Having been present when a company fired 88% of their IT staff, (and came to *really* regret it later) I have come to the conclusion that the real question would be "how the FUCK do you think everything is going to get done with 90 people?"
They'll be accumulating data faster and faster (it's not as if they're going to cancel Bluffdale) but they won't be able to access it anymore.
In any case, from a theoretical point of view, it's an interesting security challenge. Maybe it can be done in the long run. If they think they'll make the switch quickly they'll be in for a surprise. The alternative approach would be you add more people to watch the sysadmins.
Politically it would be a bad move to hand over a public hero to a public enemy.
Another part is that Russia feels it's got support from China, and they now dare to be more assertive. Russia and China have some good reasons to dislike the US. Americans aren't aware enough of it.
Well, surprise isn't the same as a perception switch, although there's overlap. Because I describe humor as a perception switch I'm saying it's the same mechanism as insight. Suddenly understanding something. Not that I came up with that myself.
Usually people mix up humor and powerful humor. So they think of all the ingredients that make it work. The best example of humor is then the one that makes you laugh more. But here's another angle: Just think of humor as having a humor part and a booster that makes you laugh more. The humor part is just the perception switch. It can be pretty mild. But add the naughtiness, the meanness , the embarassment and they provide a boost to the humor.
Taken that way, the AI examples in the topic article are really touching the essence of humor.
Geez, what a manipulative waste of time. Randal is a smart guy; maybe that was the point of the exercise: To see just how many morons out there (including myself) followed this banal story to its bitter and anticlimactic end.
I enjoyed it. But then, over time I got to see Munroe as generous and friendly rather than cynical and manipulative. So no, to me that was definitely not the point of the exercise.
From what I recall Pauling thought there was a connection between very large doses of vitamin C and a boost of the immune system. There's a very large distance between that and what he's being blamed for in the article here. The two examples are Vitamin E problems and multivitamin issues. It's easy to think Pauling had daft ideas if you believe he proselytized about vitamin supplements.
I think Pauling is being blamed for things he's got nothing to do with.
Ah you mean near to earth. I was thinking more of Mars trips where you. But near the earth I suspect the protons that are coming from every side are the low energetic ones and those are easier to stop.
Okay, that would rule out the idea of small screens . But it depends on what you mean with isotropic. Does it mean the distribution of particles is equal in all directions ? I don't know but suspect not. If most of the solar wind comes from a direction with narrow dispersion, and if this direction changes slowly enough or predictably enough so that you can usually adapt to it quickly enough, then a partial screen can still make sense. Again, I'm thinking about strategies to reduce the amount of hard radiation, that doesn't mean nothing gets through. Protection panels could still be useful if 20% of the time they are misaligned
Ok, that was a part that I was missing. The high energy protons. Then again, I'd distinguish the solar ones from the rest and I don't know the ratio.The ratio in terms of the the amount of damage done. The hardest radiation may come from everywhere but that doesn't mean it does most damage in absolute terms.
I'm not thinking here about getting rid of radiation, just reducing it with a factor 10. How much of the problem comes from the sun? You can protect yourself from the sun because you know the exact direction. To make a silly suggestion, if all the sleeping compartments are aligned in a long corridor with a diameter of 70cm, you can reduce the radiation load from the sun with a third (8 hours sleeping time) with a single slab of 70cm diameter. You can do similar things with computer working areas. If you put some distance between you and the slab the spread of the secondary radiation reduces its effect quickly. With a hypothetic magnetic deflection mechanism you could also be successful as long as the thing is exactly aligned between you and the sun, at whatever distance. Could be miles.
When the bulk of the radiation comes from everywhere then I think it should become pretty hard to protect yourself at all. There would still be strategies though, like spending most of the time in the relatively better protected center of a roundish ship. It also becomes harder to come up with an electromagnetic deflection strategy. A little bit of deflection won't work anymore , and the particles have more energy.
I thought a thin layer of matter was pretty good at stopping ionized particles such as alpha and beta rays, while you needed a thick slab of matter to stop gamma rays. An electromagnetic deflector will not interact with gamma rays. I'm getting an impression here that a deflector is only useful for cases where there's a cheap alternative.
It could probably deflect pretty powerful ionized particles though, because you can mount it at a long distance from your spacecraft so that a little bit of deflection is enough.
