there are a few (very) interesting speeches on youtube from Vaclav Smil where he explains that energy transitions (wood to fossil fuel, fossil fuel to solar )are a slow process, completely contrary to the speed of innovation. For instance here https://www.youtube.com/watch?... There's no 'law of energy transitions' forbidding fast transitions, but it's very hard and it's worth understanding why it's hard.
Beg your pardon. If the US intelligence agencies decided that Kaspersky was getting in their way then this is the response I'd expect, The claims about collaborations with the Russian government are just a way to dress it up. The Israelis weren't hacking Kaspersky because they suspected russian involvement. They were trying to get in because Kaspersky was doing a good job. And they got thrown out, after leaving the US state of the art tools behind.
-The russians are rattling their sabers a lot. They feel very threatened and the situation is very dangerous. A factor in that is that most people are unaware. They're certainly unaware that the Russians have legitimate reasons to feel threatened. North Korea also has legitimate reasons to feel threatened. That is certainly something you don't see. North Korea makes more noise but that is merely style. On a lower profile they are generally very willing to negotiate. On our side though there is little we want to negotiate about.
It is a perfectly moral feeling to want to help people in need, but there are people out there with other intentions. All too often the people who want to support people in need end up supporting enemies of the target who are only interested in destroying that target. That's why we've done such a terrific job in Iraq, Libya, Syria and so many other places. Public outrage usually has a valid basis but it is steered on demand to satisfy other purposes. The Royingha are a recent instance where public outrage becomes useful for political aims. In Yemen public outrage is undesirable.
I guess you can describe every form of deterrence as a hostage situation.
It's difficult for NK to test their missiles. They have trouble avoiding other countries' territory and these countries don't like that. I think the fact that they are testing their missile straight up is a nod to Japan that they did an effort not to cross their territory - this time. The point of the missiles is to deter the US. There is a huge difference between a missile which is aimed in the general direction of the US and one which can target a city but for deterrence it's enough they can reach the territory and blow smoke about the precision. The threat to Japan and South Korea is more complicated. They have sufficient deterrence towards them and it's unlikely they want to see them build their own nukes. The US also doesn't want Japan and South Korea have a nuclear arsenal because it prefers a more dependent relationship.
The aim of NK is to deter and to achieve a form of normalization, that they are officially accepted by the US. I think that's a reasonable aspiration, even if it comes from such a dysfunctional regime.
If you want a reason for bombshelters, keep poking Russia.
I fully agree that media are intrinsically hysterical and that they are very unreliable on the subject of climate change. I also think the dynamics of melting icecaps is very hard to predict and predictions could change dramatically as the understanding of the melting improves.
Sacrificing everything to achieve your goal may be fine
Not in Von Braun's case I think, the way he worked with the Nazis. Though there's an ironic twist that his inflated promises to Hitler got him a a lot of engines, in fact his rockets used up so many engines that they did a good job of disarming Germany,
From what I read Von Braun's attitude doesn't seem all that different though. He was willing to sacrifice everything as long as he could play with his rockets.
That's it. Those in power are guaranteed to start thinking about how they can weaponize AI (or any modest semblance of it) so they can expand their power at the expense of others. Simple example: you take the major power centers and they get together with the surveillance state, who are augmented by AI so they can monitor people better (because currently that's very weak. Mostly you get after the fact reconstruction of events). You can get an AI 'minder' for everyone.
Just put yourself in the shoes of the CIA. I don't know whether they took any data at all from Bin Laden but the released files are sure to be chock full of doctored and fake documents incriminating our opponents Iran/Russia/Syria/North Korea/Venezuela and others. I just checked with someone who's faster than me on these things and indeed http://www.moonofalabama.org/2... there's a document incriminating Iran, linking it to Al Qaeda. There will be more.
I think you should read Seymour Hersh on this. He's the most reliable source I know on the subject (which doesn't guarantee him being right on everything) He says Bin Laden was a defenseless man in a wheelchair who was mostly shot to pieces.
I do plenty of repeat mental mixups. You'll have to be clearer or you'll just have to be funny. Is it the car metaphor? The spelling error in cigarettes? Language mixup.
you're omitting the part where you commit to use the exotic car for everything, including getting a packet of sigarettes. Which means with its cost per driven mile(which includes maintenance) it becomes a very expensive way to get a packet of sigarettes.
