Too obvious, they'll catch on and switch it off. But sending short bouts of disinformation to crowded places does look like worth trying. And we can use the knowhow in order to have people accidentally end up in the shops that pay for it. Not to forget the extra 'neutralization jobs' the CIA has outsourced to the marketplace.
I could go along with that but narratives feed on each other. Russia IS the new bad guy again. Take away Trump and the Russia scare won't go away, and vice versa. One reason Trump ran into a lot of resistance was because he was not interested in maintaining North Korea and Russia as enemies. By now any attempt at getting along with them amounts to treason, or proof he's been a stooge all along. A reason Trump may survive is that he can be flexible in such things. If he just follows the money he may survive.
Yeah right, 'You can't trust him!' 'You can't trust him!' Trust him with what? If you're weak he'll take advantage of it, what's new in that? As opposed to whom? But if you make an agreement you've got a good chance he'll stick to it.
I think Russia has legitimate interests But then I also think the same thing about North Korea. Putin is someone one can talk to but remove him and you'll get people who are very anti-western , who've given up on the west completely. It has to be said they have good reasons for it.
The article's central message is plausible: Russia running a cyberwar against Ukraine and at the same time trying to build up knowhow. But at the same time the author knows that he can write anything about Russia and it will be believed. At the same time the story is part of a large anti-Russia and anti Trump campaign.
I don't keep track so I don't have a lot of links ready but I know the news about a russian cyberattack on US powerplant was bogus. Russian hacking of DNC was bogus.Russian-Trump links are bogus. Russian hacking of french elections was bogus. But these debunkings only come through very slowly. On the other side there is a barrage of claims that is so overwhelming nobody can begin to debunk them.
And I see good reasons why the democrats and the military industrical complex prefer to have high tensions with Russia and why they want to blame Russia for the failed elections. And I see why the press goes along with it.
And I think that whatever Russia is doing(a lot less than claimed, but certainly a lot of business as usual nasty stuff) it's a good idea to improve the ties with them rather than deteriorate them. That is my opinion about policy. That it's in the west's interest. I also think they're open for chances for improvement , at least as long as Putin is there.
But look at this thread. It's almost unanimous against Russia. Any outsider looking here without any knowledge of the situation would know, this is bad. It means no good thinking will come out of it.(there's more reasons for that though). It also means propaganda is still very effective here and now.
So the article of the topic here may have a good degree of truth, but it's all part of an anti-russian frenzy which I think is a very bad idea.
Here's a new link about a lot of the hacking stories. It covers quite some ground. I'd have to dig for the rest. The ones I mentioned are some I'm pretty certain of although one can debate how convincing the proof is. https://consortiumnews.com/201...
I didn't discuss Trump. I'd like to get rid of him but I'm convinced the current campaign to link him to Russia is extremely dishonest. He's right about that. Maybe he'll go down because in his efforts to stop them he'll do something very illegal. Or maybe he'll stay in power because he made the right friends. The Saudis and the weapons manufacturers for instance. Then all that the anti Russia campaign will have achieved is to give us the worst of both worlds. Thanks for cooperating everyone.
CIA is not really an intelligence organisation. A small part of the CIA is gathering intelligence.If you look where the money goes it's foreign operations. The operations arm runs the CIA.
The CIA get most of their money from the US government so I guess the main function of the intelligence department is to make sure the operations arm gets good funding.
I think part of the criticism against geoengineering is similar to the criticism against communist era economic planning: imposed large scale designs that do not react adequately to the changing circumstances. If you have an incremental and adaptive approach (which may require more patience than people are willing to give to the issue) then a lot of the criticism could be mitigated.
There is also a critical attitude that is based on 'natural is good, and interfering is artificial and bad'. I can agree with that to the extent that the argument above is valid: large scale plans yield results that are hard to predict.
