now maybe you have a serious medical condition and are literally allergic to this stuff. In which case, you can probably get some injections that will very slowly expose your body to it until you are used to it. But chances are you're not seriously allergic to this stuff, you're just a big cry baby. Have the damn buttsex.
Suddenly, your advice doesn't sound so good.
Allergies aren't the same, because it's less an issue of personal preference than big macs or specific sexual proclivities. People can carelessly spew allergens... they can't carelessly perform anal on you or casually force-feed you big macs. If they did, you'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you?
Fair enough. I actually meant that tongue-in-cheek, with the implication that "casual terrorism" is a contradiction in terms, according to the state department definition of terrorism as premeditated attacks which are perpetrated by ideological fanatics.
If we're talking about mass violence in general... well, that's a different and arguably more complex problem. All things being equal (unsuccessful "corrections" programs/poor recidivism rates for violent criminals), maybe mandatory ID is an acceptable form of control in terms of transportation safety. But I don't think it's the only possible solution.
> Which is why you have to present ID to rent a truck. > Can we shut the fuck up now, please?
IDs might stop the casual, "oh, I think I'll blow up a building today" terrorist, but it's barely a speed-bump on the road to executing a serious attack.
> Have you not read the 9/11 Commission report? You are suffering from a > failure of imagination.
Predictive failures aren't the only ones cited in the report. How can one predict THE method that will be used next in a sea of nearly limitless possibilities? That's why accurate counter-terrorism intelligence is central to the findings of the commission, and the source all that nice new funding. Funny how the FBI has a lot more openings now, specifically for would-be agents who want to do counter-terrorism surveillance.
For those who haven't parused the commission report:
clicky here. There are plenty of failures of imagination in the post-event analysis as well:)
All you're demonstrating is that it's infeasible to perform a one-to-one replacement of a combustion engine with a pedal engine in an airframe designed for the gas engine.
No one's saying it's an easy task. But there's nothing so far that I've seen that says it's a physically impossible thing to create a human-powered copter.
Slashdot Mirror
Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign.
Heh. Bush could debate himself too, but he'd lose.
In an old defense industry job I had, they still had cold war era security warnings around the buildings. They were printed two-tone on posterboard with war propaganda cartoons and obnoxious fonts... one had pictures comparing our shuttle to theirs, and the F-15 to the Mig-29, etc, with the heading "Somebody Talked!" Since they were propaganda sheets, I don't know if there was any truth behind the idea that the Russians actually spied to get ideas for their shuttle, or just copied the basic airframe by looking at it. Looks pretty damning superficially, at least.
Basically the way I've approached this is by doing things myself that involve being outdoors, in the hope that he will emulate to some degree. He isn't terribly interested in team sports, but he seems to enjoy martial arts and running, two things that I do regularly. Mileage varies by kid, I imagine, but I think that like everything else, setting an example works best.
> But now, there are hundreds of channels with thousands of shows.
> The internet is high speed and in the kids' bedrooms. Soccer moms
> spend every waking minute taking their kids from activity to activity.
> Kids just aren't interested in Star Trek.
Mine thinks of nothing else. I'm lucky if I can convince him to go out for a run or a bike ride - he'd rather play starship creator or throw in a DVD and watch episodes. When he flips through the hundred channels, guess where he stops? Trek Uncut. When he's not staring at his SETI@home screen, he's searching google for a Zephram Cochrane birth announcement. His last class project was about his visit to Vegas, and he spent a disproportionate amount of his energy on the side trip to see Trek at the Hilton... in spite of the impact of seeing the strip, GameWorks, In-and-Out, the Hoover Dam, Grand Canyon, and Zion. It's not just another video game to him. He just gets it.
Trek hasn't really changed. It's always been about flashing some scandalous bits to attract general viewership. The spoils (occasional good bits of sci-fi, ideas, imaginary worlds and histories) go to the geeks. The difference now is that many older geeks have tired of their dependence on the general viewers and want to divorce the real meaty center of star trek from the filler that keeps Joe Sixpack in his seat and, by the way, the shows on the air. Well, I say that the only way you can really ever divorce yourself from the filler is by creating something on your own. Geek kids understand this intuitively. Some start with Trek as a base and some start something new, but by the end, Trek just whets one's appetite and does not sate it. That's why my son isn't happy only to sit and watch episodes or wait idly for the next movie. He's building ships, coming up with his own stories and characters, and looking for signs of trek-like progress in the real world.
There is also the argument that there is too much popular filler and Trek has become diluted, but that's another thread...
Does 20% of all nuclear power really qualify as marginal? Nuclear is the second leading source of power in the US.
> When America was a third world country nobody gave us jack.
The United States was never a third world country.
Agreed, on the grounds that the difference between P and NP is not the same as conventional vs. non-conventional computing... worth saying, since I think it might be quite natural to assume that there must be such a correlation.
Shor's algorithm doesn't necessarily have anything to do with complexity theory. It's simply an exploitation of our existing knowledge of quantum mechanics, whereas the article is talking about exploitation of potential advancements in mathematics.
> Or a quantum computer is made that can break all these passwords.
No. To put in plain language: there are forms of encryption more advanced than those that employ difficult math problems. Quantum computing does not pose a threat to a OTP system that employs quantum key exchange. Sorry.