I support Israel, but sometimes their PR blunders make we wonder what exactly they are thinking....
If their PR hadn't been excellent overall, you wouldn't be supporting Israel . The problem in the last years is not one of bad PR, but of PR getting a job that's becoming too hard to be successful in.
Historically the 67 war has been enormously successful in terms of building worldwide support so it's not unnatural to try to cash in on this again.
Especially for Europeans the Nazis are the most readily available bad guy to compare with, so it kind of comes naturally, and I could draw some scary comparisons about the way of thinking between the two parties. But you should should look at the numbers some time. If you look at what the Nazis did, there's no comparison at all. I visited Auschwitz not that long ago. There's no comparison.
In a way. Matti Peled, Menachim Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, Levi Eshkol. They all have left quotes about what was going on. Do you expect generals to make noise about this except for an offhand quote? Your concern is touching, but the reason you're focusing on the closing of the straits is because the narrative of preemptive war has run dry. Sure, the closing of the straights was a tense situation, but it could be resolved. Or not. It would mean Iran had to go round with its oil. BTW Iran has had the Straights closed to it for 30 years now.
Too many people stopped believing Nasser wanted war. Nobody wanted war with Israel, since it was well understood that Israel could walk over all of its neighbors. The CIA for some odd reason keeps a page on their site about its prewar estimate of how long it would take Israel to completely win a war if they sat down and waited for all their neighbors to attack at once. The estimate was 8 days. That's why when Levi Eshkol sent Abba Eban to the US with the Poor Little Shimshon routine, the US didn't really buy the story.
The son of Matti Peled has not long ago gone public with some of the thinking at that time. Miko Peled on 1967.
There is plenty more than you are aware of. The consensus has always been Israel was defending itself in 1967. That means virtually all the books about that war repeated it.
Except for the silent minority who were better informed. It happens that after a while the minority view gains traction , maybe because it's no longer important to keep silent about it.
There is no straight line between the closing the Straits of Tiran and attacking all the neighboring countries and taking as much land as you can. It's a lawyer's argument. Israel recently bombed Damascus. That's an act of war. Nobody even bothered.
Quite. There's more than the utilitarian side of things. For many people there's a component of status. Usually it's a mixture of status and style and practicality.
I also like my own car. A minority like me like a car to require a lot of skill and attention in order to just keep it on the road. The safety comes from the driver. Skinny tyres, little grip, too little power , and stick. Too bad it's all automatical choke nowadays because having a car only you know how to start is also charming.
Of course practicality and social changes can trump personal preferences so in the end I may end up the boring drive like everyone else.
Michael Oren is just one step above the notorious "Comical Ali". People in the US are becoming better informed. If the israelis are smart enough , they'll sideline him and get another ambassador.
The IDF is the world's most autist organisation, too arrogant to ever think it could be in the wrong.
I doubt if that describes the situation well. The IDF does have a military doctrine that is not very common, and it involves being able to strike whenever they consider it in their interest. This doctrine of complete military freedom is completely illegal in terms of international law, but it's accepted in the case of "poor little defenseless" Israel (poor little Samson as some call it). If you can get away with it, there's nothing crazy about it at all. Cynical, but smart.
It can get weird at times. Some military actions have as their main purpose just to assert this doctrine. The attack on Syrian's Al Kibar was such a case. Off the record people would admit there was no sense of threat at all in that case but after the Lebanon debacle there was a need to reassert the doctrine.
Hello Orwell. I agree. In the case of the 1967 war I've seen historians who would fully agree that the Israeli generals were fully aware there was no threat of Egyptian attack, but somehow in the end they would keep using the words preemptive strike even if they'd just agreed that was wrong. At the least they could say preventive strike. If you strike whenever it suits you you can always say it's preventive. In a way it always is right, but it is just an euphemism for wars of aggression. The only Israeli or pre-israeli war I would call defensive was the Yom Kippur war, and even that one was completely avoidable . It took many (6) years of taunting the Egyptians. Zeev Maoz wrote a book about it , Defending the Holy Land.
