Certainly Binney is not always right. And I don't know that statement but certainly Russia is not invading Ukraine. Helping the rebels in the east is not the same as invading. Crimea could be called an invasion I guess, with a stretch. Annexation would be better.
I see that without any sense of irony whenever I go against the reigning russiantroll-climate I'm modded as troll. Here's a good overview of the DNC hack https://www.thenation.com/arti...
I used to think that the health effects of smoking were half due to nicotine (mostly vascular effects)and half due to the other chemicals like tar(lungts), but apparently the health damage of nicotine is not proven, or at least is not of the same order of magnitude. That would mean if you switch to vaping and avoid putting ugly stuff in there (which should be fairly easy to fix if it happened) that you can mostly disregard the health effects. Then quitting vaping is mostly a matter of money. I don't even know what vaping costs. Not a smoker.
The idea by itself that Russia would hack the DNC wouldn't surprise me , but the whole story of Russian interference is bullshit. The US is so thoroughly steeped in propaganda that the claim that Russia would 'be doing something too on our turf' and instantly put 'their president' in the White House is preposterous. It's like Russia adding a drop in the ocean.
If the Mueller investigation is going to shut down it will be because they will have to report that the Doritos in Chief has indeed sold himself and is getting his marching orders from somewhere, only not to the Russians. But nobody wants to go there.
Where Russia is concerned accepting a fact across the poliical spectrum isn't worth squat. And Bill Binney says Guccifer 2 is a fraud.
There may be some validity in this but not that much. It's also quite natural for the media to create boom-bust cycles of trust and distrust, fed by the occasional instance of people who delegate too much responsibility to the autopilot and crash .
I don't have any experience with Tesla but it does look like a challenge to allow the car to drive by itself, reducing yourself to the role of supervisor, and then not letting your attention wander off occasionally.
I think this is well put: if your input for the model is electromagnetism then there will necessarily be conservation of energy and momentum and their calculations had to be wrong. How you can say 'possibly special relativity' I don't understand. The model was tested statically in a room. Are you thinking of applications in space?
Special relativity is included in electromagnetism. If you take Coulomb force and special relativity, put it in a box and shake, out comes electromagnetism. If you take a wire and put a current through it at 1cm/s then special relativity says there will be magnetism around it. The low speed is possible because electrostatic force is very strong. For anything else beside electromagnetism 'room speeds' will not require SR.
Yes but, well, if there is one thing that makes this planet worth saving it's chocolate, so this almost feels like blasphemy. Why not just throw Michael Phelps into a bath of milk and tell him he's not allowed to get out before we've got 10kg of butter.
Seriously.. an awful lot of people have the money to fill their swimming pool with chocolate pudding , it would cost them the price of a car. But they wouldn't do that because nobody can swim in pudding, it's too thick.
So far my sharp insightful rebukes.
But it's true Bill Gates does things which can be called 'good'.
People generally get confused about success. Is being good at playing celebrity a skill which can be called 'being smart'? Sometimes people are good at some specific things while being incredibly stupid at others. Successful business people can be incredibly stupid in a general sense, which again causes others to underestimate them in business. Trump is very stupid in a general sense but I imagine Trump thinks in terms of making deals. It's very cynical, but the CIA is also very cynical so maybe they'll strike a deal at some point and they'll help keeping him in place . Something with more drone wars.
I regularly notice that black holes are used as some kind of 'structural' mechanism in stars while it's in principle independent of strong forces or the life cycle of a star. Maybe there is a theoretical solution where a huge star becomes a black hole at the start of the lifecycle. From an elementary reasoning the Schwarzschild radius is proportional to mass so a low density cloud which is large enough can already be a black hole.
In a way the idea of a quark star in a black hole only comes up because we're talking about small black holes:)
when the internal pressure in a start exceeds the pressure inside a neutron, the neutrons collapse and you get a black hole
I thought that the reasoning should be ''when the internal pressure in a star exceeds the pressure inside a neutron then another interesting object will be created which may look like a single superneutron, but before that happens the star will turn into a black hole for different reasons.
