With everyone contradicting each other I can't follow what the central idea is. Isn't it so that if you can make the ABS think the wheels are slipping you can make it interrupt the brakes? So a hack that activates ABS (rather than disable it) could override the driver?
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
I regard the version of Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (http://japanfocus.org/site/view/2501) as more or less definitive. The bombs scared them, the Russians terrified them. The Russians were the main reason for the unconditional surrender. I'm convinced though that many in the US were sincerely convinced that the bombs caused the surrender. And as BadDreamer already remarked after WW1 the victors really punished the Germans hard and that was a major reason for WW2. While after WW2 we had Marshall.
The idea that nothing less than a complete destruction of the enemy will suffice is a pernicious myth.
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
There were more options that rarely get mention. There were options of agreeing on a less favorable peace agreement with Japan. In the end the reasoning remains that the US conquered Japan because it could. And that it feels justified because atomic bombs made it cheaper. What would the US have done had they had less power advantage? It has been shown since that the atomic bombs didn't even have the time to have a large influence on Japanese decision making and that it was the russian invasion that made them capitulate. The US may have thought (probably) that the nukes made Japan capitulate but it wasn't even the case.
But guilt is looking backwards. If you look at dangerous myths resulting from the war there is one that limited use of nukes is justified in some cases. This is becoming more relevant as the threshold for using nukes is dropping, especially the smaller 'pinpoint' types. A new type is being developed just for that purpose. But we still have a system in place that can destroy humanity on very short notice and the understanding of how to limit escalation of conflicts is laughable.
As far as I'm concerned if nukes were brought down to small numbers the main risk would be avoided. That looks like a good goal.
Or the new chemical just gets added to one of the other additives the farmers are already giving to the cows. That doesn't sound too hard. The approach could even make sense economically in the short run.
Ik think there already has been a lot of marketing, in the sense that activism got ahead of science. The countermovement may be associated with ruthless businesses that put financial gains above all else, but there has also been a backlash from overselling, which reduced the credibility. And a backlash from discrediting skepticism in general, which is also not very good. We need less marketing and less partisan attitudes.
That's an odd remark. The US actually accepted Iran's help in Afghanistan(assembling the alliance with the north) in 2001, but then proceeded by ignoring the gesture and declaring Iran part of the axis of evil. They also accepted Iran's help in Bosnia in the nineties, sending arms, and followed up by ignoring the gesture. That's the actual pattern.
It is about geopolitics. The whole trumped up nuclear dossier was about geopolitics, not about nukes. The US and its allies has tried to break Iran for 35 years and now it has elevated Iran to a legitimate state, against the will of its regional allies.The US can claim it's not about geopolitics, but that's a sales argument.
Iran always saw benefit in the capability to build nukes, but not in nukes themselves. The capability means strength, and if you look at their neighbors, they can use strength. In that respect a nuclear system under credible IAEA control is in their benefit , because scaremongering about an iranian program can have the same proliferating effect as actually working on them. Now that proliferating effect must not be very strong considering more than 20 years of doomsday propaganda, The civilian nuclear program was just that, civilian, but the side effect was some degree of nuclear weapons capability, and that was welcome.It is also legitimate.
But despite all the show, the real concerns of some neighbors aren't nukes, it's Iranian strength. And Iran just got a lot more strength. Not all the neighbors seem to be too much bothered by that, but some oil monarchies are, as well as Israel.For reasons that are rarely spelled out.
I don't mean to be overly critical about the western human rights record but that's not the reason, that AI or HRW are not very critical. Internally western countries are better off, that's not the issue. As soon as you check the criticism that should be made, AI and HRW come off as pretty weak. If you count the allies in the western camp it's already disastrous. If you count the external actions of the western camp. also a disaster.
Another poster mentions the drone war. It's a good example because nobody in the west is bothered much by that. To us it feels like a minor issue, a necessary evil and not much of a big deal anyway. So neither is Amnesty bothered. You should check the legality. You should check polls in the arab world about them. You should check the effectiveness(I think 2%) and the strategic effect of them, it's pretty much putting out fire with gasoline.