The most capable people tend to shift their focus to the things society values the most
I would put that slightly differently. Investment tends to shift to things for the affluent, because they can afford to spend most money. It helps if someone points out now and then that there are things that can be made that benefit everyone. There are enough people who are motivated to keep in mind the general good if it's pointed out to them.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll be accumulating data faster and faster (it's not as if they're going to cancel Bluffdale) but they won't be able to access it anymore.
In any case, from a theoretical point of view, it's an interesting security challenge. Maybe it can be done in the long run. If they think they'll make the switch quickly they'll be in for a surprise. The alternative approach would be you add more people to watch the sysadmins.
Politically it would be a bad move to hand over a public hero to a public enemy.
Another part is that Russia feels it's got support from China, and they now dare to be more assertive. Russia and China have some good reasons to dislike the US. Americans aren't aware enough of it.
That's a covert warning to expect an FBI raid. Must be.
Well, surprise isn't the same as a perception switch, although there's overlap. Because I describe humor as a perception switch I'm saying it's the same mechanism as insight. Suddenly understanding something. Not that I came up with that myself.
Usually people mix up humor and powerful humor. So they think of all the ingredients that make it work. The best example of humor is then the one that makes you laugh more.
But here's another angle: Just think of humor as having a humor part and a booster that makes you laugh more. The humor part is just the perception switch. It can be pretty mild. But add the naughtiness, the meanness , the embarassment and they provide a boost to the humor.
Taken that way, the AI examples in the topic article are really touching the essence of humor.
I enjoyed it. But then, over time I got to see Munroe as generous and friendly rather than cynical and manipulative. So no, to me that was definitely not the point of the exercise.
Is it just me who thinks this is funny?
From what I recall Pauling thought there was a connection between very large doses of vitamin C and a boost of the immune system. There's a very large distance between that and what he's being blamed for in the article here. The two examples are Vitamin E problems and multivitamin issues. It's easy to think Pauling had daft ideas if you believe he proselytized about vitamin supplements.
I think Pauling is being blamed for things he's got nothing to do with.
Being thought of as 'just about any worker.'
Ah you mean near to earth. I was thinking more of Mars trips where you. But near the earth I suspect the protons that are coming from every side are the low energetic ones and those are easier to stop.
Okay, that would rule out the idea of small screens . But it depends on what you mean with isotropic. Does it mean the distribution of particles is equal in all directions ? I don't know but suspect not. If most of the solar wind comes from a direction with narrow dispersion, and if this direction changes slowly enough or predictably enough so that you can usually adapt to it quickly enough, then a partial screen can still make sense. Again, I'm thinking about strategies to reduce the amount of hard radiation, that doesn't mean nothing gets through. Protection panels could still be useful if 20% of the time they are misaligned
Ok, that was a part that I was missing. The high energy protons. Then again, I'd distinguish the solar ones from the rest and I don't know the ratio.The ratio in terms of the the amount of damage done. The hardest radiation may come from everywhere but that doesn't mean it does most damage in absolute terms.
I'm not thinking here about getting rid of radiation, just reducing it with a factor 10. How much of the problem comes from the sun? You can protect yourself from the sun because you know the exact direction. To make a silly suggestion, if all the sleeping compartments are aligned in a long corridor with a diameter of 70cm, you can reduce the radiation load from the sun with a third (8 hours sleeping time) with a single slab of 70cm diameter. You can do similar things with computer working areas. If you put some distance between you and the slab the spread of the secondary radiation reduces its effect quickly. With a hypothetic magnetic deflection mechanism you could also be successful as long as the thing is exactly aligned between you and the sun, at whatever distance. Could be miles.
When the bulk of the radiation comes from everywhere then I think it should become pretty hard to protect yourself at all. There would still be strategies though, like spending most of the time in the relatively better protected center of a roundish ship. It also becomes harder to come up with an electromagnetic deflection strategy. A little bit of deflection won't work anymore , and the particles have more energy.
...because otherwise they would be infringing on a patent on traffic light technology.
I thought a thin layer of matter was pretty good at stopping ionized particles such as alpha and beta rays, while you needed a thick slab of matter to stop gamma rays. An electromagnetic deflector will not interact with gamma rays. I'm getting an impression here that a deflector is only useful for cases where there's a cheap alternative.
It could probably deflect pretty powerful ionized particles though, because you can mount it at a long distance from your spacecraft so that a little bit of deflection is enough.