/. moderation is still community moderation. It has its own flaws but it's very different from extra moderation from above. The moderation from above means other players can put their finger on the balance, in a manner which is not transparent and the lack of visibility can be tuned at will till it's full censorship. As long as there is a setting for it there will be a feedback mechanism where if too many people switch off the setting then it is relaxed. But the feedback mechanism can be obfuscated so that people rarely know what they're missing.
he main factor in all this is control, and I expect that to tighten.
Rather than taking care to express yourself clearly and risking being unsuccessful in convincing people to change their minds, it's easier to be deliberately confrontational and then claim any negative response is part of 'group think'.
I agree, but it does not describe the situation well. it is harder for unpopular opinions to avoid confrontation since you're sticking your neck out against the vocal majority and at the same time groupthink will pounce on any sign of confrontation, uh, alism. When a discussion goes offtopic then the unpopular opinion can easily be flagged as offtopic, The moderation system can't be expected to work well when people are swept up in a general mood of say, anticommunism or mccarthyism, or currently russiantrollism. That's not an argument against the moderation system, it's just about being aware of the limitations. Unpopular opinions have to work quite hard to avoid confrontation, while those going along with the dominant opinion can afford to be very sloppy.
Also a lot of the work is getting the whole system in place. You can always start with tolerant settings but that does not make the system less powerful. You can change them at any moment and for instance enforce selective blackouts.
This twitter feature will just silence those outside the bubble, and those inside the bubble will hear fewer "warnings" from outside and have an even deeper sense of false security in the future.
I think so too but I have to add two things - what the bubble is is more than 'silicon vallue liberals'.It will be a consensus bubble where multiple parties have a say . All the parties with significant clout. - It is not a passive bubble. When you learn that whatever you post can affect your visibility and the visibility of your 'friends' there is a conditioning effect, an enforcement of conformism. You'll watch what you say and the bubble will grow. A lot of people will drop out, but the bubble will still grow.
I generally accept that people are pretty much flawed, though I am less tolerant when bullying is involved and I react here because it feels too much like 'two minutes hate' and that is because of a successful campaign.
Wikileaks is important because it reintroduces a degree of checks and balances to power where it's mostly lost. The watchdog function of the mainstream is almost gone. That argument by itself may not provide enough drive for someone to actually go ahead with it so I accept that those who actually make it work are fairly radical. I don't know that much about Assange and I don't know what to look for in the twitter links you give. That he is not likable? Something worse than rape? He despises Clinton. I understand that, I think my opinions are similar in that respect. I don't see why that would disqualify him. His comment (i assume it's his) that if Clinton is elected the end result taking in account all the pressures would be worse than if the GOP got elected is legitimate(though it appears to be wrong). Making a lot out of it is misleading. Or it's just being misled by the propaganda war. It certainly does not mean he's pro GOP or pro Trump. Or working for the Russians. He's working for civil society and against the established power.
Wikileaks is a neutral broker in the sense that if you deliver the data, they will make it available. Maybe they could be tempted to play with the timing depending on the material, but likely much less than mainstream media. Mostly the politics will shine through in the publications of Wikileaks themselves, but since they excel at providing the actual sources with it that is not really a major flaw.
What I find ridiculous is that there could be serious discussions about wikileaks and instead people get upset about bias and attitude. The main issue with wikileaks is that instead of becoming a back end for the publishers: them providing leaked data to journalists - they became their own publisher, and they filter lets things through much more radically than mainstream. Wikileaks reflects Assanges politics in that power is self-serving and there is need for resistance. It does function as checks and balances but it hopes for more radical changes. That is because of the mistrust of the mainstream media and a strong sense to give power to the people. Again, there are very good reasons for that but that is a radical step. It's withdrawing trust in the system. Compare it to Snowden. He gave his material to Greenwald and gave the full responsibility for what to publish to Greenwald. From then on it was out of Snowden's hands and if Greenwald decided to sit on something then Snowden had no say in it.Greenwald himself kept working with the Guardian despite serious conflicts - often Guardian dragging its feet about publishing. That attitude means 'Ok the system is seriously flawed but I stay within the system'. It doesn't necessarily mean Greenwald's view on the state of the media is less pessimistic. The difficulty with radicals is not necessarily their analysis but their solutions.