One reason you think western actions are alright is because you rely on western sources for your judgement. There's a good variety of western sources in principle, but all those that rise to the top are mediocre. You almost need to go to cantankerous antisocial radicals to get a decent view. There's this kind of cascading effect where people right at the source are already being very measured in order not to be dismissed. And then every level it goes through more filtering occurs. So a watered down report may be published by AI, but then they don't make too much noise about it, and then the press filter it again.
At the moment there's Yemen. Not particularly an AI/HRW issue but at least it gives a good idea of what I think:) It's pretty much a one sided invasion with a complete cutoff of all resources: 90% of the food has to be imported through the ports so you've got instant famine. What do we hear at the end of the line? Some kind of proxy war between Saudis and Iran, which is two lies in a few words. Iran is hardly involved and it's not a proxy war at all. Just the Saudis attacking because of some peace agreement they didn't like. So in principle all human rights organisations should be yelling bloody murder. Instead this kind of reaction is considered a radical opinion that doesn't fall in the range of reasonable/publishable opinions.
Overwhelming majority of Amnesty's work serves western powers rather than the other way round. Which explains why things can happen like someone in the US state department taking over the lead in Amnesty US (Suzanne Nossel). They're very weak in their criticism of western targets.
I suppose, it's important to acknowledge that there's a solid negative aspect to every change. But you're juggling with a lot of factors and it may happen you have to trade off that value a lot of the time. And it may happen that in the end all your decisions are the same than if you'd just completely ignored the change aspect. But in practice a bunch of small changes will be delayed or omitted because they don't add enough value.
I think the bulk of the compromises are often elsewhere: investing a lot in new features and too little in stabilizing and improving what exists.
It's often a good policy with GUI to say 'change is bad'. Change in itself is bad, so you better have a very good reason so that the improvements of new interface make the change worthwhile. This does mean a lot of changes have to wait or are abandoned altogether, and it means existing shortcomings are deliberately left in the program. It's a balancing act. Is this improvement important enough for people to go through a process of adaptation to it?
Then again, I would not call fixes 'change'. If a fix doesn't change the intended logic of GUI, if it doesn't cause the program to behave different from expectation, then it's just a fix.
Don't get me wrong. The mullahs are no saints. The Iranian regime is tyrannical and brutal.
You're sure you're not trying to hard to be reasonable and balanced?
The Iranian regime does not look all that tyrannical to me if you compare to the neighborhood, but then I also think they never had a nuclear weapons program, so that may be a bit too much to swallow for reasonable people, especially if you take in account the rough neighborhood they're in.
It's useful to keep in mind there's two layers to the Snowden-betrayal array of claims. - There's the claims that he did damage. - there's the underlaying claim that this proves that he did wrong.
In fact whenever a whistleblower comes out, there will be some damage in some areas. The same applies to journalism. Whenever you expose wrongdoings or questionable practices from those in charge it can be argued this helps the enemy, even if only by tarring the image of the government. But I think the main point is, it should be considered an acceptable cost of transparency of governance. Transparency has been embedded in the US constitution 200 years ago for a reason. Mostly, those accusing Snowden don't understand that reason, or see no reason to bother with it. Transparency means that to some extent the governing still represent the governed(although you need to close the feedbackloop to really achieve that).
So yes, I think the claims that Snowden damaged the US foreign policy are wildly out of proportion, but I also think that as long as some precautions were taken to limit damage done, then it's acceptable. That should be the general attitude towards whistleblowers: that some damage due to disclosures is acceptable, worth it.
Well put. That's what effectively happens. That is what a poll before and after would show up, despite verifiable claims that the article states China/Russia did probably not get the files from Snowden.
I will consider the story a case of creative storywriting until given verifiable proof. It's made to promote the narrative that Snowden is irresponsible and damaging - or even a bad person.
Slashdot Mirror
I need to know by friday...
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/s...
I know I just HAVE to get one of those Streissand camo prints to give my car that something extra special .
Sounds good enough to me! Hope it comes in red.
