I think the fact that she waited 40 years to publish shows she's also not the kind of person who's eager to try to capitalize on gossip. So she's alright. She's got a book to sell. Fine with me. Also , I liked Star Wars.
I can also understand why they're doing it. It's the response of the plutocrats to the threat as formulated by Nick Hanauer. It's about avoiding the backlash of runaway inequality.
And if it's not entirely their response, it will soon be.
oI'm not an expert in multithreading but I have the luxury to be able to just ask experts. On our complex projects there are some intersection points between threads left because these can be very hard to detect. It gets a lot worse when the code was not conceived to run multithreaded originally. It explains why good coders can not always get rid of all the mt problems and once you have a low level of endemic mt problems it's hard to get rid of them because they are hard to detect and work on them. No decent scenario. So yes, there are reasons to fear threads.
But overall he was a terrible person for trying to exterminate the Jews.
That's a strange remark and it shows up now and then. Usually it implies that if Hitler had not tried to exterminate the Jews , people would not be able to come up with an argument against Hitler.
I think in large programs multithreading can be very hard. Not to make it work, and not even to fix once you've got a good handle on the problem at hand, but you never know how much problems are still lurking there are being newly introduced while the code is evolving and each problem is hard to locate. At the same time CPUs are increasing their number of cores forcing you to make use of multithreading.
I agree I don't see the problem with NP completeness. Normally you're happy with a good but not perfect solution and that can be found in reasonable time, so you can avoid tackling an actual NP completeness challenge.
There's still a range to work with. Maybe there were no new from/to Clinton mails that could be considered classified (human judgement). Or new mails that contained classified attachments (the kind that is usually stamped with "secret" or "top secret"). Or that contained anything worse than what was already known and for which she already been issued an er, a waiver. And she had gotten away with sending info that had been officially declared top secret so a case could be made to only scan for 'above top secret' and 'top secret'.
I think if Europe had a better understanding of what kind of a cutthroat political game is going on there they would have been more patient and less biased(current bias is against AKP and Erdogan, and for Gulen , the Kurdish resistance in Iraq/Syria and all the opponents of Erdogan). European bias is a turnoff for the Turks I think. Hard to admonish the Turks for going overboard now when you can't even acknowledge there has been a coup. So Europe is also giving up leverage. I think that's stupid, in the sense it's not in europe's interest.
I mean that it is true , it's all over the news about Russia and it's no lie. But it's also misleading. Nationalism is considered useful and necessary right now. Why is that? Because of nationalism (a bit cyclic that)? Because of internal reasons ? Because of external reasons? I think all three but the external one is what has made Russia turn away from the west and is what risks blowing things up and on the western side it's all but ignored while it's a factor the west has control over.
I think there's a lot of value in the economist article, but it's very uneven and I disagree with the conclusion. The military and economic weakness is real. The nuclear strength is real.The renewed nationalism is real, but there are multiple ways to interpret it. Nationalism may drive policies, but it mostly serves to support them, and the policy now includes that Russia has to draw red lines and stick to them . No bluff. But also quite a defensive posture, not offensive. The latter is completely ignored. Of course one can dispute the cases of Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, but they're mostly postures about not changing the status quo. One thing the economist article says is that there didn't use to be a problem and now there is because of internal reasons. I think that is a very weak explanation. How they see it is they tried to be cooperative and found that didn't work. They also found themselves to be more and more sidelined. The Libya case may have been crucial there . Russia and China approved a limited involvement of NATO in Libya, but the west promptly used this consent to overthrow Qaddafi. This was considered both idiotic and deceitful, also by China.
Especially our handling of aggressive stance is below par. I consider North Korea's aggressive posture strictly defensive for instance, but that appears to be an uncommon view.
The Reagan administration had one scare moment with the war game 'Proud Prophet' which got out of hand. And later they found that their NATO exercise 'Able Archer 83' would have triggered nuclear retaliation if rules had been followed . The US is a lot more confident now.
There are several ways escalation can happen without intention to start a global war. There are false positives during tense periods. There is asymmetric escalation. The US is very dominant with conventional weapons and the Russian doctrine allows for asymmetric nuclear response if their conventional weapons are insufficient. We've come close several times, and in realistic war games , all following doctrine, things have escalated out of hand.
I think the idea of Russia dreaming of old glory is misleading and it ignores the driving factor. In that respect I think this article by John Mearsheimer has it right : https://www.foreignaffairs.com... The russians have been warning us all along, but we didn't consider them worth paying attention to. The problem is that we still feel safe so we can threaten the Russians all we want. Military they don't amount to much outside their own territory but they have nukes, they don't have much conventional power they can use before switching to nukes, and they're nervous. Meanwhile we're all casual and confident and careless. That's like the Cuba crisis but with one side still not realizing there's a problem.
Because having Russia dominate the world would be horrific?