Afterwards Greenwald started the Intercept which in many respects is mainstream: it publishes things which would have been published elsewhere without any problem, like the links you provide. So the Intercept is flawed and compromised as well but overall it provides good value. It often does not do the adversarial journalism Greenwald himself believes in, but it has enough of it. It can publish things like this condemnation of what is happening to Assange, which cannot be done in the mainstream: https://theintercept.com/2018/...
I believe in checks and balances and I'm no revolutionary but I think in the current state there should be room for both Assange and Greenwald. Your comment that Assange doesn't know what he's talking about is plain wrong.
Wait I'm wrong. I doubt the amount of energy pushed into the clutch will vary much for 0-4mph. Launch control keeps revs at say 4000rpm so you have longer slip, higher speed till the clutch is fully locked.The clutch will slip for instance till 25mph so you have to adapt the clutch design so it can handle it.
That interpretation of 'strong' is a bit odd but yes, I doubt any car with manual transmission can pull a boeing, but I don't know enough about clutches. Most sports cars would burn their clutch on doing repeated launch control(which puts a lot of power through in the 0-4mph phase) for instance. So for such an attempt you need the right transmission.
If we assume that the plane has zero static rolling resistance so it takes little effort to get it moving and tiny speeds, then i still think not many cars can pull it. My car has to drive at 4mph before I can let go of the clutch completely. Before that there is slip. So you at least need a special clutch which allows you to give full power at say 0.1mph.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly Binney is not always right. And I don't know that statement but certainly Russia is not invading Ukraine. Helping the rebels in the east is not the same as invading. Crimea could be called an invasion I guess, with a stretch. Annexation would be better.
I see that without any sense of irony whenever I go against the reigning russiantroll-climate I'm modded as troll.
Here's a good overview of the DNC hack https://www.thenation.com/arti...
I used to think that the health effects of smoking were half due to nicotine (mostly vascular effects)and half due to the other chemicals like tar(lungts), but apparently the health damage of nicotine is not proven, or at least is not of the same order of magnitude. That would mean if you switch to vaping and avoid putting ugly stuff in there (which should be fairly easy to fix if it happened) that you can mostly disregard the health effects. Then quitting vaping is mostly a matter of money. I don't even know what vaping costs. Not a smoker.
The idea by itself that Russia would hack the DNC wouldn't surprise me , but the whole story of Russian interference is bullshit.
The US is so thoroughly steeped in propaganda that the claim that Russia would 'be doing something too on our turf' and instantly put 'their president' in the White House is preposterous. It's like Russia adding a drop in the ocean.
If the Mueller investigation is going to shut down it will be because they will have to report that the Doritos in Chief has indeed sold himself and is getting his marching orders from somewhere, only not to the Russians. But nobody wants to go there.
Where Russia is concerned accepting a fact across the poliical spectrum isn't worth squat. And Bill Binney says Guccifer 2 is a fraud.
There may be some validity in this but not that much. It's also quite natural for the media to create boom-bust cycles of trust and distrust, fed by the occasional instance of people who delegate too much responsibility to the autopilot and crash .
I don't have any experience with Tesla but it does look like a challenge to allow the car to drive by itself, reducing yourself to the role of supervisor, and then not letting your attention wander off occasionally.
3m is a good size. The title of the topic was promising but the actual size of the things was a disappointment.
I think this is well put: if your input for the model is electromagnetism then there will necessarily be conservation of energy and momentum and their calculations had to be wrong.