You have to understand (ok, or not) how a campaign to damage reputation always succeeds. With an orchestrated or spontaneous effort to damage someone a lot of things are thrown at the wall in the hope that something sticks. The effect is that the moral credit of the target is reduced. People use a kind of moral accounting where they can be tolerant for a person's fault to a certain degree. Such a campaign reduces that tolerance. Because of that people are much less forgiving to perceived faults, and they also start to give more credibility to damaging claims. Any reasonable person will after a while decide that some of it must be true AND at the same time will decide that the tolerance for the target's faults has been exhausted.
There's a desperate need for an organization like Wikileaks so I'm willing to put up with a bunch of flaws and some strategic choices I disagree with. I don't have to like Assange. At the same time I'm strongly convinced the whole campaign against Wikileaks , Russia and Trump should be ignored as a load of baloney. There will be some truth in it but it will be the kind of truth that in other circumstances would be hardly newsworthy.
I had to look it up. He is from the Auto Union days! Anything with turbo lag driven fast requires you to compensate with footwork. It's the same with plain atm diesel, but nobody drives that fast.
A car going airborne is an extreme case and not likely to happen to a 4000lb car without aero, but I also think stability at high speed will be an issue for cars like Dodges. There are plenty of high powered cars that handle well at speed though.
It would be oddly appropriate if the event of inadvertent nuclear annihilation is preceded by warnings of doom that only get reported in TeenVogue and are subsequently derided as inconsequential ramblings from 'nuke hating alarmists'.
Why don't the Democrats have done with it and just re-convene the House Un-American Activities Committee?
Who says they won't? Well,maybe they won't. The general rule in these things is ' Any Resemblance to Actual Previous Events is Entirely Coincidental. Because We Changed the Names.'
Last summer Google revealed personalized data dashboards for every Google account, letting users edit (or delete) items from their search history as well as their viewing history on YouTube.
Last summer Google introduced a dashboard forcing users of Google to a weekly complicated routine involving 20 mouseclicks and installation of an app that they can only avoid by staying logged in to their Google account. Users who do not want to go through this weekly routine are banned from using google.
Google wants to improve this dashboard in order to enhance the harassment of people who are not logged in.
I don't have a good grasp on the numbers but I find it hard to believe that the US economy is built around military spending. The national budget is in a large part spent on all things military , but public spending is only a fraction of the economy.
When all you have is a military, every challenge looks like a potential conflict.
I would agree that the US is more inclined than others to resolve things in a military manner. One reason would be that it helps to know that you have a military advantage. Another is that a number of key players benefit from conflict (and a lot of others through a real 'trickle down' economical effect). A third would be that conflicts are the way to get ahead in the military, so there's an eagerness to get involved. But there already things get confused. Sometimes the military are the ones pressing for caution but lately things seem to point the other way. Maybe the main factor is simply that for the US everything is 'their business'. That's a complicated issue. There could be the fear that if the US stops playing the hegemon, they'll be dumped by their alles.
There are generals who've stated it bluntly: the military budget needs depend on what you want to do. If you just want to have a defensive capability, then a fraction of the current budget is enough. If you want full scale dominance then the current budget is not enough.
That the military and intelligence budget is not transparent is true enough. there are a lot of shadowy constructions that have been setup specifically to allow secret funding of projects(typically projects that change names often). Only I wonder if that should be the main focus. The main problem may be in plain sight. If you just look at the current organisation, there is a huge military budget, and part of it is spread around to many states, so that a lot of people benefit. In effect a lot of politicians support military projects because they hope to benefit. It leads to an arms race that fuels itself. Politicians are in favor of modernizing nukes because it means jobs. Politicians don't want a less wasteful budget. It would only mean they get less of it.
If only 21% of the time the first diagnosis was thrown out then sticking with the original therapy was probably right in 80% of the cases. That's not too bad. Then for that 21% you have to consider a differential diagnosis is list of possible diagnoses listed somewhat in the order of plausibility. To what extent the doctor was just giving the next item in the list without really contradicting the first one? Was the second diagnosis better? Some patients just shop for a doctor to confirm a diagnosis. I'm tempted to say what counts is whether the therapy works. I'm not a doctor but I know sometimes doctors use a therapy without being sure of a diagnosis. Because it's a cheap way to find out the cause. If it doesn't work then you have to dig deeper. Of course if the patient then moves to a second doctor..