Hm, you know how it goes. You start out with some superficial agreement but after more discussion you end up disagreeing about everything. Trump has said things about foreign policy that I'm not sure if they're isolationist, but they're in that family. Only, sometimes isolationist thinking overlaps with what I consider good sense. I'm in favor of improving relations with Russia and North Korea, allowing Syria to win the war, and getting out of Afghanistan. If Trump changed his mind on these things it's in part because he's not in control. As for Russia, it is also a reasonable approach to refrain from aggressive moves against the US in the runup to the new president , just to improve the chances for better relations. It's a way to signal your intentions. So it may well be the Russians have been doing nothing at all(except the ordinary stuff), except feverishly trying to understand what's going on.
I don't believe any of the official/media claims about russian interfere in elections are valid (as in usually false and when true, irrelevant) but the question remains: we're in a conflict with them, where is the nastiness? Then it makes sense that the Russians would be trying to instigate general trouble and separatism so claims about this could be more credible than others. In the current climate you can't believe anything though.
Whether the aim is 'to destroy the west' , that seems unlikely. As long as Putin is in charge I think the door remains open for forms of normalization. Instigating trouble is also a questionable tactic. It's also used by governments in order to subvert and discredit activism of any kind. For instance there are now claims that there is some form of collaboration between Russia and 'Black Lives Matter'. That's just the kind of things governments come up with to discredit activism. But then I wonder sometimes whether governments tend to mirror each other in odd ways. Russia protecting Snowden while they disagree with what he did(because they consider him kind of a traitor). Russia Today giving a voice to western dissidents (and very sensible ones too), not because they agree with them but because they also consider them harmful for a country.
Wapo article: It's not the first time that Adam Entous surprises me with good journalism. Still surprising though.
Slashdot Mirror
Smil's point is that energy transitions are much slower than that.
Nous Sommes Tous Ingenieur(s).
Although on second thought. Maybe not,
there are a few (very) interesting speeches on youtube from Vaclav Smil where he explains that energy transitions (wood to fossil fuel, fossil fuel to solar )are a slow process, completely contrary to the speed of innovation. For instance here https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's no 'law of energy transitions' forbidding fast transitions, but it's very hard and it's worth understanding why it's hard.
Beg your pardon. If the US intelligence agencies decided that Kaspersky was getting in their way then this is the response I'd expect, The claims about collaborations with the Russian government are just a way to dress it up. The Israelis weren't hacking Kaspersky because they suspected russian involvement. They were trying to get in because Kaspersky was doing a good job. And they got thrown out, after leaving the US state of the art tools behind.
The proof it's alien is that it is already starting to affect the brain of that cosmonaut.
Our cat doesn't appear to be very bright but it's very lovable.
-The russians are rattling their sabers a lot. They feel very threatened and the situation is very dangerous. A factor in that is that most people are unaware. They're certainly unaware that the Russians have legitimate reasons to feel threatened. North Korea also has legitimate reasons to feel threatened. That is certainly something you don't see. North Korea makes more noise but that is merely style. On a lower profile they are generally very willing to negotiate. On our side though there is little we want to negotiate about.
It is a perfectly moral feeling to want to help people in need, but there are people out there with other intentions. All too often the people who want to support people in need end up supporting enemies of the target who are only interested in destroying that target. That's why we've done such a terrific job in Iraq, Libya, Syria and so many other places. Public outrage usually has a valid basis but it is steered on demand to satisfy other purposes. The Royingha are a recent instance where public outrage becomes useful for political aims. In Yemen public outrage is undesirable.
I guess you can describe every form of deterrence as a hostage situation.
I wonder how much 'paint' like substance they would need to paint Kim Jong Un's head on the moon.
It's difficult for NK to test their missiles. They have trouble avoiding other countries' territory and these countries don't like that. I think the fact that they are testing their missile straight up is a nod to Japan that they did an effort not to cross their territory - this time.
The point of the missiles is to deter the US. There is a huge difference between a missile which is aimed in the general direction of the US and one which can target a city but for deterrence it's enough they can reach the territory and blow smoke about the precision.
The threat to Japan and South Korea is more complicated. They have sufficient deterrence towards them and it's unlikely they want to see them build their own nukes. The US also doesn't want Japan and South Korea have a nuclear arsenal because it prefers a more dependent relationship.
