Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said: "If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”
In other words, " If people think we're trying to screw them as much as possible with the limited resources we have, I would reassure them we are."
Joe Haldeman wrote a novel about it, The Long Habit of Living(renamed to Buying Time). One had life extension procedures that in principle allowed the rich to amass more wealth and power , making the wealth distribution more skewed. But then the the life extension procedure was made extremely expensive and short lasting, which in principle could redress the balance. As long as the foundation that handled it would take care of redistribution, because it became a huge concentrator of wealth. I liked that book. It was reworked into a graphic novel that reused the same themes in different ways.
Sure, things are more complicated than I'm claiming. But I was well aware of what was happening while it was going on. You're using as reference the most egregious cheerleader of the WMD campaign.
Do you think people currently care about Iranian WMD? Not only did they never exist, nobody even would care if they did.It's just an alibi. Of course you need to make a lot of noise about it to make the alibi work.
Syria's defense was good enough to hurt a lot. Saudi Arabia doesn't care much about that because they're not attacking directly. They're avoiding open military conflict. The same with Turkey. The only ones actually openly attacking Syria is Israel, but even they are mostly working indirectly by supporting those inside.
I think the relation between your narrative and reality is very weak. WMD were not a driving force for the US invasion. They were merely the alibi. You've got the reasoning behind the alibi wrong, but even if you had it right it would already be missing the point. The 'doubt' there was left was only about a theoretical question. WMD or no WMD: then one shell of mustard gas proves the WMD thesis. But if the question had been 'significant WMD, enough to be militarily relevant' then there was no doubt. The bottom line is the US took Iraq because they could, and people went along with the alibi to save face.
Assad did have a powerful military. That didn't stop the Saudis.But I agree, the whole WMD excuse was made into something important by people who knew very well that Iraq was almost defenseless. As Wolfowitz said in the runup to the war 'I could take Iraq with 10000 men'.(If I recall correctly). If Iraq had been strong everything would have been different.So it was important for Saddam to appear strong. I've heard claims that oh dear Saddam fooled us into thinking he had WMD. Bollocks.
I call bullshit. Sure, they were a nasty bunch but there's a lot of those around . Saddam himself was cruel but he also thought it was necessary to be so. As dictators go, he was relatively competent. That was maybe the main reason the US turned on him: too competent. Iraq had been developing itself very well and was becoming a bit too independent and too powerful. The sadism of his eldest son was another matter.
What all of the intelligence community understood was that whatever the WMD capacity was of Iraq, it was insignificant. That they were uncertain of Saddam's efforts or intents , that I can see. It's hard to prove a negative. But part of the effect of the propaganda effort was to change the question. "Saddam would like to have chemical weapons". "Saddam is trying to make them". "Saddam would make them if we normalize relations".
I think politicians on the other hand were often eager to be fooled. They were deliberately gullible because they often thought taking over Iraq was not such a bad idea. Because of a simple logic that removing something bad would make things better. Because they thought it a good idea to redesign the neighborhood. Because they didn't see any other way to end the blockade. Because being perceived as being fooled was preferable to being perceived as afraid to row against the current. Because they thought it was going to succeed and didn't want to be on the wrong side afterwards.
In practice what happens with propaganda is there is no real center anymore of people who really know what's going on. Everyone is just believing someone elses lies. The same is still going on about Iran.
If you see how the police released a video of the killing of 12 year old Amir Rice thinking it would show up the cops in the car as innocent, then it's systemic.
At face value your example is stupid because it's a single case , but indeed there is a very valid argument that if one species can be infected by a virus while the other is completely immune , it means that viruses are very much adapted to us as well and that makes it likely that a newcomer is immune rather than vulnerable.
That aliens would be vulnerable to our viruses and diseases? Maybe our viruses wouldn't be able to interact with them at all. Which way does it go? The way we have most experience with, a population exposed to and being decimated by a disease from elsewere ? What about the alternative, a disease not being able to lock on to a population that is too alien? Is that possible?
Two things: - the US has accelerated the development of malware and lifted it to a new level. - the US has lots of advanced technology that's vulnerable to malware.
