I don't keep up and I can't access the references but this theory has been around for a while. Has it really been established that this factor will indeed tip the balance?
Apart from legal issues, if advertising/PR/propaganda would become highly effective by whatever means, could we still allow it?
I tend to worry more about the actual effect than about the legality - but maybe I shouldn't. Anyway, I think the metaphor is useful, exploits are being found and used all the time, and we need patches. Not necessary legal patches, education patches.
Should clear communication be the aim? There are advantages to ambiguity. There is caution and deniability, there is the benefit of getting attention without any commitment, there is avoiding the counterproductive effect of showing too much interest (it makes you less interesting).
It's also possible to draw a distinction between an ambiguous and a vague signal: an ambiguous signal can trigger an idea without actually confirming it, like "don't think of an elephant" activating the idea of the elephant in your head. With a vague signal you may not even think of an elephant. So is there value in sending vague signals? Maybe "don't think of an elephant" is often too direct so that you can only send vague signals instead.
Then there is the difference between misinterpreting a signal and hope. If men are getting hopeful based on just a friendly signal, it doesn't mean they misinterpreted the signal.
What do the models say? Does an early star have rings, like Saturn? I'd expect processes like this
- dust to lumps - dust to rings - lumps to sun - lumps to planets - rings to planets - rings to sun
Depending on the speed of each of these factors you get different scenarios. Rings could never happen, they could disappear before the sun is created, they could be be created before , during or after planet creation. Planet creation could also start before the sun. You get the idea.
Agreed. And you have to change code anyway when you're moving functions that are defined elsewhere, so the code does change. The key idea though is, you have an array of visual cues that tell you instantly this code still needs to be refactored. These cues often can be removed in bulk, even automated with scripts. Indentation for example. Or use of deprecated functions. Certain types of comments. It's attractive to do these bulk cleanups because they give the overal code a healthier outlook. But they remove the cues. The actual rule would more be something like "don't work on cosmetics".
When refactoring dirty code, avoid doing minor cleanups on the other code. This way the places where you still need to work on stand out from the rest. In any case, as soon as minor cleanups go beyond layouting, it also means you're doing changes in code without test coverage. Even straightening out if/else clauses easily leads to errors.
The temperature on the outside of an incandescent lamp depends a lot on the size of the bulb, not on the temperature of the tiny thingy in the middle of the lamp. And the size of the bulb depends on safety considerations. For example, it matters if the bulb should be allowed to get dirty. Let's take two measures: same wattage and same luminosity.
- A 6000K 60W bulb will give much more light than a 3000K 60W bulb. Because glass is more transparent to light than to heat you could make the bulb smaller to end up with the same surface temperature. On the other hand the amount of energy the bulb dissipates is the same, so if you take ordinary use where the lamp is allowed to accumulate some dirt, then you'd prefer not to make the bulb much smaller. - For the same amount of light you'd only need a 6000K 3w bulb or so instead of a 3000K 60w bulb, so it can be made much much smaller.
By design the glass (quartz) of halogen lamps has to run very hot in order to work but you can imagine adding an "outer bulb" with a certain radius to achieve the same safety demands. Halogen lamps often are behind a protective sheet of glass.
Actually there is another important parameter I just think of: the amount of current before the superconducting breaks down. If the threshold is low, you also need special load circumstances.
I tend to agree with the anonymous coward (who in a cruel display of injustice got modded -1) that you got your priorities wrong. The real challenges are not so much technological, they're in areas like sociology, economy, politics. Technology is easy, that's why it can evolve so fast. Of course, technology is also an area where you can achieve a lot by just being intelligent.
"this line of thinking" is a straw man. The nuclear terrorism challenge is important. I'm merely nudging the priorities towards nuclear proliferation.
One can draw an (artificial) boundary between the immediate effect of a terrorist strike and the aftereffects, being trigger,escalation,pretext. The example of WW1 is appropriate: since such an insignificant incident could be used to build up to a large scale war, don't put your hopes on avoiding these incidents. It's worthwile to work on it, but far from sufficient. We should assume these things will happen and make sure the chances of escalation are limited.
I bought some plates with that treatment, and finally I manage to keep the gravy separate from the potatoes. It does a nice "Moses and the red sea" trick too with the soup.