They'll feel that alright. They'll spend the rest of their time friending each other.
If their PR hadn't been excellent overall, you wouldn't be supporting Israel . The problem in the last years is not one of bad PR, but of PR getting a job that's becoming too hard to be successful in.
Historically the 67 war has been enormously successful in terms of building worldwide support so it's not unnatural to try to cash in on this again.
Especially for Europeans the Nazis are the most readily available bad guy to compare with, so it kind of comes naturally, and I could draw some scary comparisons about the way of thinking between the two parties. But you should should look at the numbers some time. If you look at what the Nazis did, there's no comparison at all. I visited Auschwitz not that long ago. There's no comparison.
In a way. Matti Peled, Menachim Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, Levi Eshkol. They all have left quotes about what was going on. Do you expect generals to make noise about this except for an offhand quote? Your concern is touching, but the reason you're focusing on the closing of the straits is because the narrative of preemptive war has run dry. Sure, the closing of the straights was a tense situation, but it could be resolved. Or not. It would mean Iran had to go round with its oil. BTW Iran has had the Straights closed to it for 30 years now.
Too many people stopped believing Nasser wanted war. Nobody wanted war with Israel, since it was well understood that Israel could walk over all of its neighbors. The CIA for some odd reason keeps a page on their site about its prewar estimate of how long it would take Israel to completely win a war if they sat down and waited for all their neighbors to attack at once. The estimate was 8 days. That's why when Levi Eshkol sent Abba Eban to the US with the Poor Little Shimshon routine, the US didn't really buy the story.
The son of Matti Peled has not long ago gone public with some of the thinking at that time. Miko Peled on 1967.
There is plenty more than you are aware of. The consensus has always been Israel was defending itself in 1967. That means virtually all the books about that war repeated it.
Except for the silent minority who were better informed. It happens that after a while the minority view gains traction , maybe because it's no longer important to keep silent about it.
There is no straight line between the closing the Straits of Tiran and attacking all the neighboring countries and taking as much land as you can. It's a lawyer's argument. Israel recently bombed Damascus. That's an act of war. Nobody even bothered.
Quite. There's more than the utilitarian side of things.
For many people there's a component of status. Usually it's a mixture of status and style and practicality.
I also like my own car. A minority like me like a car to require a lot of skill and attention in order to just keep it on the road. The safety comes from the driver. Skinny tyres, little grip, too little power , and stick. Too bad it's all automatical choke nowadays because having a car only you know how to start is also charming.
Of course practicality and social changes can trump personal preferences so in the end I may end up the boring drive like everyone else.
Michael Oren is just one step above the notorious "Comical Ali". People in the US are becoming better informed. If the israelis are smart enough , they'll sideline him and get another ambassador.
I doubt if that describes the situation well. The IDF does have a military doctrine that is not very common, and it involves being able to strike whenever they consider it in their interest. This doctrine of complete military freedom is completely illegal in terms of international law, but it's accepted in the case of "poor little defenseless" Israel (poor little Samson as some call it). If you can get away with it, there's nothing crazy about it at all. Cynical, but smart.
It can get weird at times. Some military actions have as their main purpose just to assert this doctrine. The attack on Syrian's Al Kibar was such a case. Off the record people would admit there was no sense of threat at all in that case but after the Lebanon debacle there was a need to reassert the doctrine.
Hello Orwell. I agree. In the case of the 1967 war I've seen historians who would fully agree that the Israeli generals were fully aware there was no threat of Egyptian attack, but somehow in the end they would keep using the words preemptive strike even if they'd just agreed that was wrong. At the least they could say preventive strike. If you strike whenever it suits you you can always say it's preventive. In a way it always is right, but it is just an euphemism for wars of aggression. The only Israeli or pre-israeli war I would call defensive was the Yom Kippur war, and even that one was completely avoidable . It took many (6) years of taunting the Egyptians. Zeev Maoz wrote a book about it , Defending the Holy Land.
It means they intend to battle the coronavirus by sueing it for patent infringement. Might work.
I would put that slightly differently. Investment tends to shift to things for the affluent, because they can afford to spend most money. It helps if someone points out now and then that there are things that can be made that benefit everyone. There are enough people who are motivated to keep in mind the general good if it's pointed out to them.