So if there's a cyberwar between backward North Korea and the US , who you'll think will lose?
Sensible comment. There's a marketing story about how a toothpaste increased their sales by 15% just by increasing the size of the opening of the tube. Since then, they've all done that. And with they I don't mean toothpaste brands. Think about it the next time you squirt some detergent in the sink
But as small as the stakes might appear, highly specialized bots like this one, which can only do one thing (in this case, bring up to 10 pounds of stuff from the lobby to someone's door) are a better glimpse of our future than any talk of hyper-competent humanoids or similarly versatile machines.
Rule 34 has no minimal requirements for robot capabilities.
I agree. The moment everyone has a car with the autopilot option there will be pressure to enforce autopilot in some conditions. But that would be a later evolution. First everyone switches voluntarily to the option, then afterwards the use of the option becomes less voluntary.
It's easy to see that self driving cars will come if you look at it as a feature. Take a normal car with a self driving button that you can switch on and off at your own judgement. You don't have to use it, but slowly you start to detect situations where the self driving button comes in really handy, such as traffic jams. And then some slow city traffic. And as confidence grows you switch it on on a long highway journey. So you end up with all the cars having the option but some never use it, others sometime, some as much as possible.
Yeah right. Now put it differently, suppose a number indicates your desiring to die at any given moment. The number fluctuates all the time. Then you can distinguish between a function with a few dangerous peaks and one with a dangerous level for the baseline. Making access harder for those who are just having a difficult period is bound to have results. What you then get is a tradeoff. To what extent are you willing to restrict someone's freedom by just making some things harder, to build in delays here and there, just to get them past the dangerous period. I think compromises can be made there. The two groups i don't like here at both sides of the spectrum, those who never interfere and those who want to decide for you what's best for you and don't even realize they're compromizing other values.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, "
If people think we're trying to screw them as much as possible with the limited resources we have, I would reassure them we are."
I haven't clicked the youtube link but if it's bicyclerepairman then it's indeed obligatory. Otherwise, not..
Joe Haldeman wrote a novel about it, The Long Habit of Living(renamed to Buying Time). One had life extension procedures that in principle allowed the rich to amass more wealth and power , making the wealth distribution more skewed. But then the the life extension procedure was made extremely expensive and short lasting, which in principle could redress the balance. As long as the foundation that handled it would take care of redistribution, because it became a huge concentrator of wealth. I liked that book. It was reworked into a graphic novel that reused the same themes in different ways.
The guy already apologized to the cops. http://www.trust.org/item/2015...
Yeah, streetwise. He knows to keep his head down.
Sure, things are more complicated than I'm claiming. But I was well aware of what was happening while it was going on. You're using as reference the most egregious cheerleader of the WMD campaign.
Do you think people currently care about Iranian WMD? Not only did they never exist, nobody even would care if they did.It's just an alibi. Of course you need to make a lot of noise about it to make the alibi work.
Syria's defense was good enough to hurt a lot. Saudi Arabia doesn't care much about that because they're not attacking directly. They're avoiding open military conflict. The same with Turkey. The only ones actually openly attacking Syria is Israel, but even they are mostly working indirectly by supporting those inside.
I think the relation between your narrative and reality is very weak. WMD were not a driving force for the US invasion. They were merely the alibi. You've got the reasoning behind the alibi wrong, but even if you had it right it would already be missing the point. The 'doubt' there was left was only about a theoretical question. WMD or no WMD: then one shell of mustard gas proves the WMD thesis. But if the question had been 'significant WMD, enough to be militarily relevant' then there was no doubt. The bottom line is the US took Iraq because they could, and people went along with the alibi to save face.
Assad did have a powerful military. That didn't stop the Saudis.But I agree, the whole WMD excuse was made into something important by people who knew very well that Iraq was almost defenseless. As Wolfowitz said in the runup to the war 'I could take Iraq with 10000 men'.(If I recall correctly). If Iraq had been strong everything would have been different.So it was important for Saddam to appear strong. I've heard claims that oh dear Saddam fooled us into thinking he had WMD. Bollocks.