The aim of NK is to deter and to achieve a form of normalization, that they are officially accepted by the US. I think that's a reasonable aspiration, even if it comes from such a dysfunctional regime.
If you want a reason for bombshelters, keep poking Russia.
I fully agree that media are intrinsically hysterical and that they are very unreliable on the subject of climate change.
I also think the dynamics of melting icecaps is very hard to predict and predictions could change dramatically as the understanding of the melting improves.
Not in Von Braun's case I think, the way he worked with the Nazis. Though there's an ironic twist that his inflated promises to Hitler got him a a lot of engines, in fact his rockets used up so many engines that they did a good job of disarming Germany,
From what I read Von Braun's attitude doesn't seem all that different though. He was willing to sacrifice everything as long as he could play with his rockets.
I never liked Freedom House or National Endowment of Democracy.
https://consortiumnews.com/201...
The new bandwagon/scapegoat is Fake News = Social Media = Russia. It's all hype and deception.
Wait a minute, did he ever set foot on the moon?
That's it. Those in power are guaranteed to start thinking about how they can weaponize AI (or any modest semblance of it) so they can expand their power at the expense of others. Simple example: you take the major power centers and they get together with the surveillance state, who are augmented by AI so they can monitor people better (because currently that's very weak. Mostly you get after the fact reconstruction of events). You can get an AI 'minder' for everyone.
That and inexperienced navy captains. They're just passing for a brief stint on their career path and never build up the experience for the job.
Just put yourself in the shoes of the CIA. I don't know whether they took any data at all from Bin Laden but the released files are sure to be chock full of doctored and fake documents incriminating our opponents Iran/Russia/Syria/North Korea/Venezuela and others.
I just checked with someone who's faster than me on these things and indeed http://www.moonofalabama.org/2...
there's a document incriminating Iran, linking it to Al Qaeda. There will be more.
I think you should read Seymour Hersh on this. He's the most reliable source I know on the subject (which doesn't guarantee him being right on everything) He says Bin Laden was a defenseless man in a wheelchair who was mostly shot to pieces.
I do plenty of repeat mental mixups. You'll have to be clearer or you'll just have to be funny. Is it the car metaphor? The spelling error in cigarettes? Language mixup.
you're omitting the part where you commit to use the exotic car for everything, including getting a packet of sigarettes. Which means with its cost per driven mile(which includes maintenance) it becomes a very expensive way to get a packet of sigarettes.
Hm, you know how it goes. You start out with some superficial agreement but after more discussion you end up disagreeing about everything. Trump has said things about foreign policy that I'm not sure if they're isolationist, but they're in that family. Only, sometimes isolationist thinking overlaps with what I consider good sense. I'm in favor of improving relations with Russia and North Korea, allowing Syria to win the war, and getting out of Afghanistan. If Trump changed his mind on these things it's in part because he's not in control.
As for Russia, it is also a reasonable approach to refrain from aggressive moves against the US in the runup to the new president , just to improve the chances for better relations. It's a way to signal your intentions. So it may well be the Russians have been doing nothing at all(except the ordinary stuff), except feverishly trying to understand what's going on.
Nice that you noticed Putin is a realist.
Also if you throw them instead of eating they make doctors go away.
I liked the other hypothesis better.
Libertarians would say this is the wrong type of privatization I suppose.
I don't believe any of the official /media claims about russian interfere in elections are valid (as in usually false and when true, irrelevant) but the question remains: we're in a conflict with them, where is the nastiness? Then it makes sense that the Russians would be trying to instigate general trouble and separatism so claims about this could be more credible than others. In the current climate you can't believe anything though.
Whether the aim is 'to destroy the west' , that seems unlikely. As long as Putin is in charge I think the door remains open for forms of normalization. Instigating trouble is also a questionable tactic. It's also used by governments in order to subvert and discredit activism of any kind. For instance there are now claims that there is some form of collaboration between Russia and 'Black Lives Matter'. That's just the kind of things governments come up with to discredit activism.
But then I wonder sometimes whether governments tend to mirror each other in odd ways. Russia protecting Snowden while they disagree with what he did(because they consider him kind of a traitor). Russia Today giving a voice to western dissidents (and very sensible ones too), not because they agree with them but because they also consider them harmful for a country.
Wapo article: It's not the first time that Adam Entous surprises me with good journalism. Still surprising though.