With everyone contradicting each other I can't follow what the central idea is. Isn't it so that if you can make the ABS think the wheels are slipping you can make it interrupt the brakes? So a hack that activates ABS (rather than disable it) could override the driver?
I regard the version of Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (http://japanfocus.org/site/view/2501) as more or less definitive. The bombs scared them, the Russians terrified them. The Russians were the main reason for the unconditional surrender. I'm convinced though that many in the US were sincerely convinced that the bombs caused the surrender. And as BadDreamer already remarked after WW1 the victors really punished the Germans hard and that was a major reason for WW2. While after WW2 we had Marshall.
The idea that nothing less than a complete destruction of the enemy will suffice is a pernicious myth.
There were more options that rarely get mention. There were options of agreeing on a less favorable peace agreement with Japan. In the end the reasoning remains that the US conquered Japan because it could. And that it feels justified because atomic bombs made it cheaper. What would the US have done had they had less power advantage? It has been shown since that the atomic bombs didn't even have the time to have a large influence on Japanese decision making and that it was the russian invasion that made them capitulate. The US may have thought (probably) that the nukes made Japan capitulate but it wasn't even the case.
But guilt is looking backwards. If you look at dangerous myths resulting from the war there is one that limited use of nukes is justified in some cases. This is becoming more relevant as the threshold for using nukes is dropping, especially the smaller 'pinpoint' types. A new type is being developed just for that purpose. But we still have a system in place that can destroy humanity on very short notice and the understanding of how to limit escalation of conflicts is laughable.
As far as I'm concerned if nukes were brought down to small numbers the main risk would be avoided. That looks like a good goal.
I thought, what? But I misread.
Or the new chemical just gets added to one of the other additives the farmers are already giving to the cows. That doesn't sound too hard. The approach could even make sense economically in the short run.
Ik think there already has been a lot of marketing, in the sense that activism got ahead of science. The countermovement may be associated with ruthless businesses that put financial gains above all else, but there has also been a backlash from overselling, which reduced the credibility. And a backlash from discrediting skepticism in general, which is also not very good. We need less marketing and less partisan attitudes.
A bit expensive to start making filaments for incandescent bulbs out of it then . Pity.
nono, it's about melting point, not sublimation.
Actually it's a preemptive operation from NASA to discredit the real Pluto-truthers before they rise up.
Face down. I enjoyed that interpretation too :)
That's an odd remark. The US actually accepted Iran's help in Afghanistan(assembling the alliance with the north) in 2001, but then proceeded by ignoring the gesture and declaring Iran part of the axis of evil. They also accepted Iran's help in Bosnia in the nineties, sending arms, and followed up by ignoring the gesture. That's the actual pattern.
It is about geopolitics. The whole trumped up nuclear dossier was about geopolitics, not about nukes. The US and its allies has tried to break Iran for 35 years and now it has elevated Iran to a legitimate state, against the will of its regional allies.The US can claim it's not about geopolitics, but that's a sales argument.
Iran always saw benefit in the capability to build nukes, but not in nukes themselves. The capability means strength, and if you look at their neighbors, they can use strength. In that respect a nuclear system under credible IAEA control is in their benefit , because scaremongering about an iranian program can have the same proliferating effect as actually working on them. Now that proliferating effect must not be very strong considering more than 20 years of doomsday propaganda, The civilian nuclear program was just that, civilian, but the side effect was some degree of nuclear weapons capability, and that was welcome.It is also legitimate.
But despite all the show, the real concerns of some neighbors aren't nukes, it's Iranian strength. And Iran just got a lot more strength. Not all the neighbors seem to be too much bothered by that, but some oil monarchies are, as well as Israel.For reasons that are rarely spelled out.
I don't mean to be overly critical about the western human rights record but that's not the reason,
that AI or HRW are not very critical. Internally western countries are better off, that's not the issue.
As soon as you check the criticism that should be made, AI and HRW come off as pretty weak. If you count the allies in the western camp it's already disastrous. If you count the external actions of the western camp. also a disaster.