I call bullshit. Sure, they were a nasty bunch but there's a lot of those around . Saddam himself was cruel but he also thought it was necessary to be so. As dictators go, he was relatively competent. That was maybe the main reason the US turned on him: too competent. Iraq had been developing itself very well and was becoming a bit too independent and too powerful.
The sadism of his eldest son was another matter.
By Judy Miller. Really. She's full-o-shit.
What all of the intelligence community understood was that whatever the WMD capacity was of Iraq, it was insignificant. That they were uncertain of Saddam's efforts or intents , that I can see. It's hard to prove a negative. But part of the effect of the propaganda effort was to change the question. "Saddam would like to have chemical weapons". "Saddam is trying to make them". "Saddam would make them if we normalize relations".
I think politicians on the other hand were often eager to be fooled. They were deliberately gullible because they often thought taking over Iraq was not such a bad idea. Because of a simple logic that removing something bad would make things better. Because they thought it a good idea to redesign the neighborhood. Because they didn't see any other way to end the blockade. Because being perceived as being fooled was preferable to being perceived as afraid to row against the current. Because they thought it was going to succeed and didn't want to be on the wrong side afterwards.
In practice what happens with propaganda is there is no real center anymore of people who really know what's going on. Everyone is just believing someone elses lies. The same is still going on about Iran.
You missed the point because you were too busy being smart.
But also, there's no plot hole for which no moderately credible explanation can't be concocted after the fact.
I had to read that twice to make sure it wasn't a Chuck Norris statement.
If you see how the police released a video of the killing of 12 year old Amir Rice thinking it would show up the cops in the car as innocent, then it's systemic.
At face value your example is stupid because it's a single case , but indeed there is a very valid argument that if one species can be infected by a virus while the other is completely immune , it means that viruses are very much adapted to us as well and that makes it likely that a newcomer is immune rather than vulnerable.
It was probably some kind of private enterprise with more ambition than competence. Martians are mostly harmless really.
That aliens would be vulnerable to our viruses and diseases?
Maybe our viruses wouldn't be able to interact with them at all. Which way does it go?
The way we have most experience with, a population exposed to and being decimated by a disease from elsewere ?
What about the alternative, a disease not being able to lock on to a population that is too alien? Is that possible?
Two things:
- the US has accelerated the development of malware and lifted it to a new level.
- the US has lots of advanced technology that's vulnerable to malware.
So if there's a cyberwar between backward North Korea and the US , who you'll think will lose?
Sensible comment. There's a marketing story about how a toothpaste increased their sales by 15% just by increasing the size of the opening of the tube. Since then, they've all done that. And with they I don't mean toothpaste brands. Think about it the next time you squirt some detergent in the sink
Rule 34 has no minimal requirements for robot capabilities.
I agree. The moment everyone has a car with the autopilot option there will be pressure to enforce autopilot in some conditions. But that would be a later evolution. First everyone switches voluntarily to the option, then afterwards the use of the option becomes less voluntary.
It's easy to see that self driving cars will come if you look at it as a feature. Take a normal car with a self driving button that you can switch on and off at your own judgement. You don't have to use it, but slowly you start to detect situations where the self driving button comes in really handy, such as traffic jams. And then some slow city traffic. And as confidence grows you switch it on on a long highway journey.
So you end up with all the cars having the option but some never use it, others sometime, some as much as possible.
Clarkson has not announced new job yet.
yeah, I wonder how parent post found the link. Probably browsing for something..
Yeah right. Now put it differently, suppose a number indicates your desiring to die at any given moment. The number fluctuates all the time. Then you can distinguish between a function with a few dangerous peaks and one with a dangerous level for the baseline. Making access harder for those who are just having a difficult period is bound to have results.
What you then get is a tradeoff. To what extent are you willing to restrict someone's freedom by just making some things harder, to build in delays here and there, just to get them past the dangerous period. I think compromises can be made there. The two groups i don't like here at both sides of the spectrum, those who never interfere and those who want to decide for you what's best for you and don't even realize they're compromizing other values.