Iranians may not call themselves democratic but they do want and have significant participation in the government and while a lot of people want the government to be less controlling and restrictive, that doesn't mean they want to get rid of the basic architecture of the state. It fits their nationalistic identity. It's their own and definitely not colonial.
I also doubt there is a large body of people in Iran who think the religious council is too restrictive about who can run for president.
The voting fraud story is rightly called a suspicion. It's probably false. The Moussavi side launched the story as they saw they were losing and the West eagerly lapped it up because hey, you know how iranians are. But Moussavi never came up with proof and the Ahmadinejad election never was statistically improbable either.
The important thing about Iran is not so much internal though, but they're surrounded by sunni states, lots of them, and they generally consider it in their interest to avoid conflict. That sounds incredible because well, the other side always considered it in its interest to heat things up and that is what we got to hear. But if you read for instance Gareth Porter (or let's even say mainly because he's pretty good) about the iranian nuclear program or about Yemen, you get a very different picture of the situation. They're pretty sensible players.
Israel is an ethnocracy, not a theocracy. It's been created by eastern european Jews, and ethnocracies weren't considered that special then. Israel has citizens and nationals. The Israeli nationals are Jews. The state is for the nationals, not for the citizens. If there are too many nonjewish citizens this is a threat to the jewish state and the jewish state may take draconian measures to handle this threat if needed. The US is a state of its citizens, it's a completely different concept. There is no distinction between citizen and national.
Maybe it's worth reminding people that the doomsday clock is currently set at 2 to 12. In 1991 it was much better. That margin has been thoroughly wasted since. I don't know if it's always so well informed but concerning risks of global nuclear war, yeah, things are not good.
We're not. Because our side doesn't see saber rattling, it sees aggression that requires a response. North Korea's nuclear weapons are deterrence if we interpret it as such. If it's interpreted as aggression and madness. Our side is not seen as threatening in any way. The russian aggressive attitude in recent years is also seen as aggression, while it's very clear they feel threatened and think they need stronger deterrence. While we're going huh, there can't be anything threatening about NATO expansion?
Mutual deterrence works best if you take the other side seriously. If you know that that is the game you're playing. That's a problem. If you don't take the other size seriously it can still work, but things can get pretty much out of hand. Iran is such a case. A lot of the demonization campaign was about painting them as irrational and uncontainable, in other words, telling people to disregard rules of deterrence.
What do you mean tactical nukes have been avoided? Usage or deployment? Bush the elder once decommissioned whole categories of tactical nukes unilaterally(and in a stealth operation too) because he considered them too dangerous.
Anyway I agree the 'red line' argument is important. And currently we have a combination of increased tensions and reduced threshold for using nukes. Reduced because people have become too confident 'since we managed pretty well for such a long time' . I think that confidence has always been far too large, and if I see people like general Breedlove, whom I wouldn't trust with a box of matches, then I'm absolutely not confident we'll be alright.
I agree Krauss's announcement is problematic, but not because of some claim to have been involved in the discovery. With the mediatisation of science you get a lot more noise in the system and science is a lot about minimizing noise, about having statements that are as solid as possible. Science, as the title says, is about being well grounded. Journals have other reasons as well for nondisclosure.
Let's just call them after Ytterby, as yttrium (Y), erbium (Er), terbium (Tb), and ytterbium (Yb) are already. We could have yttermium, erbinium, terbinium, erbytterium...
Researchers found that if they made a test deliberately hard to understand, those taking the test would exhibit greater understanding after solving it than those who were presented with a more intuitive wording of the same problem.
Right, be tough on them, makes them perform better. Except, maybe just in a statistical significant manner. And maybe a lot less people solved it if you made it deliberately hard. And maybe they understood it better because they spent more time on it.
right:) And I had exactly the same reaction to the use of 'incestuous'. But the issue he raises is worthwhile and instead everyone focuses on his insecurity.
Anyway , if the article is using difficult words that does not mean the author is overstretching himself in order to appear smart. When people use jargon, they may be using the most specific word possible even if simpler words would also do the job. They may want to be accurate as well as eager to show that they know the subject well. It does not follow the author doesn't make sense. I know some extreme examples personally. Outrageously complicated words but somehow always meaningful if you take the effort.
The paper submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Home Office asking for Home Secretary Theresa May’s browsing history for the last week of October (excluding any information relating to security matters).
Their argument being: if Theresa May wants extensive access to the general public’s browser history under the new legislation, can we also have access to hers?
Unsurprisingly, the request was denied by the Home Office, which said that the Independent was being vexatious – which is one of the key reasons to deny an FoI and in legal terms means “an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant”.
They didn't predict that a supernova was about to happen. They'd already seen the supernova happening in its ghost image created by gravitational lensing. They predicted where another image of the supernova would turn up.
I don't think it's just a learning curve. I can think of - AI shortcomings: not reading a situation correctly - risk assessment: if the lawyers decide the AI should always decide to avoid being blamed, then the chances of being rearended increase. - no negotiation(also AI shortcoming): the interaction between drivers that leads to one person giving way to the other one. For instance good drivers make their intention clear. They approach a crossing in such a way that the other guy doesn't dither and then decides they can still just make it in front.
At this point can we trust VW when they say "it's OK, we're fine, nothing bad happened"?
I agree, independent testing is needed. They really can't be trusted. Also, the diesel cars may develop CO2 emission problems after being fixed for NO2. There is a bit of a communicating vessels problem with NO2 and CO2, the higher efficiency/power of the engines were achieved partially through higher compression which itself led to an increase of NO2
Slashdot Mirror
Iranians may not call themselves democratic but they do want and have significant participation in the government and while a lot of people want the government to be less controlling and restrictive, that doesn't mean they want to get rid of the basic architecture of the state. It fits their nationalistic identity. It's their own and definitely not colonial.