There are other issues. The quality of the help for dermatological problems for instance is low. That is because most doctors think dermatology is easy and they can handle it themselves(after all they often earn more than a dermatologist) instead of sending the patient to a dermatologist. I suspect rheumatologists have the same problem but there I'm not sure.
Civility , as in a form of respecting the others, matters everywhere. If it's absent the some guys can't handle it. Others may put up with it for a while, but then decide 'remind me again why I should I put up with this?' and leave. I've seen Kuroshin die like that. All the time while it was deteriotating there were the foulmouthed pricks convincing each other that they were just weeding out the wussies and once that was finished they'd have this really great site.
I'd certainly prefer to get rid of the Anonymous Coward habit on here. People act a bit better (statistically) when they have a name on a forum. It doesn't have to be completely impossible to post AC. Just imagine you have to log in anyway but can choose to post as anonymous, possibly with a much longer waiting time before your post is committed. Sometimes people post as anonymous because they are scared. These people have a good reason and they still have the possibility to post AC.
This is a funny comment because on the one hand it's very sensible to point out that's critically over engineered, but the reason 'ass clown geeks out of control' is ridiculous. The reason it's overengineered is that they first invested a lot in a compact design that would fit into a military submarine, and then the civilians continued in that direction and got locked in. Then there came the security concerns which kept piling up, and that led to the complex very expensive designs because the basic model was unsafe. So now they have the safest ever nuclear plants which nobody here wants.
Slashdot Mirror
Too obvious, they'll catch on and switch it off. But sending short bouts of disinformation to crowded places does look like worth trying. And we can use the knowhow in order to have people accidentally end up in the shops that pay for it.
Not to forget the extra 'neutralization jobs' the CIA has outsourced to the marketplace.
that's when the app switches to autopilot. It tells you to speed up, slow down, a bit to the left.
I can see you were walking as you typed this btw.
That's what this world needs! Collision detection apps that notify you on screen and in your headphones when you're about to bump into things.
I could go along with that but narratives feed on each other. Russia IS the new bad guy again. Take away Trump and the Russia scare won't go away, and vice versa.
One reason Trump ran into a lot of resistance was because he was not interested in maintaining North Korea and Russia as enemies. By now any attempt at getting along with them amounts to treason, or proof he's been a stooge all along.
A reason Trump may survive is that he can be flexible in such things. If he just follows the money he may survive.
Yeah right, 'You can't trust him!' 'You can't trust him!' Trust him with what? If you're weak he'll take advantage of it, what's new in that? As opposed to whom?
But if you make an agreement you've got a good chance he'll stick to it.
I think Russia has legitimate interests But then I also think the same thing about North Korea. Putin is someone one can talk to but remove him and you'll get people who are very anti-western , who've given up on the west completely. It has to be said they have good reasons for it.
Exactly.When we're enthusiastically demonizing some party it means we're not scared of them. There have been exceptions, but that's long ago.
The article's central message is plausible: Russia running a cyberwar against Ukraine and at the same time trying to build up knowhow. But at the same time the author knows that he can write anything about Russia and it will be believed. At the same time the story is part of a large anti-Russia and anti Trump campaign.
I don't keep track so I don't have a lot of links ready but I know the news about a russian cyberattack on US powerplant was bogus. Russian hacking of DNC was bogus.Russian-Trump links are bogus. Russian hacking of french elections was bogus. But these debunkings only come through very slowly. On the other side there is a barrage of claims that is so overwhelming nobody can begin to debunk them.
And I see good reasons why the democrats and the military industrical complex prefer to have high tensions with Russia and why they want to blame Russia for the failed elections. And I see why the press goes along with it.