That's indeed the kind of ideas that is now floating around. I rank it in the category of Iraq coming to kill us all, with the same combination of inflating the threat and at the same time regarding the opponent as a pushover. I think Colin Powell has made some sensible comments on that. Russia is paranoid about us, about NATO. We scare them. They are a small power, we're a big one that is surrounding them more and more, and then sabre rattling is a sensible response. You may think they're wrong but you should at least listen to what they're thinking. Apparently that is not happening at all, while the wartalk on this side is increasing, by politicians because it makes them popular,and by the military because of budgetary reasons. And that makes for very dangerous times.
That could be it. The whole idea of electric planes seems silly, hauling along that load of batteries with much lower energy density than fuel. It would be even worse for an electric helicopter. What autonomy do they hope to get?
On the other hand, suppose you have a normal plane which just uses an electric boost for landing vertically? Maybe that doesn't make sense either but I can't dismiss that right out of hand.
I usually click in empty space in order to set the focus to the browser, only to discover that there's a ad link there. So plenty of inadvertent ad clicking here.
As reasons go, that's not enough reason. It is true that the 'green' approach to climate warming is what you can call the lowmetabolic approach: slow everything down. But that tends to weaken your ability to respond to the changes. If the economies are good, you can build dikes and adapt to climate. If economies are slow you don't adapt well. so to some extent humanity may be better off by increasing their metabolism. Especially the poor countries. Nature doesn't have that option though. My main point was that the speed of the change matters, there's a difference between warming up slowly or quickly, and the easy fatalism of doing nothing likes to ignore that,
There may be value in the idea that the planet doesn't have to be worse off for being warmer, in a stable long term situation, but if you change things quickly that's going to have dramatic consequences which you're completely disregarding. To take the simplest example, there's 80m of water stocked in ice. How fast it melts makes a very large difference. Or biotopes. If they change very slowly, species adapt. If they change too fast all you've got is extinction.
The authors are utterly naive if they think that the CIA's primary role is intelligence gathering, or that they even care overly much about quelling "societal upheavals".
AFAIK the part the CIA has been blurring the boundaries of is the distinction between foreign and domestic, not so much foreign action/foreign intelligence gathering.
While many wealthy people worked hard or smart for their wealth. And many poor are there due to slacking off and bad life decisions. It isn't always so cut and dry as the old moral argument for being wealthy. There are degrees of luck especially for the super rich...
There are also circumstances when you wonder to what extent it even applies. The US used to have a 'useful myth' of social mobility, there was still a good chance you could go from poor to rich with the right skills. But you can measure social mobility and you can measure distribution of wealth and people who believe everyone got roughly what they deserved should make up their minds how distorted the measured values have to become before they conclude that the mobility that existed is now mostly gone? To quote an economist(forgot who)Gordon Gekko was still a selfmade man but now we're a generation later and dealing with his heirs.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the fact that she waited 40 years to publish shows she's also not the kind of person who's eager to try to capitalize on gossip. So she's alright. She's got a book to sell. Fine with me. Also , I liked Star Wars.
I can also understand why they're doing it. It's the response of the plutocrats to the threat as formulated by Nick Hanauer. It's about avoiding the backlash of runaway inequality.
And if it's not entirely their response, it will soon be.
oI'm not an expert in multithreading but I have the luxury to be able to just ask experts. On our complex projects there are some intersection points between threads left because these can be very hard to detect. It gets a lot worse when the code was not conceived to run multithreaded originally. It explains why good coders can not always get rid of all the mt problems and once you have a low level of endemic mt problems it's hard to get rid of them because they are hard to detect and work on them. No decent scenario. So yes, there are reasons to fear threads.
That's a strange remark and it shows up now and then. Usually it implies that if Hitler had not tried to exterminate the Jews , people would not be able to come up with an argument against Hitler.
I think in large programs multithreading can be very hard. Not to make it work, and not even to fix once you've got a good handle on the problem at hand, but you never know how much problems are still lurking there are being newly introduced while the code is evolving and each problem is hard to locate. At the same time CPUs are increasing their number of cores forcing you to make use of multithreading.
I agree I don't see the problem with NP completeness. Normally you're happy with a good but not perfect solution and that can be found in reasonable time, so you can avoid tackling an actual NP completeness challenge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's still a range to work with. Maybe there were no new from/to Clinton mails that could be considered classified (human judgement).
Or new mails that contained classified attachments (the kind that is usually stamped with "secret" or "top secret").
Or that contained anything worse than what was already known and for which she already been issued an er, a waiver. And she had gotten away with sending info that had been officially declared top secret so a case could be made to only scan for 'above top secret' and 'top secret'.
I think if Europe had a better understanding of what kind of a cutthroat political game is going on there they would have been more patient and less biased(current bias is against AKP and Erdogan, and for Gulen , the Kurdish resistance in Iraq/Syria and all the opponents of Erdogan).
European bias is a turnoff for the Turks I think. Hard to admonish the Turks for going overboard now when you can't even acknowledge there has been a coup.
So Europe is also giving up leverage. I think that's stupid, in the sense it's not in europe's interest.
No, this was the government that really wanted to join the eu but gave up.
In good animal farm tradition, it's not wrong, just incomplete. The rest of the sentence says "because we'll be watching you."
You sure you got that right? I thought it was some old nomadic people near the black sea.