I also doubt there is a large body of people in Iran who think the religious council is too restrictive about who can run for president.
The voting fraud story is rightly called a suspicion. It's probably false. The Moussavi side launched the story as they saw they were losing and the West eagerly lapped it up because hey, you know how iranians are. But Moussavi never came up with proof and the Ahmadinejad election never was statistically improbable either.
The important thing about Iran is not so much internal though, but they're surrounded by sunni states, lots of them, and they generally consider it in their interest to avoid conflict. That sounds incredible because well, the other side always considered it in its interest to heat things up and that is what we got to hear. But if you read for instance Gareth Porter (or let's even say mainly because he's pretty good) about the iranian nuclear program or about Yemen, you get a very different picture of the situation. They're pretty sensible players.
scientific progress goes boeing!
Israel is an ethnocracy, not a theocracy. It's been created by eastern european Jews, and ethnocracies weren't considered that special then.
Israel has citizens and nationals. The Israeli nationals are Jews. The state is for the nationals, not for the citizens. If there are too many nonjewish citizens this is a threat to the jewish state and the jewish state may take draconian measures to handle this threat if needed.
The US is a state of its citizens, it's a completely different concept. There is no distinction between citizen and national.
Maybe it's worth reminding people that the doomsday clock is currently set at 2 to 12. In 1991 it was much better. That margin has been thoroughly wasted since. I don't know if it's always so well informed but concerning risks of global nuclear war, yeah, things are not good.
That's part of it. The other part is you're fueling an arms race, including a nuclear arms race.
We're not. Because our side doesn't see saber rattling, it sees aggression that requires a response. North Korea's nuclear weapons are deterrence if we interpret it as such. If it's interpreted as aggression and madness. Our side is not seen as threatening in any way. The russian aggressive attitude in recent years is also seen as aggression, while it's very clear they feel threatened and think they need stronger deterrence. While we're going huh, there can't be anything threatening about NATO expansion?
Mutual deterrence works best if you take the other side seriously. If you know that that is the game you're playing. That's a problem. If you don't take the other size seriously it can still work, but things can get pretty much out of hand. Iran is such a case. A lot of the demonization campaign was about painting them as irrational and uncontainable, in other words, telling people to disregard rules of deterrence.
What do you mean tactical nukes have been avoided? Usage or deployment? Bush the elder once decommissioned whole categories of tactical nukes unilaterally(and in a stealth operation too) because he considered them too dangerous.
Anyway I agree the 'red line' argument is important. And currently we have a combination of increased tensions and reduced threshold for using nukes. Reduced because people have become too confident 'since we managed pretty well for such a long time' . I think that confidence has always been far too large, and if I see people like general Breedlove, whom I wouldn't trust with a box of matches, then I'm absolutely not confident we'll be alright.
The form is being read out loud here. Because it always was funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I agree Krauss's announcement is problematic, but not because of some claim to have been involved in the discovery. With the mediatisation of science you get a lot more noise in the system and science is a lot about minimizing noise, about having statements that are as solid as possible. Science, as the title says, is about being well grounded.
Journals have other reasons as well for nondisclosure.
Let's just call them after Ytterby, as yttrium (Y), erbium (Er), terbium (Tb), and ytterbium (Yb) are already.
We could have yttermium, erbinium, terbinium, erbytterium...
Right, be tough on them, makes them perform better. Except, maybe just in a statistical significant manner. And maybe a lot less people solved it if you made it deliberately hard. And maybe they understood it better because they spent more time on it.
right :) And I had exactly the same reaction to the use of 'incestuous'. But the issue he raises is worthwhile and instead everyone focuses on his insecurity.
Needs gruntled? Is that correct english?
Anyway , if the article is using difficult words that does not mean the author is overstretching himself in order to appear smart. When people use jargon, they may be using the most specific word possible even if simpler words would also do the job. They may want to be accurate as well as eager to show that they know the subject well.
It does not follow the author doesn't make sense. I know some extreme examples personally. Outrageously complicated words but somehow always meaningful if you take the effort.
That's a bloody good explanation compressed in a small space, thanks.
And where can we get some of it for ourselves too?
Sandblasting mirrors is bad too.
Computers are just as paranoid as people, but they don't mean anything by it.
This article as well as many similar articles in previous years, says you're full of it, knowledgeable guy..
from the british newspaper The Independent
No that's gravimetry.
Watch it. You're messing with the fabric of space-time now.
They didn't predict that a supernova was about to happen. They'd already seen the supernova happening in its ghost image created by gravitational lensing. They predicted where another image of the supernova would turn up.
I don't think it's just a learning curve. I can think of
- AI shortcomings: not reading a situation correctly
- risk assessment: if the lawyers decide the AI should always decide to avoid being blamed, then the chances of being rearended increase.
- no negotiation(also AI shortcoming): the interaction between drivers that leads to one person giving way to the other one. For instance good drivers make their intention clear. They approach a crossing in such a way that the other guy doesn't dither and then decides they can still just make it in front.
I agree, independent testing is needed. They really can't be trusted. Also, the diesel cars may develop CO2 emission problems after being fixed for NO2. There is a bit of a communicating vessels problem with NO2 and CO2, the higher efficiency/power of the engines were achieved partially through higher compression which itself led to an increase of NO2
How about using the spell checker to just monitor the text without filtering it?