There is a very strong conviction with some, especially in America, that things are much safer with one big boss, however evil(Hobbes). And it's not wrong.
Proliferation of any means of provoking large scale mayhem is an increasing problem because of the number of players alone. If every country(or any organisation that's big enough) had an array of such weapons, chances of things going very wrong increase, in part because of things getting out of control in tit-for-tat reactions. Imagine 1962 with 10 players instead of 2.
There's also a point in distinguishing "terrorists" from "sane people", but here I would agree that the point is overestimated and it places an insane trust in the power of sanity. Uh. Also, terrorists blowing up a big city isn't the end of the world. It's only one city. Humanity will survive:)
That famous scientist may have allowed himself to get carried away a bit. What it means is that there was no clean breakthrough article. Rather, evidence gradually accumulated. What it does not mean is that the connexion is "perhaps true", certainly not in the current stage where effective medicines exist.
On the other hand it's good practice to have roundup articles that go over the evidence.
I'd see the harmful part of multitasking as not working with the full focus on a single task. Then driving or programming while listening to the radio is a good case, and it's typical a case of neglecting focus. In general I doubt if frequent task switching is harmful in itself. Alright, if a task requires a long warmup time, you don't want having to switch. But someone with good control of focus and who pays attention to focus can switch much faster and better than someone who doesn't bother with it. Most people are more concerned with avoiding boredom than with good concentration. Ipods are about avoiding boredom by providing constant input.
Agreed. I think the competing theory in question is the neutral theory of molecular evolution of Motoo Kimura. It's surprising to read that proving one would disprove the other though. That's not how I recall it. I thought Kimura's idea was that not all evolution was driven by some kind of fitness gradient.
Unless the IT department employed one of those stingy pinko commie green liberal people who want to recycle everything in sight. That must have been it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't keep up and I can't access the references but this theory has been around for a while. Has it really been established that this factor will indeed tip the balance?
Apart from legal issues, if advertising/PR/propaganda would become highly effective by whatever means, could we still allow it?
I tend to worry more about the actual effect than about the legality - but maybe I shouldn't. Anyway, I think the metaphor is useful, exploits are being found and used all the time, and we need patches. Not necessary legal patches, education patches.
Should clear communication be the aim? There are advantages to ambiguity. There is caution and deniability, there is the benefit of getting attention without any commitment, there is avoiding the counterproductive effect of showing too much interest (it makes you less interesting).
It's also possible to draw a distinction between an ambiguous and a vague signal: an ambiguous signal can trigger an idea without actually confirming it, like "don't think of an elephant" activating the idea of the elephant in your head. With a vague signal you may not even think of an elephant. So is there value in sending vague signals? Maybe "don't think of an elephant" is often too direct so that you can only send vague signals instead.
Then there is the difference between misinterpreting a signal and hope. If men are getting hopeful based on just a friendly signal, it doesn't mean they misinterpreted the signal.
And is it different from the Wal-Mart smile.
What do the models say? Does an early star have rings, like Saturn? I'd expect processes like this
- dust to lumps
- dust to rings
- lumps to sun
- lumps to planets
- rings to planets
- rings to sun
Depending on the speed of each of these factors you get different scenarios. Rings could never happen, they could disappear before the sun is created, they could be be created before , during or after planet creation. Planet creation could also start before the sun. You get the idea.
Agreed. And you have to change code anyway when you're moving functions that are defined elsewhere, so the code does change.
The key idea though is, you have an array of visual cues that tell you instantly this code still needs to be refactored. These cues often can be removed in bulk, even automated with scripts. Indentation for example. Or use of deprecated functions. Certain types of comments. It's attractive to do these bulk cleanups because they give the overal code a healthier outlook. But they remove the cues. The actual rule would more be something like "don't work on cosmetics".
When refactoring dirty code, avoid doing minor cleanups on the other code. This way the places where you still need to work on stand out from the rest. In any case, as soon as minor cleanups go beyond layouting, it also means you're doing changes in code without test coverage. Even straightening out if/else clauses easily leads to errors.
The temperature on the outside of an incandescent lamp depends a lot on the size of the bulb, not on the temperature of the tiny thingy in the middle of the lamp. And the size of the bulb depends on safety considerations. For example, it matters if the bulb should be allowed to get dirty. Let's take two measures: same wattage and same luminosity.