I mean that it is true , it's all over the news about Russia and it's no lie. But it's also misleading. Nationalism is considered useful and necessary right now. Why is that? Because of nationalism (a bit cyclic that)? Because of internal reasons ? Because of external reasons? I think all three but the external one is what has made Russia turn away from the west and is what risks blowing things up and on the western side it's all but ignored while it's a factor the west has control over.
I think there's a lot of value in the economist article, but it's very uneven and I disagree with the conclusion. The military and economic weakness is real. The nuclear strength is real.The renewed nationalism is real, but there are multiple ways to interpret it. Nationalism may drive policies, but it mostly serves to support them, and the policy now includes that Russia has to draw red lines and stick to them . No bluff. But also quite a defensive posture, not offensive. The latter is completely ignored. Of course one can dispute the cases of Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, but they're mostly postures about not changing the status quo. One thing the economist article says is that there didn't use to be a problem and now there is because of internal reasons. I think that is a very weak explanation. How they see it is they tried to be cooperative and found that didn't work. They also found themselves to be more and more sidelined.
The Libya case may have been crucial there . Russia and China approved a limited involvement of NATO in Libya, but the west promptly used this consent to overthrow Qaddafi. This was considered both idiotic and deceitful, also by China.
Especially our handling of aggressive stance is below par. I consider North Korea's aggressive posture strictly defensive for instance, but that appears to be an uncommon view.
The Reagan administration had one scare moment with the war game 'Proud Prophet' which got out of hand. And later they found that their NATO exercise 'Able Archer 83' would have triggered nuclear retaliation if rules had been followed . The US is a lot more confident now.
There are several ways escalation can happen without intention to start a global war. There are false positives during tense periods. There is asymmetric escalation.
The US is very dominant with conventional weapons and the Russian doctrine allows for asymmetric nuclear response if their conventional weapons are insufficient.
We've come close several times, and in realistic war games , all following doctrine, things have escalated out of hand.
Well you know the saying 'A broken clock is right twice a day'. This is Donald Trump's moment. Ironically I think it's a Yuge one.
I think the idea of Russia dreaming of old glory is misleading and it ignores the driving factor. In that respect I think this article by John Mearsheimer has it right : https://www.foreignaffairs.com...
The russians have been warning us all along, but we didn't consider them worth paying attention to. The problem is that we still feel safe so we can threaten the Russians all we want. Military they don't amount to much outside their own territory but they have nukes, they don't have much conventional power they can use before switching to nukes, and they're nervous. Meanwhile we're all casual and confident and careless. That's like the Cuba crisis but with one side still not realizing there's a problem.
That's indeed the kind of ideas that is now floating around. I rank it in the category of Iraq coming to kill us all, with the same combination of inflating the threat and at the same time regarding the opponent as a pushover. I think Colin Powell has made some sensible comments on that. Russia is paranoid about us, about NATO. We scare them. They are a small power, we're a big one that is surrounding them more and more, and then sabre rattling is a sensible response. You may think they're wrong but you should at least listen to what they're thinking. Apparently that is not happening at all, while the wartalk on this side is increasing, by politicians because it makes them popular,and by the military because of budgetary reasons. And that makes for very dangerous times.
That could be it. The whole idea of electric planes seems silly, hauling along that load of batteries with much lower energy density than fuel.
It would be even worse for an electric helicopter. What autonomy do they hope to get?
On the other hand, suppose you have a normal plane which just uses an electric boost for landing vertically? Maybe that doesn't make sense either but I can't dismiss that right out of hand.
I usually click in empty space in order to set the focus to the browser, only to discover that there's a ad link there. So plenty of inadvertent ad clicking here.
As reasons go, that's not enough reason. It is true that the 'green' approach to climate warming is what you can call the lowmetabolic approach: slow everything down. But that tends to weaken your ability to respond to the changes. If the economies are good, you can build dikes and adapt to climate. If economies are slow you don't adapt well. so to some extent humanity may be better off by increasing their metabolism. Especially the poor countries. Nature doesn't have that option though.
My main point was that the speed of the change matters, there's a difference between warming up slowly or quickly, and the easy fatalism of doing nothing likes to ignore that,
There may be value in the idea that the planet doesn't have to be worse off for being warmer, in a stable long term situation, but if you change things quickly that's going to have dramatic consequences which you're completely disregarding.
To take the simplest example, there's 80m of water stocked in ice. How fast it melts makes a very large difference. Or biotopes. If they change very slowly, species adapt. If they change too fast all you've got is extinction.
Too late, I read it.
AFAIK the part the CIA has been blurring the boundaries of is the distinction between foreign and domestic, not so much foreign action/foreign intelligence gathering.
There are also circumstances when you wonder to what extent it even applies. The US used to have a 'useful myth' of social mobility, there was still a good chance you could go from poor to rich with the right skills. But you can measure social mobility and you can measure distribution of wealth and people who believe everyone got roughly what they deserved should make up their minds how distorted the measured values have to become before they conclude that the mobility that existed is now mostly gone?
To quote an economist(forgot who)Gordon Gekko was still a selfmade man but now we're a generation later and dealing with his heirs.