Another poster mentions the drone war. It's a good example because nobody in the west is bothered much by that. To us it feels like a minor issue, a necessary evil and not much of a big deal anyway. So neither is Amnesty bothered. You should check the legality. You should check polls in the arab world about them. You should check the effectiveness(I think 2%) and the strategic effect of them, it's pretty much putting out fire with gasoline.
One reason you think western actions are alright is because you rely on western sources for your judgement. There's a good variety of western sources in principle, but all those that rise to the top are mediocre. You almost need to go to cantankerous antisocial radicals to get a decent view. There's this kind of cascading effect where people right at the source are already being very measured in order not to be dismissed. And then every level it goes through more filtering occurs. So a watered down report may be published by AI, but then they don't make too much noise about it, and then the press filter it again.
At the moment there's Yemen. Not particularly an AI/HRW issue but at least it gives a good idea of what I think :) /publishable opinions.
It's pretty much a one sided invasion with a complete cutoff of all resources: 90% of the food has to be imported through the ports so you've got instant famine. What do we hear at the end of the line? Some kind of proxy war between Saudis and Iran, which is two lies in a few words. Iran is hardly involved and it's not a proxy war at all. Just the Saudis attacking because of some peace agreement they didn't like.
So in principle all human rights organisations should be yelling bloody murder.
Instead this kind of reaction is considered a radical opinion that doesn't fall in the range of reasonable
Overwhelming majority of Amnesty's work serves western powers rather than the other way round. Which explains why things can happen like someone in the US state department taking over the lead in Amnesty US (Suzanne Nossel).
They're very weak in their criticism of western targets.
I suppose, it's important to acknowledge that there's a solid negative aspect to every change. But you're juggling with a lot of factors and it may happen you have to trade off that value a lot of the time. And it may happen that in the end all your decisions are the same than if you'd just completely ignored the change aspect. But in practice a bunch of small changes will be delayed or omitted because they don't add enough value.
I think the bulk of the compromises are often elsewhere: investing a lot in new features and too little in stabilizing and improving what exists.
It's often a good policy with GUI to say 'change is bad'.
Change in itself is bad, so you better have a very good reason so that the improvements of new interface make the change worthwhile.
This does mean a lot of changes have to wait or are abandoned altogether, and it means existing shortcomings are deliberately left in the program.
It's a balancing act. Is this improvement important enough for people to go through a process of adaptation to it?
Then again, I would not call fixes 'change'. If a fix doesn't change the intended logic of GUI, if it doesn't cause the program to behave different from expectation, then it's just a fix.
You're sure you're not trying to hard to be reasonable and balanced?
The Iranian regime does not look all that tyrannical to me if you compare to the neighborhood, but then I also think they never had a nuclear weapons program, so that may be a bit too much to swallow for reasonable people, especially if you take in account the rough neighborhood they're in.
This is nothing more than Pro-Israel FUD surrounding the nuclear deal. There will be a lot more of that the coming weeks.
It's useful to keep in mind there's two layers to the Snowden-betrayal array of claims.
- There's the claims that he did damage.
- there's the underlaying claim that this proves that he did wrong.
In fact whenever a whistleblower comes out, there will be some damage in some areas. The same applies to journalism. Whenever you expose wrongdoings or questionable practices from those in charge it can be argued this helps the enemy, even if only by tarring the image of the government. But I think the main point is, it should be considered an acceptable cost of transparency of governance. Transparency has been embedded in the US constitution 200 years ago for a reason. Mostly, those accusing Snowden don't understand that reason, or see no reason to bother with it. Transparency means that to some extent the governing still represent the governed(although you need to close the feedbackloop to really achieve that).
So yes, I think the claims that Snowden damaged the US foreign policy are wildly out of proportion, but I also think that as long as some precautions were taken to limit damage done, then it's acceptable. That should be the general attitude towards whistleblowers: that some damage due to disclosures is acceptable, worth it.
Well put. That's what effectively happens. That is what a poll before and after would show up, despite verifiable claims that the article states China/Russia did probably not get the files from Snowden.
I will consider the story a case of creative storywriting until given verifiable proof. It's made to promote the narrative that Snowden is irresponsible and damaging - or even a bad person.