How you can say 'possibly special relativity' I don't understand. The model was tested statically in a room. Are you thinking of applications in space?
Special relativity is included in electromagnetism. If you take Coulomb force and special relativity, put it in a box and shake, out comes electromagnetism. If you take a wire and put a current through it at 1cm/s then special relativity says there will be magnetism around it. The low speed is possible because electrostatic force is very strong. For anything else beside electromagnetism 'room speeds' will not require SR.
Yes but, well, if there is one thing that makes this planet worth saving it's chocolate, so this almost feels like blasphemy. Why not just throw Michael Phelps into a bath of milk and tell him he's not allowed to get out before we've got 10kg of butter.
And then there's cornstarch of course, the non newtonian fluid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Seriously.. an awful lot of people have the money to fill their swimming pool with chocolate pudding , it would cost them the price of a car. But they wouldn't do that because nobody can swim in pudding, it's too thick.
So far my sharp insightful rebukes.
But it's true Bill Gates does things which can be called 'good'.
People generally get confused about success. Is being good at playing celebrity a skill which can be called 'being smart'? Sometimes people are good at some specific things while being incredibly stupid at others. Successful business people can be incredibly stupid in a general sense, which again causes others to underestimate them in business. Trump is very stupid in a general sense but I imagine Trump thinks in terms of making deals. It's very cynical, but the CIA is also very cynical so maybe they'll strike a deal at some point and they'll help keeping him in place . Something with more drone wars.
I regularly notice that black holes are used as some kind of 'structural' mechanism in stars while it's in principle independent of strong forces or the life cycle of a star. Maybe there is a theoretical solution where a huge star becomes a black hole at the start of the lifecycle. From an elementary reasoning the Schwarzschild radius is proportional to mass so a low density cloud which is large enough can already be a black hole.
In a way the idea of a quark star in a black hole only comes up because we're talking about small black holes :)
When I first listened to it I couldn't make sense of the sounds. It actually felt like multiple sounds at once. Then I heard Yanni and later Laurel.
I thought that the reasoning should be ''when the internal pressure in a star exceeds the pressure inside a neutron then another interesting object will be created which may look like a single superneutron, but before that happens the star will turn into a black hole for different reasons.
First Post!
/. moderation is still community moderation. It has its own flaws but it's very different from extra moderation from above. The moderation from above means other players can put their finger on the balance, in a manner which is not transparent and the lack of visibility can be tuned at will till it's full censorship.
As long as there is a setting for it there will be a feedback mechanism where if too many people switch off the setting then it is relaxed. But the feedback mechanism can be obfuscated so that people rarely know what they're missing.
he main factor in all this is control, and I expect that to tighten.
I agree, but it does not describe the situation well. it is harder for unpopular opinions to avoid confrontation since you're sticking your neck out against the vocal majority and at the same time groupthink will pounce on any sign of confrontation, uh, alism. When a discussion goes offtopic then the unpopular opinion can easily be flagged as offtopic, The moderation system can't be expected to work well when people are swept up in a general mood of say, anticommunism or mccarthyism, or currently russiantrollism. That's not an argument against the moderation system, it's just about being aware of the limitations. Unpopular opinions have to work quite hard to avoid confrontation, while those going along with the dominant opinion can afford to be very sloppy.
I doubt shadow banning has ever been used on a large/automated scale but I could be wrong.
Also a lot of the work is getting the whole system in place. You can always start with tolerant settings but that does not make the system less powerful. You can change them at any moment and for instance enforce selective blackouts.
I think so too but I have to add two things
- what the bubble is is more than 'silicon vallue liberals'.It will be a consensus bubble where multiple parties have a say . All the parties with significant clout.
- It is not a passive bubble. When you learn that whatever you post can affect your visibility and the visibility of your 'friends' there is a conditioning effect, an enforcement of conformism. You'll watch what you say and the bubble will grow. A lot of people will drop out, but the bubble will still grow.