And I think that whatever Russia is doing(a lot less than claimed, but certainly a lot of business as usual nasty stuff) it's a good idea to improve the ties with them rather than deteriorate them. That is my opinion about policy. That it's in the west's interest. I also think they're open for chances for improvement , at least as long as Putin is there.
But look at this thread. It's almost unanimous against Russia. Any outsider looking here without any knowledge of the situation would know, this is bad. It means no good thinking will come out of it.(there's more reasons for that though). It also means propaganda is still very effective here and now.
So the article of the topic here may have a good degree of truth, but it's all part of an anti-russian frenzy which I think is a very bad idea.
Here's a new link about a lot of the hacking stories. It covers quite some ground. I'd have to dig for the rest. The ones I mentioned are some I'm pretty certain of although one can debate how convincing the proof is.
https://consortiumnews.com/201...
I didn't discuss Trump. I'd like to get rid of him but I'm convinced the current campaign to link him to Russia is extremely dishonest. He's right about that. Maybe he'll go down because in his efforts to stop them he'll do something very illegal. Or maybe he'll stay in power because he made the right friends. The Saudis and the weapons manufacturers for instance. Then all that the anti Russia campaign will have achieved is to give us the worst of both worlds. Thanks for cooperating everyone.
CIA is not really an intelligence organisation.
A small part of the CIA is gathering intelligence.If you look where the money goes it's foreign operations. The operations arm runs the CIA.
The CIA get most of their money from the US government so I guess the main function of the intelligence department is to make sure the operations arm gets good funding.
I think part of the criticism against geoengineering is similar to the criticism against communist era economic planning: imposed large scale designs that do not react adequately to the changing circumstances. If you have an incremental and adaptive approach (which may require more patience than people are willing to give to the issue) then a lot of the criticism could be mitigated.
There is also a critical attitude that is based on 'natural is good, and interfering is artificial and bad'. I can agree with that to the extent that the argument above is valid: large scale plans yield results that are hard to predict.
You have to understand (ok, or not) how a campaign to damage reputation always succeeds. With an orchestrated or spontaneous effort to damage someone a lot of things are thrown at the wall in the hope that something sticks.
The effect is that the moral credit of the target is reduced. People use a kind of moral accounting where they can be tolerant for a person's fault to a certain degree. Such a campaign reduces that tolerance.
Because of that people are much less forgiving to perceived faults, and they also start to give more credibility to damaging claims.
Any reasonable person will after a while decide that some of it must be true AND at the same time will decide that the tolerance for the target's faults has been exhausted.
There's a desperate need for an organization like Wikileaks so I'm willing to put up with a bunch of flaws and some strategic choices I disagree with. I don't have to like Assange. At the same time I'm strongly convinced the whole campaign against Wikileaks , Russia and Trump should be ignored as a load of baloney.
There will be some truth in it but it will be the kind of truth that in other circumstances would be hardly newsworthy.
I had to look it up. He is from the Auto Union days!
Anything with turbo lag driven fast requires you to compensate with footwork.
It's the same with plain atm diesel, but nobody drives that fast.
A car going airborne is an extreme case and not likely to happen to a 4000lb car without aero, but I also think stability at high speed will be an issue for cars like Dodges. There are plenty of high powered cars that handle well at speed though.
OK. There is no Fiesta RS yet (unless you count the rally version) but there's a limited edition Fiesta ST200 with 200bhp .
Also Trump is really working for the North Koreans. His interest in normalization of ties with Russia is just a diversion.
It would be oddly appropriate if the event of inadvertent nuclear annihilation is preceded by warnings of doom that only get reported in TeenVogue and are subsequently derided as inconsequential ramblings from 'nuke hating alarmists'.
Who says they won't? Well ,maybe they won't. The general rule in these things is ' Any Resemblance to Actual Previous Events is Entirely Coincidental. Because We Changed the Names.'