- A 6000K 60W bulb will give much more light than a 3000K 60W bulb. Because glass is more transparent to light than to heat you could make the bulb smaller to end up with the same surface temperature. On the other hand the amount of energy the bulb dissipates is the same, so if you take ordinary use where the lamp is allowed to accumulate some dirt, then you'd prefer not to make the bulb much smaller.
- For the same amount of light you'd only need a 6000K 3w bulb or so instead of a 3000K 60w bulb, so it can be made much much smaller.
By design the glass (quartz) of halogen lamps has to run very hot in order to work but you can imagine adding an "outer bulb" with a certain radius to achieve the same safety demands. Halogen lamps often are behind a protective sheet of glass.
So all you need is a very special room.
Actually there is another important parameter I just think of: the amount of current before the superconducting breaks down. If the threshold is low, you also need special load circumstances.
That will include a lot of people who didn't know they were a terrorist until the FBI told them.
Look what it did to her hair though.
I tend to agree with the anonymous coward (who in a cruel display of injustice got modded -1) that you got your priorities wrong. The real challenges are not so much technological, they're in areas like sociology, economy, politics. Technology is easy, that's why it can evolve so fast. Of course, technology is also an area where you can achieve a lot by just being intelligent.
It's pretty hard to read those captcha's, so it's helpful if you have such a recognition tool to show you what's in there.
"this line of thinking" is a straw man. The nuclear terrorism challenge is important. I'm merely nudging the priorities towards nuclear proliferation.
One can draw an (artificial) boundary between the immediate effect of a terrorist strike and the aftereffects, being trigger,escalation,pretext. The example of WW1 is appropriate: since such an insignificant incident could be used to build up to a large scale war, don't put your hopes on avoiding these incidents. It's worthwile to work on it, but far from sufficient. We should assume these things will happen and make sure the chances of escalation are limited.
I bought some plates with that treatment, and finally I manage to keep the gravy separate from the potatoes. It does a nice "Moses and the red sea" trick too with the soup.
There is a very strong conviction with some, especially in America, that things are much safer with one big boss, however evil(Hobbes). And it's not wrong.
:)
Proliferation of any means of provoking large scale mayhem is an increasing problem because of the number of players alone. If every country(or any organisation that's big enough) had an array of such weapons, chances of things going very wrong increase, in part because of things getting out of control in tit-for-tat reactions. Imagine 1962 with 10 players instead of 2.
There's also a point in distinguishing "terrorists" from "sane people", but here I would agree that the point is overestimated and it places an insane trust in the power of sanity. Uh. Also, terrorists blowing up a big city isn't the end of the world. It's only one city. Humanity will survive
That famous scientist may have allowed himself to get carried away a bit. What it means is that there was no clean breakthrough article. Rather, evidence gradually accumulated. What it does not mean is that the connexion is "perhaps true", certainly not in the current stage where effective medicines exist.
On the other hand it's good practice to have roundup articles that go over the evidence.
In any case, don't tell him. He can't do it if he's paying attention.
It's allowed to indulge online in sarcasm, irony and foulmouthed namecalling, even if this is done anonymously.
...Profit!
actually, it doesn't appear you were joking. Looks more like the most common approach.
I'd see the harmful part of multitasking as not working with the full focus on a single task. Then driving or programming while listening to the radio is a good case, and it's typical a case of neglecting focus. In general I doubt if frequent task switching is harmful in itself. Alright, if a task requires a long warmup time, you don't want having to switch. But someone with good control of focus and who pays attention to focus can switch much faster and better than someone who doesn't bother with it. Most people are more concerned with avoiding boredom than with good concentration. Ipods are about avoiding boredom by providing constant input.
the other server where the links in the image point to got slashdotted.
Agreed. I think the competing theory in question is the neutral theory of molecular evolution of Motoo Kimura. It's surprising to read that proving one would disprove the other though. That's not how I recall it. I thought Kimura's idea was that not all evolution was driven by some kind of fitness gradient.
Unless the IT department employed one of those stingy pinko commie green liberal people who want to recycle everything in sight. That must have been it.
1. monitor cardio and take turns visiting subject. The player achieving highest heart rate and blood pressure with the subject wins.
2. the same, but now you're only allowed to use the phone.
3. monitor keyboard activity. The goal now is to cause the longest possible pause without the subject leaving the cubicle.