I generally accept that people are pretty much flawed, though I am less tolerant when bullying is involved and I react here because it feels too much like 'two minutes hate' and that is because of a successful campaign.
Wikileaks is important because it reintroduces a degree of checks and balances to power where it's mostly lost. The watchdog function of the mainstream is almost gone. That argument by itself may not provide enough drive for someone to actually go ahead with it so I accept that those who actually make it work are fairly radical. I don't know that much about Assange and I don't know what to look for in the twitter links you give. That he is not likable? Something worse than rape? He despises Clinton. I understand that, I think my opinions are similar in that respect. I don't see why that would disqualify him. His comment (i assume it's his) that if Clinton is elected the end result taking in account all the pressures would be worse than if the GOP got elected is legitimate(though it appears to be wrong). Making a lot out of it is misleading. Or it's just being misled by the propaganda war. It certainly does not mean he's pro GOP or pro Trump. Or working for the Russians. He's working for civil society and against the established power.
Wikileaks is a neutral broker in the sense that if you deliver the data, they will make it available. Maybe they could be tempted to play with the timing depending on the material, but likely much less than mainstream media. Mostly the politics will shine through in the publications of Wikileaks themselves, but since they excel at providing the actual sources with it that is not really a major flaw.
What I find ridiculous is that there could be serious discussions about wikileaks and instead people get upset about bias and attitude.
The main issue with wikileaks is that instead of becoming a back end for the publishers: them providing leaked data to journalists - they became their own publisher, and they filter lets things through much more radically than mainstream. Wikileaks reflects Assanges politics in that power is self-serving and there is need for resistance. It does function as checks and balances but it hopes for more radical changes.
That is because of the mistrust of the mainstream media and a strong sense to give power to the people. Again, there are very good reasons for that but that is a radical step. It's withdrawing trust in the system. Compare it to Snowden. He gave his material to Greenwald and gave the full responsibility for what to publish to Greenwald. From then on it was out of Snowden's hands and if Greenwald decided to sit on something then Snowden had no say in it.Greenwald himself kept working with the Guardian despite serious conflicts - often Guardian dragging its feet about publishing. That attitude means 'Ok the system is seriously flawed but I stay within the system'. It doesn't necessarily mean Greenwald's view on the state of the media is less pessimistic. The difficulty with radicals is not necessarily their analysis but their solutions.
Afterwards Greenwald started the Intercept which in many respects is mainstream: it publishes things which would have been published elsewhere without any problem, like the links you provide. So the Intercept is flawed and compromised as well but overall it provides good value. It often does not do the adversarial journalism Greenwald himself believes in, but it has enough of it. It can publish things like this condemnation of what is happening to Assange, which cannot be done in the mainstream: https://theintercept.com/2018/...
I believe in checks and balances and I'm no revolutionary but I think in the current state there should be room for both Assange and Greenwald. Your comment that Assange doesn't know what he's talking about is plain wrong.
Wait I'm wrong. I doubt the amount of energy pushed into the clutch will vary much for 0-4mph. Launch control keeps revs at say 4000rpm so you have longer slip, higher speed till the clutch is fully locked.The clutch will slip for instance till 25mph so you have to adapt the clutch design so it can handle it.
That interpretation of 'strong' is a bit odd but yes, I doubt any car with manual transmission can pull a boeing, but I don't know enough about clutches. Most sports cars would burn their clutch on doing repeated launch control(which puts a lot of power through in the 0-4mph phase) for instance. So for such an attempt you need the right transmission.
If we assume that the plane has zero static rolling resistance so it takes little effort to get it moving and tiny speeds, then i still think not many cars can pull it. My car has to drive at 4mph before I can let go of the clutch completely. Before that there is slip. So you at least need a special clutch which allows you to give full power at say 0.1mph.
I'm getting old.
In general. But I'm telling what I see when Assange turns up in a news item.
Yeah it does make you feel more ok with it if Ecuador now finally hands over Assange doesn't it.