Last summer Google introduced a dashboard forcing users of Google to a weekly complicated routine involving 20 mouseclicks and installation of an app that they can only avoid by staying logged in to their Google account. Users who do not want to go through this weekly routine are banned from using google.
Google wants to improve this dashboard in order to enhance the harassment of people who are not logged in.
Here's another one. The US finds it easy to go for war because it has a way to pay for it so you don't feel it directly. By borrowing.
I don't have a good grasp on the numbers but I find it hard to believe that the US economy is built around military spending. The national budget is in a large part spent on all things military , but public spending is only a fraction of the economy.
I would agree that the US is more inclined than others to resolve things in a military manner. One reason would be that it helps to know that you have a military advantage. Another is that a number of key players benefit from conflict (and a lot of others through a real 'trickle down' economical effect). A third would be that conflicts are the way to get ahead in the military, so there's an eagerness to get involved. But there already things get confused. Sometimes the military are the ones pressing for caution but lately things seem to point the other way. Maybe the main factor is simply that for the US everything is 'their business'. That's a complicated issue. There could be the fear that if the US stops playing the hegemon, they'll be dumped by their alles.
Indeed. Usually the enemy being the citizens.
There are generals who've stated it bluntly: the military budget needs depend on what you want to do. If you just want to have a defensive capability, then a fraction of the current budget is enough. If you want full scale dominance then the current budget is not enough.
That the military and intelligence budget is not transparent is true enough. there are a lot of shadowy constructions that have been setup specifically to allow secret funding of projects(typically projects that change names often). Only I wonder if that should be the main focus. The main problem may be in plain sight. If you just look at the current organisation, there is a huge military budget, and part of it is spread around to many states, so that a lot of people benefit. In effect a lot of politicians support military projects because they hope to benefit.
It leads to an arms race that fuels itself. Politicians are in favor of modernizing nukes because it means jobs. Politicians don't want a less wasteful budget. It would only mean they get less of it.
If only 21% of the time the first diagnosis was thrown out then sticking with the original therapy was probably right in 80% of the cases. That's not too bad.
Then for that 21% you have to consider a differential diagnosis is list of possible diagnoses listed somewhat in the order of plausibility. To what extent the doctor was just giving the next item in the list without really contradicting the first one? Was the second diagnosis better? Some patients just shop for a doctor to confirm a diagnosis. I'm tempted to say what counts is whether the therapy works. I'm not a doctor but I know sometimes doctors use a therapy without being sure of a diagnosis. Because it's a cheap way to find out the cause. If it doesn't work then you have to dig deeper. Of course if the patient then moves to a second doctor..
There are other issues. The quality of the help for dermatological problems for instance is low. That is because most doctors think dermatology is easy and they can handle it themselves(after all they often earn more than a dermatologist) instead of sending the patient to a dermatologist. I suspect rheumatologists have the same problem but there I'm not sure.
Civility , as in a form of respecting the others, matters everywhere. If it's absent the some guys can't handle it. Others may put up with it for a while, but then decide 'remind me again why I should I put up with this?' and leave. I've seen Kuroshin die like that. All the time while it was deteriotating there were the foulmouthed pricks convincing each other that they were just weeding out the wussies and once that was finished they'd have this really great site.
I'd certainly prefer to get rid of the Anonymous Coward habit on here. People act a bit better (statistically) when they have a name on a forum. It doesn't have to be completely impossible to post AC. Just imagine you have to log in anyway but can choose to post as anonymous, possibly with a much longer waiting time before your post is committed. Sometimes people post as anonymous because they are scared. These people have a good reason and they still have the possibility to post AC.
This is a funny comment because on the one hand it's very sensible to point out that's critically over engineered, but the reason 'ass clown geeks out of control' is ridiculous. The reason it's overengineered is that they first invested a lot in a compact design that would fit into a military submarine, and then the civilians continued in that direction and got locked in. Then there came the security concerns which kept piling up, and that led to the complex very expensive designs because the basic model was unsafe. So now they have the safest ever nuclear plants which nobody here wants.