...tie Word down, hold a knife to its throat and say "No. Really. I know what I'm doing -- back off,"
:)
Lighten up, Francis.
> perhaps the brutality of their peers will cause them to begin to question
> societal norms, and begin to think for themselves.
First, this phenomenon is not unique to the "American ethos" (talk about a moving conceptual target). Second, there must be a better way than trial by fire... because I would wager that for every person who emerges stronger from brutal abuse, there is at least one other who emerges completely screwed up, or worse, indoctrinated into the cycle of abuse, ready to bully someone else when the time comes (i.e. when they have smaller friends, siblings, kids, or a spouse).
How about teaching our kids how not to bully, protecting them from others who do bully, and providing the opportunity for treatment of those who exhibit bullying behavior? This goes regardless of the medium - physical or verbal abuse can both be devastating to a vulnerable person.
Could you please politely ask your wife to stop rocking the boat.
Thank you.
Moreover, thanks to being immersed in a culture that rewards heterosexual coupling over all other forms of intimate relationships, many gays or heavily gay bisexuals can explore their heterosexual side without fear of repression.
Using similar genetic logic to gp poster (IANAG) - consider the generational effects of the prejudice against homosexuality coupled with the marriage+kids reward cycle. If there is a "gay" gene, the obligatory culture of hetero pairing combined with the demonization of homosexual tendencies may actually be enabling the spread of such a gene, where before it may have been somewhat more limited. Extreme oppression may have caused very gay people to become breeders, where otherwise they would not have.
While I don't think it makes sense to lump people under over-broad monikers like "conservatives" or "liberals," it is a good point to make that there are fear-based politics in all areas of the political gamut. Some people exploit these fears as the basis for evangelism for their politics. Examples by issue:
gay rights - fear of God, fear of ostracision and oppression, fear of unfamiliar
civil liberties - fear of police state, fear of terrorism
foreign policy - fear of other races, nations, ideologies, responsibility, terrorism
free/fair trade - fear of slavery, marginalization, money, corruption
gun control - fear of tyranny, fear of gun violence
abortion - fear of God, fear of loss of paternal control, responsibility
welfare - fear of abandonment, helplessness, government, unjust loss, responsibility
environmentalism - fear of apocalypse/wasteland dystopia/social darwinism
There are many other faces to these issues, but fear is often evoked to gain support for the less sensational bits.
like anyone, the site admins don't respond well to whining criticism... at least that's been my impression of malda and co. during the last /. irc orgy.
being a subscriber might give the complaint more weight, as well.
FYI - it is itself fallacious to disregard all slippery slope arguments as fallacious without disproving them individually. There is such a thing as a valid slippery slope argument.
Who said anything was wrong with buttsex?
I used to hate buttsex. Couldn't stand it. Made me sick. Well one day I decided to try it even though I didn't like it. Felt like I had wasted my time. Know what I did? I had more buttsex. After about 5 buttsex sessions I was startin' to dig it. Now I really like buttsex. Sometimes you have just to grin and bare (sic) it until your body adjusts. Now maybe you have a serious medical condition and are literally allergic to this stuff. In which case, you can probably get some injections that will very slowly expose your body to it until you are used to it. But chances are you're not seriously allergic to this stuff, you're just a big cry baby. Have the damn buttsex.
Suddenly, your advice doesn't sound so good.
Allergies aren't the same, because it's less an issue of personal preference than big macs or specific sexual proclivities. People can carelessly spew allergens... they can't carelessly perform anal on you or casually force-feed you big macs. If they did, you'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you?
Fair enough. I actually meant that tongue-in-cheek, with the implication that "casual terrorism" is a contradiction in terms, according to the state department definition of terrorism as premeditated attacks which are perpetrated by ideological fanatics.
If we're talking about mass violence in general... well, that's a different and arguably more complex problem. All things being equal (unsuccessful "corrections" programs/poor recidivism rates for violent criminals), maybe mandatory ID is an acceptable form of control in terms of transportation safety. But I don't think it's the only possible solution.
> Which is why you have to present ID to rent a truck.
:)
> Can we shut the fuck up now, please?
IDs might stop the casual, "oh, I think I'll blow up a building today" terrorist, but it's barely a speed-bump on the road to executing a serious attack.
> Have you not read the 9/11 Commission report? You are suffering from a
> failure of imagination.
Predictive failures aren't the only ones cited in the report. How can one predict THE method that will be used next in a sea of nearly limitless possibilities? That's why accurate counter-terrorism intelligence is central to the findings of the commission, and the source all that nice new funding. Funny how the FBI has a lot more openings now, specifically for would-be agents who want to do counter-terrorism surveillance.
For those who haven't parused the commission report:
clicky here. There are plenty of failures of imagination in the post-event analysis as well
Friends apparently DO let friends smoke crack, if the friends happen to have mod points.
ack - I meant non-pluralistic
> the idea behind it is as beautiful as John Lenin's "Imagine"
That's a funny slip - I wonder if Lenin would have dug the idea of the Beatles' pluralistic utopia.
All you're demonstrating is that it's infeasible to perform a one-to-one replacement of a combustion engine with a pedal engine in an airframe designed for the gas engine.
No one's saying it's an easy task. But there's nothing so far that I've seen that says it's a physically impossible thing to create a human-powered copter.
> Crush those sites. Turn them off. Then repeat the study.
...this will be the sixth time we have destroyed them, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.